How exciting! I’m surprised you could see the TV over your giant boner.

Classicy tigerprez! Jon Stewart has indeed become the voice of reason on television today!

Well, I actually have an HDTV built into my giant boner. And a satellite dish.

As someone who was coming up the escalator of the Path Train station below the WTC that morning, the same time I always did at 8:47am, I couldn’t agree more with Jon. During the 93 bombing I’d just left the 22nd floor of the Trade Center. When I got home about 20 minutes later, I saw that I’d just missed that one. While many of the people in Stewart’s audience are young, theiy’re also clearly not scared ass Republicans because they cheered what Stewart was saying.

Newt is said to be the smartest person in the government today. his IQ level is higher then any Democrat or Republican. Even the Clinton’s have come out and said he is a genius.

That’s right,don’t believe your lyin eyes and ears. Ignore the bullshit that Newt was trying to peddle. Oh yeah, he sounded like a real genius last night.

Another giant Republican turd stepping in his own mess.

First, a tip of the hat to tigerprez for his comment! I haven’t heard that expression in some time.

Now, a wag of the finger to Roxsy and her fellow leftists. 68% of the American people oppose having the trial in NYC (latest Quinnipiac poll) not because they are “scared ass Republicans”, but because they think it is stupid. Their reasoning is simply: why go thru all the expense and hassle of having the terrorists moved, held, tried and convicted in New York City, when you can do the same thing in Guantanamo at far less cost and disruption?

So why is the left insistent on this foolhardy enterprise? To prove they have a pair? Maybe, but more likely it is because President Obama and his aides have made the ridiculous assertion that “[Guantanamo ] is a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security, so closing it is important for our national security”.

However, strange as it may seem, Guantanamo Bay is not even mentioned in the fatwa issued by Al Qaeda in 1998. Nope, not once. The reasons listed are:

1) ” First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula….”

2) “Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…[the Americans] come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors….”

3)” Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there….”

So,in a nutshell, if America wants peace with Al Qaeda, it will have to pull out of the Arabian Peninsula, get of Iraq, and most important of all, stop supporting Israel. (There may be a couple of other minor items, like establishing sharia law, apologizing for the Crusades, and stop showing Lawrence of Arabia on cable)

But closing Guantanamo or having the terrorists tried in NYC? Uhhhmm, no.

(with apologies to Steven Colbert)

@Azarkhan: Thank you for posting a reasoned response that eschews insults, personal attacks and hate-speech.

Azarkhan really did post a reasoned response… Thank you again. And in a Tommy Christopher column too. Awesome!

There is at least much “fear mongering” from leftwingers like Tommy Christopher who claim that military trials will somehow violate the Constitution or inflame the Islamic world as there is from Gingrich and his crowd.

Never in the history of this country – never – have enemy alien combatants captured during a war been given civilian trials. FDR didn’t do it. Truman didn’t do it. Not even the author of the Constitution James Madison do it. During the war of 1812, President Madison’s forces captured hundreds of British soldier on US soil. None were given civilian trials. Not a one. I guess Madison was the first neocon.

The scare tactics by Mr. Christopher that this will inflame Islamic passions or alienate our allies or violate the Constitution needs to stop.

When Republicans say that Obama’s and the Democrat’s national security policies will make us less safe, that’s scare mongering.

Okay, granted, there is some truth in that. Yes there is.

But when Democrats say that Bush and the Republican made us and will make us less safe by angering the Islamic world and alienating our allies, that’s not scare mongering.

Such is the double standard.

Tommy Christopher’s favorite news anchor (ahem) Keith Olbermann repeatedly stated that Bush was a fascist and the Republicans were terrorists and all of our liberties were endangered by them.

But Mr. Christopher didn’t think that was fear mongering or harsh language. No, he loved it.

Wow.

Azarkhan,

how did you arrive at that reasoning? Because Republicans have been citing fear as the reason. For example:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-19-2009/things-not-to-be-thankful-for—silverdome–goldman-sachs—congressional-recess

If you have citations for your “expense and hassle” rationale, I’m happy to look at them, but I guarantee there are a greater number of peepants Republican cites.

SteveMG,

#1. “Never in the history of this country…” You’re forgetting George W Bush, who tried hundreds of terrorism suspects in civilian courts.

#2. cute, but fact-free. I’ve praised Olbermann in the past, and I’ve called him out (a lot) for “harsh language.”

