T1B

OCmike wrote:JMak, I am agreeing with the concept of an open trial because we don't arrest people in this country, not charge them or try them, and jail them forever. That's arcane Sharia bullshit.

Having fair trials protects the same from happening to you. Don't think it could happen? How quickly did Bush shift gears on the wiretapping bill to include domestic spying?

Diogenes wrote:

OCmike wrote:JMak, I am agreeing with the concept of an open trial because we don't arrest people in this country, not charge them or try them, and jail them forever. That's arcane Sharia bullshit.

Having fair trials protects the same from happening to you. Don't think it could happen? How quickly did Bush shift gears on the wiretapping bill to include domestic spying?

A) That's what the military tribunal is for. Just because they don't use the same rules of evidence against known enemy combatants as they do against accused citizens with Constitutional rights, doesn't mean they are unfair.


B) How many U.S. citizens have been arrested and charged due to this mythical 'domestic spying'?

OCmike wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

OCmike wrote:JMak, I am agreeing with the concept of an open trial because we don't arrest people in this country, not charge them or try them, and jail them forever. That's arcane Sharia bullshit.

Having fair trials protects the same from happening to you. Don't think it could happen? How quickly did Bush shift gears on the wiretapping bill to include domestic spying?

A) That's what the military tribunal is for. Just because they don't use the same rules of evidence against known enemy combatants as they do against accused citizens with Constitutional rights, doesn't mean they are unfair.


B) How many U.S. citizens have been arrested and charged due to this mythical 'domestic spying'?

A. I've already said that I'm fine with a MT. I just think closed doors isbullshit, as is the "national security" justification for doing so.

B. That's like "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.". If you want to live in a police state, there're plenty to choose from. If none has been arrested after several years then it's worthless and should be scrapped.

Diogenes wrote:The modern Court TV attitude of the judicial process as prurient entertainment is loathsome.

Dinsdale wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

OCmike wrote:Good God and G0d, Jmak...WTF was that? It's like someone took meth, Bsmack's arguing style and mvscal's politics, jammed them in Pain's cooch and another retarded kid shlorped out. Now all you need is a fucked up name. How bout "Tweek"?

Listen, Tweek, I don't do the Strawman thing. I just say what I think.

No, I won't explain things that are obvious and/or common knowledge. You're clearly one of those tools that just enjoys semantics battles and circular arguing. So bring something to the table or go fuck yourself.

Oh, and I was commenting on the level of public surveillance in England. Of course, you would have noticed that if you'd turn off the "auto-tool" feature on your frontal lobe.

...we don't arrest people in this country, not charge them or try them, and jail them forever.

poptart wrote:Mike, if it is necessary for us to take KSM (and other shitbags) to civilian court to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are complict of mass murder, by what right do we go into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq ... wherever, and KILL shitbags, none of whom have been given a fair trial?

What do you say?

OCmike wrote:I'm a registered Republican, Libertarian on rights, fiscally conservative and vote my conscience on social issues.

Regarding the expansion of powers, you're right...I stepped in it. To clarify, Bush requested to expand the Patriot act to include IIRC warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of incoming and out-going international calls. What's common knowledge is tha hey were just seeking a legal justification for what they were already doing. Both parties do that crap, so spare me the "link?" response.

My view is that these murdering assholes deserve a fair trial, whether in MT or civil court, as long as it's not closed-door rubber-stampbullshit.

I don't think civil court is the best place (obviously), because there will have to be 4427 rulings on what is admissible, regarding arrest methods of foreign cops, treatment at Gitmo, etc.

The assertion that barry wants to let them go is just retarded though. If that were to happen he knows it'd be the death of his party. Being a Dem from Chicago, loyalty to the party is #1 for him.

"In this country" referred to "people who live in this country", since this is a nation of laws. My view.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:If there's evidence against Ron Jeremy--and not the torture induced "confessions"--well, why not bring it out in court? Why are the tea-bagging war-freak weasels like yourself so terrified about America actually living up to its laws and principles?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You win your dick in your hand as usual.

What are you saying America's never done? Present evidence against a foreign criminal? Huh?

And again, why are you suggesting that the attacks of 9/11 (regardless of who did them) constitute an act of war? On whose behalf? Because Timothy McViegh was a citizen this somehow makes everything different? That's ludicrous, and even a niggling little weasel like you knows it.

