r4 sdhc

Sadly those same Viewers and Audience get to Vote ….. Obama and Pelosi supporters all guaranteed .

Not in front of the secret kangaroo courts Bush set up for Guantanamo they can’t. Any court that allows evidence obtained under torture is conducting a lynching. If they want to do that sort of thing they should wear white robes and burn a cross to start the proceedings.

I don’t know, did he? I doubt it. They’ve told so many lies about this case that nothing they say can be taken at face value. I don’t see how any evidence obtained from him isn’t tainted by torture. You could get him to admit to the Lincoln assassination if you tortured a person long enough.

http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/362317367/terrorism-is-a-law-enforcement-issue-you-dont-really

“we consider terrorists criminals. We treat them like criminals. If they were soldiers in an opposing army—as they would be in a war—we wouldn’t blame them for what they did. We would certainly detain them—but once the war was over, we would let them go. If the War on Terror is an actual war, the terrorists are simply enemy soldiers who we should treat in the same manner was we would want our captured soldiers treated. No interrogation. No charges. No trials of any kind. And release at the end of the war. Trying to blow up an airplane isn’t a legitimate act of war. It’s not even a war crime. It’s just a crime.

Of course, the people who insist it’s a war will insist that it is a “different kind of war.” You know what you call something that is different than war? NOT WAR. That doesn’t mean you need to take it lightly. But it does mean that if you insist on calling it war and getting angry at anybody who doesn’t call it war, you’re posturing.

Or, alternatively, you’re looking for an excuse to disregard the protections we traditionally give both to criminals and to military opponents. You might want to say that the rules that made this country great shouldn’t apply. Or that they should only apply when we feel like they should apply (which is the same thing as not applying.) As much as I disagree with this position, it’s not entirely indefensible. But if that’s your position, you should at least be honest about it.”

Okay… terrific.

But why do you agree with Roxy? Why are civilian trials for pre-convicted terrorists (remember, the Obama Admin already said they’d be found guilty) a good thing?

Jelperman says:
February 2, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Yeah… didn’t he admit it PRIOR to waterboarding? Didn’t they know who he was, and what he did PRIOR to capture? Didn’t the Obama Admin talk about his role, and say he’d be found guilty?

This is the real problem with the far left… they hated Bush so much, anything he did or said was more than just wrong, it was evil. That means, that if he said it was so, they’d disagree… so when something like KSM comes up, despite evidence, and general consensus across the board, they’re hate for Bush re-manifests. They’re willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone like KSM, simply because of their hatred of all things Bush, and right of Obama.

But, really… does it matter? How does this change anything? Pre-determined guilt or not, do you think they wouldn’t be able to determine that in a tribunal?

The purpose of the trials is not to provide justice to the prisoners but rather to suck the oxygen out of the public outrage over the Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration. By staging the trials in NY and by controlling the pace of the trials Holder can control the front page of the papers and the tv and radio headlines for months and months. It was a brilliant strategy even if New Yorkers hated it. It’s the one plot that could save a lot of Democrats. To those who feel the guilty will be found guilty , think back to the spectacle of the OJ trial.

Our troops are subject to huge risks in their efforts to take live captives. It’s a lot easier to stand back and call in an air strike and then count the pieces. If these prisoners are going to be given Miranda warnings and attorneys there is no more reason to take prisoners.

Holder’s FBI has shown its colors in the mishandling of the December bomber. It was their intent that the plane crash in the US so that we would know who caused the loss of life and the potential collapse of the airlines.

Probably not without looking at the L’Oreal box.

During Bush’s administration, there were 20 Tribunals with 2 convictions. In that same period 196 terrorists were tried in Federal Court and convicted. End of story!

Does anyone know what Roxy is trying to say here?

Ed Shultz had Anthony Weiner on his show last night and he said that one of the terrorists is Bin Laden’s driver. I guess he’s not big enough for the media to even mention it.

Pretty much… yeah. Driver vs 9/11’s architect. Hmmm… nope, not close.

As for the reasons you said why a federal trial “wouldn’t be that bad,” you don’t give a reason why it’s a GOOD thing. Just because it’s not a “bad thing” (according to you), isn’t enough of a reason for why it should take place, over military tribunals. Facts are, it will cost more money, take more time, and set a bad precedent… so why (especially since the Obama Admin. has decided that SOME will get tribunals, and some will get trials) would a federal trial be a good thing?

blueblogger says:
February 2, 2010 at 6:01 pm

I doubt you will (out of spite), but my “un-open mind” wonders “why?” Please help me out, and since you agree with Roxy, respond to the over-arching question… “Why is this a good thing?”

Rox you are right on the money in this post but I am afraid you are fighting a losing battle here on Mediate. Not many that post here have an open mind. Most are Fox people and it seems they never look elsewhere for any other information unless it is a right leaning blog.

That doesn’t sound like what she actually said…?

“Hasselback: The point is…this trial is being done to expose things about the Bush administration. Put Bush on trial then! Don’t put KSM on trial in America.”

Sounds like she said don’t put him on trial in the US. If people want to put KSM on trial in America, only as a means to put Bush on trial, then they should go after Bush seperately, but not try KSM in America. That doesn’t actually sound like the headline.

Military Tribunal at Guantanamo Bay. What a novel concept. Why didn’t somebody think of that sooner? :-P