As for the second part of your argument, I somewhat agree. Whether left or right, I reject the notion that the reaction to our policies trumps the merits of our policies. With diplomacy, however, the two are intertwined to some degree.

To boil it all down in simple terms, Their leader decided (with Holder) it was a good idea, ergo, all progressives will back The Leader. If he had decided on military tribunals, they would be rabidly defending that decision.

It’s not the actual policy or action, it’s the LEADER. Obama could say tomorrow that we should try them on the space shuttle and the belivers would run with it, especially the press. With progressives it’s all emotional, not a drop of common sense.

You’re forgetting George W Bush, who tried hundreds of terrorism suspects in civilian courts.

All of them were captured here not abroad. And they were either US citizens or here legally. Bush followed the Constitution although he shamefully held Padilla before giving him a trial. For that he can be rightly condemned.

But as I said, enemy alien combatants. Aliens. Enemy. Combatants. Overseas. Not US citizens captured here or legal US residents captured here.

And it was dozens not hundreds.

This, of course, the same Bush that your favorite news anchor said was a “fascist” and “terrorist” who had shredded the Constitution.

I can see why you thought Stewart peeled Gingrich’s skin. You have your history and your facts wrong.

I’ve praised Olbermann in the past, and I’ve called him out (a lot) for “harsh language.”

He still says the “Republicans are the leading terror group in the country.” That’s Glenn Beck language.

If we’re going to cleanup the harsh rhetoric, we need to clean up both aisles.

I’ll condemn Limbaugh on any day. He’s positively revolting with his “liberals are evil” stuff. So is Olbermann with his “conservatives are racists, terrorists, facists” nonsense.

Be honest, Tommy, you love it when Olbermann atttacks Republicans. Your a man of the left who believes that “it’s about time we gave it back to those conservatives!!” and Olbermann satisfies this desire.

Steve,

instead of trying to divine my opinions from your own preconceptions, why don’t you just read what I’ve actually written about Olbermann? It’s right on this website.

“Conservatives have been exploiting 9/11 for years, while simultaneously demonizing New Yorkers (and their widows and families), so this sudden concern over their well-being is comical.”

No kidding – Bush and the Republicans used the corpses of the 9/11 victims as political props before they were even cold. Offensive yet despicable, they are still doing so.

@Bill Adkins, yours might be the singular most repulsive post I’ve read in a long time. Your comment also displays a nasty self-aggrandizement that seems to put you in a moral superior position, but in effect, displays a pitiful and frightening self-loathing.

@JimW – My comment is accurate. That it offends you is of no concern to me. That you can’t handle the truth is your personal problem.

Bill Adkins, honey, it’s you I’m worried about. I can’t imagine what other filth swirls around in your fetid brain. I would actually examine the effluent from the nasty pustule that erupted in your head to see if there is a danger of you infecting any children around you.

JimW, how would you know? Your head is so firmly implanted in your ass you can’t see daylight for the nightsoil. Perhaps you should keep your hands in your pockets and play with yourself – then there would be less danger to children around you.

SteveMG says:
“Never in the history of this country – never – have enemy alien combatants captured during a war been given civilian trials.”

Absolutely right. This has been never done when the country was at war. But since congress has never declared war as proscribed by the constitution, we are legally not at war.

JamesA1102 says:

Absolutely right. This has been never done when the country was at war. But since congress has never declared war as proscribed by the constitution, we are legally not at war.
——————————————

Wrong. War Powers Resolution of 1973 authorizes the president to commit troops to war with just an authorization of the mission. The conflicts just have to re-approved, to make them legal under our law. For all intents and purposes we are at war. I would like to see this brought before the SCOTUS and have it struck down, but I there is little interest in it. It’s a nice way for which ever party controls Congress to blame an unpopular war (Vietnam,Iraq,Korea) on the President without taking any responsibility for them authorizing it for it. That is the way I understand the bill anyway.

Left , right….left, right…..left, right….

Could we just stop for a second and think….

How did TC’s giant boner get into this thread, and for the love of GOD, can’t we get it to leave….huh????
BARTENDER!!!

The Obama Administration should have done a better job laying the groundwork with local officials and the public before announcing the policy, although it is irrefutable that making it clear we actually honor our principles and The Constitution to 1.5 billion Muslims who mostly believe we’re conducting a holy war or are acting as Israel’s proxy is a worthy and necessary goal.