This is a criminal matter from the start. From the planning to the stand down to the cover up to the illegal wars mounted in its wake, the PNAC crime of the century needs to be redressed, but not in secret.

OCmike wrote:Incarceration without charges: That's not how we roll.

At the End of the Day, Diversity Has Jumped the Shark
by Ann Coulter
11/18/2009


It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: "Our diversity ... is a strength."

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the beautiful mosaics -- in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.


"Diversity" is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: "Cancer is a strength!" "Pollution is our greatest asset!"

By contrast, the canard "diversity is a strength" has now replaced "at the end of the day," "skin in the game," "blood and treasure," "jumped the shark," "boots on the ground," "horrific" (whatever happened to the perfectly good word "horrible"?), "not so much," "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here," and "that went well," as America's most irritating cliche.

We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of "diversity is a strength" and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.

Next time you're at a cocktail party, just start saying, "Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony" from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we'll do another one: "Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine."

Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, "Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine," while everyone nods in agreement.

Except mere nonsense makes more sense than "diversity is a strength."

If Gen. Casey's wildly inappropriate use of this lunatic cliche in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre doesn't kill it, nothing will.

Among the worst aspects of America's "diversity" is that liberals' reaction to a heterogeneous population is to create a pecking order based on alleged victimhood -- as described in electrifying detail in my book, Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America.

In modern America, the guilty are sanctified, while the innocent never stop paying -- including with their lives, as they did at Fort Hood last week. Points are awarded to aspiring victims for angry self-righteousness, acts of violence and general unpleasantness.

But liberals celebrate diversity only in the case of superficial characteristics like race, gender, sexual preference and country of origin. They reject diversity when we need it, such as in "diversity" of legal forums.

After conferring with everyone at Zabar's, Obama decided that if a standard civilian trial is good enough for Martha Stewart, then it's good enough for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is coming to New York!

Mohammed's military tribunal was already under way when Obama came into office, stopped the proceedings and, eight months later, announced that Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York.

In a liberal's reckoning, diversity is good when we have both Muslim jihadists and patriotic Americans serving in the U.S. military. But diversity is bad when Martha Stewart and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are subjected to different legal tribunals to adjudicate their transgressions.

Terrorists tried in civilian courts will be entitled to the whole panoply of legal protections accorded Stewart or any American charged with a crime, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the right to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights, the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront one's accusers, the right to a change of venue, the right to examine the evidence against you, and the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence in one's defense.

Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don't, they are as complicit in Mohammed's civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes "nay" on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens -- and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to.

In the case of legal proceedings, diversity actually is a strength.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:If there's some good reason An Coulter and her simplistic man-hands gibberish is still being bandied about Ive not....Oh, it's ZioDog the lamest auto-Rove Monkey in the deck. Never mind.

Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal.

mvscal wrote: The legal framework for that has been in place for the last 30 years or so under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. You might want to acquaint yourself with the facts before you begin quivering with outrage.

OCmike wrote:Incarceration without charges: That's not how we roll.
Enemy Combatants. Intended for use on those fighting for a country, yet not in the armed forces. Charging KSM and anyone else as such is illegal. The only reason KSMnd pals were designated as such was to provide a legal basis for holding them indefinitely. White House lawyers were involved in defining "enemy combatant". Nuff said.
Fair trials: By that I mean "charged and given the opportunity to defend one's self". If we give it to child molesters, we can give it to these tools also. No one's saying an NYC trial is a good idea, so stop hyperventilating like a freshman doing his first slow dance.

poptart wrote:If it is necessary for us to take KSM (and other shitbags) to civilian court to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are complict of mass murder, by what right do we go into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq ... wherever, and KILL shitbags, none of whom have been given a fair trial?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Tell us, weasel, why do you suppose those Israeli agents were dancing gleefully in NJ as they watched the WTC attacks?

OCmike wrote:

mvscal wrote: The legal framework for that has been in place for the last 30 years or so under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. You might want to acquaint yourself with the facts before you begin quivering with outrage.

Domestic wiretapping is in the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"??? Interesting.

While I'm waiting for your world class spin job on that, if you need me, I'll be over here quivering with outrage --------->

It is not, of course, news that the Bush administration adopted (and still embraces) legal theories which vest the President with literally unlimited power, including the power to break our laws.