It is not lost on Muslims or the rest of the world that the vast majority of former Guantanamo prisoners were innocent civilians captured by bounty hunters or rival tribesman, that approximately 100 of them died in our custody worldwide, that we as a society violated the Constitution by unilaterally abrogating signed treaties, including the Geneva Conventions we helped write after Nuremberg by blatantly adopting torture and rendition as our MO, etc, etc, etc.

Even a badly botched effort to do the morally right thing shouldn’t be so casually dismissed in such a largely jingoistic “we’re always right no matter what we do” fashion, particularly if we’re actually interested in defeating or limiting terrorism and winning the war of ideas.

Every effort to restore our former position in the world as a guiding light for human rights and justice should be lauded and assisted, not comically misrepresented as weakness by loudmouth bullies that have smeared our history and founding principles.

Jim R:

Thank you for a very good post. It does seem that, throughout the world, even amongst our strongest allies, detaining or sending someone to Guantanamo is an admission on our part that we have no credible evidence to support the detention, that the detainee is simply there because we cannot build a Court case nor a PR case against him. Unlike so many of our posters, I do trust our Courts and I do not live in knee-knocking, urine-puddling fear of men in turbans. Even were that not the case, Guantanamo is destructive for us in countless ways. To be sure, the lion’s share of the blame goes to W, Dick, Donnie and Connie, but President Obama has done nothing to correct the matter. He shares in the blame.

It’s a good thing to get Newt out of the friendly, supportive confines of FOX, where he is never seriously questioned. It soon becomes clear that: (a) he is neither all that clever and informed or (b) he chronically makes up facts to fit whatever point he wishes to make.

Stewart is pretty smart and I think he gets it. Pointing out Republican foibles doesn’t mean all Democrats are smart. Pointing out Democrats’ foibles doesn’t make Republicans smart. People are sick of all of them. Congress has a 71% unfavorable rating right now. That’s why lately, Stewart has been spreading the wealth on who he makes fun of.

AikidoJoe says:
“War Powers Resolution of 1973 authorizes the president to commit troops to war with just an authorization of the mission.”

You’re right but as you state it is just a commitment of troops not a formal declaration of war with all the legal ramifications that that would entail. Thus any comparison to WWII or the War of 1812 is invalid.

I believe in the WPR it states that during any use of force the action was to be to be legally treated the same as if war was declared. Again, I could be mistaken. That is why I think a compelling legal argument could be made that it’s unconstitutional. I don’t think Congress can pass a law ceding their constitutional duties to another branch. Which is why the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.

But even if it were to be treated the same legally as if war was declared wouldn’t that only cover combatants from Iraq and Afganistan. The Christmas bomber was is from Nigeria and was acting on behalf of an organization based in Yemen. Two countries that are not covered in the War Powers authorization.

Thanks, The Real Royal King, I always appreciate reading your comments here.

Given the importance of maintaining our values in combating extremism, I would add I’m mystified why the media has ignored the interrogators from WWII, who I’ve read stated that they got great intelligence when befriending German prisoners, taking them to dinner and movies around D.C., telling them we’d look after their families if they’d cooperate.

It has been largely unreported in the public debate regarding how to treat enemy combatants, that the Geneva Conventions has provisions for dealing with un-uniformed combatants and it is not allowable for any signer to unilaterally decide on their own.

The text for current Authorization of Use of Military Force reads:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes [sic] any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
————————————–

They didn’t specify any particular country. Which is why actions taken by Bush and now by Obama are complete and total bull. I’d love to see the WPR go before the SCOTUS.

There was a separate resolution that authorized the Iraq war.

But the Underwear bomber had nothing to do with 9/11. And even if he is legally covered by that shouldn’t he be considered a POW under the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

“…in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

We developed the legal theory of the enemy combatants so we could treat them differently than if we were in a declared war, in which case the Geneva Conventions would apply.

I’s genius, really.

AikidoJoe says:
“We developed the legal theory of the enemy combatants so we could treat them differently than if we were in a declared war, in which case the Geneva Conventions would apply.”

The operative term there being “legal theory”. You can’t have it both ways. Either we are at war and he should be treated as a POW under the Geneva Conventions or we aren’t at war and he should be treated as a criminal.

I’m not advocating it. I stated previously that I’d like to see the WPR taken before SCOTUS and struck down. SCOTUS ruled that the “persons” outlined in that specific authorization can be held as enemy combatants, solidifying it as law. If the WPR was struck down, as I’ve stated I’d like it to be, then anything built on it would would be repealed as well.

Jon Stewart’s parrotted talking points crash and burn here.