Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Just another Hopey Changey farce. Their farce will be used by all brutal Terrorists around the World for propaganda purposes. This will be a wonderful World Stage for brutal Terrorists. This will also be a wonderful World Stage for the Leftist loons to make it all about "Torture" and how "Evil" George Bush was. This is a huge blunder that will only benefit the World's worst Muslim Terrorists and Leftist Loons. This should have been done by the Military.
He pleaded Guilty already! The only thing to do is to move onto the sentencing phase.
Mistranslation, you mean.
Anyway, what I said requires no translation from you.
Waterboarding, by the way, still isn't "torture." But the acquisition of such coerced statements need not be acquired by "torture" to be deemed inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial.
What SHOULD have happened, of course, was that the fuckbubble should have been compelled to give up every fucking scrap of intel WE needed to minimize the threat he and his cohorts represented. Having done so, obviously none of that intel could be used against him in any criminal trial. There should never have been any criminal trial.
He was captured. He was an unlwaful enemy combatant. He should have been detained and HELD in a way similar to how we may legitimately hold captured legal enemy combatants. True, THEY would be POWs and given HIS illegal status HE would NOT be a "POW." Irrelevant to the point. If we could legitimately hold LAWFUL enemy combatnats captured during battle as POWs, there's NO rational reason why we couldn't do the same for the unlwaful variety.
If POWs could be held until the war is over, so too could the illegal enemy combatants.
If the "war" is endless, ok. Their detention is forever. Who cares? They brought it on themselves.
When we capture saboteurs in time of war, they are subject to summary execution. Ditto that for enemy spies. There is no valid reason why these mutant illegal savage motherfucking illegal enemy combatants fucks ("terrorists") could not also be subjected to summary execution. But, since we are not the savages and since killing them summarily might deprive us of the ability to extract from them the intel we need, we instead give them three hots and a cot and medical attention and similar civilized courtesies in their lovely new Gitmo abodes. That works.
The fact remains: there is no issue of criminal law guilt or innocence to even be decided. Fuck that. Hold them until all hostilities are terminated. Simple enough. And right.
If George Washington could defeat the most powerful military of the day without torture - I think it is an issult to our armed forces to suggest THEY can't get the job done against these semi-organized criminals without it.
2) They are criminals - they should be tried like criminals. Their actions have not earned the honor of military justice.
In his day, the Redcoats considered Washington and our side to be the "terrorists." We were too pussay to stand in a straight line and fight like they wished us to.
In any event, the Redcoats were not themselves busy targetting civilians as the enemy of our present day does.
So, as always is the case with you and your ilk, your analogies are not analogous.
Our present day enemies ought NOT be treated with the same dignity WE believe should be accorded to criminal suspects.
The terrorist filth deserve no better treatment than is lawfully accorded to spies and sabateours. They deserve much worse, in reality. But since WE are not the uncivilized ones, we deign to grant them the right to live AS prisoners. Very magnanimous of us.
Seriously, not only are you a fucking pussy who couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, you're a fucking dumbass also!Translation:After you tortured the bastards, you should have shot them--not have a media party demonstrating how "tough" you are!!
But many people think waterboarding is not torture. So evidence collected under duress can be admitted--yeah right.
Mistranslation, you mean.
Anyway, what I said requires no translation from you.
Waterboarding, by the way, still isn't "torture." But the acquisition of such coerced statements need not be acquired by "torture" to be deemed inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial.
What SHOULD have happened, of course, was that the fuckbubble should have been compelled to give up every fucking scrap of intel WE needed to minimize the threat he and his cohorts represented. Having done so, obviously none of that intel could be used against him in any criminal trial. There should never have been any criminal trial.
He was captured. He was an unlwaful enemy combatant. He should have been detained and HELD in a way similar to how we may legitimately hold captured legal enemy combatants. True, THEY would be POWs and given HIS illegal status HE would NOT be a "POW." Irrelevant to the point. If we could legitimately hold LAWFUL enemy combatnats captured during battle as POWs, there's NO rational reason why we couldn't do the same for the unlwaful variety.
If POWs could be held until the war is over, so too could the illegal enemy combatants.
If the "war" is endless, ok. Their detention is forever. Who cares? They brought it on themselves.
When we capture saboteurs in time of war, they are subject to summary execution. Ditto that for enemy spies. There is no valid reason why these mutant illegal savage motherfucking illegal enemy combatants fucks ("terrorists") could not also be subjected to summary execution. But, since we are not the savages and since killing them summarily might deprive us of the ability to extract from them the intel we need, we instead give them three hots and a cot and medical attention and similar civilized courtesies in their lovely new Gitmo abodes. That works.
The fact remains: there is no issue of criminal law guilt or innocence to even be decided. Fuck that. Hold them until all hostilities are terminated. Simple enough. And right.
If George Washington could defeat the most powerful military of the day without torture - I think it is an issult to our armed forces to suggest THEY can't get the job done against these semi-organized criminals without it.
2) They are criminals - they should be tried like criminals. Their actions have not earned the honor of military justice.
Families of 9/11 victims write a letter in support of Graham amendment
By J. Taylor Rushing - 11/05/09 12:38 PM ET
Senate Republicans seeking to block civilian trials for Sept. 11, 2001, conspirators received a boost Thursday with a letter that supports the move, signed by 143 families of the victims.
In a letter addressed openly to the "United States Senate," the family members lobby for an amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that would prohibit the use of funds for the prosecution in Article III courts of the United States of individuals involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Graham and other Republicans want the suspects tried instead in a military commission at the U.S. prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, after weeks of raising concerns that civilian courts are ill-equipped for such high-stakes trials.
The Graham amendment is expected to receive a Senate vote Thursday afternoon as part of an appropriations bill.
In the letter, the victim families echo the Republican argument that military commissions are preferable because civilian trials in the U.S. would inappropriately allow the suspects a wide range of legal rights common to the American legal system, providing them "with the very rights that may make it possible for them to escape the justice which they so richly deserve."
"We believe that military commissions, which have had a long and honorable history in this country dating back to the Revolutionary War, are the appropriate legal forum for the individuals who declared war on America," the letter reads. "The public has a right to know that prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in federal courts will result in a plethora of legal and procedural problems that will severely limit or even jeopardize the successful prosecution of their cases."
The amendment, which would affect about a half-dozen suspects who were involved in planning the attacks, was quickly taken up by Republicans on the Senate floor Thursday morning.
"We are not equipped, nor have we ever in our history dealt with a trial in Article III courts of any enemy combatant arrested on the battlefield," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). "These folks were not given Miranda warnings because our soldiers captured these individuals with AK-47s in their hands that they were shooting at our men. These are not the kind of individuals that our courts were designed to handle or can feasibly handle."
The amendment puts Democrats in a tough position. The party has backed the Obama administration in opposition to the amendment so far, arguing that U.S. officials need flexibility in prosecution decisions and accusing the GOP of blocking attempts to bring the suspects to justice.
...In an opinion piece this week in The National Law Journal, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican Senate leader, asserted that civilian trials risk compromising sensitive information, present logistical and security nightmares for American cities and would give terrorism suspects additional legal rights. He also warned that if a defendant is acquitted and cannot be deported, the former detainee could end up being released onto United States soil....
...In an opinion piece this week in The National Law Journal, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican Senate leader, asserted that civilian trials risk compromising sensitive information, present logistical and security nightmares for American cities and would give terrorism suspects additional legal rights. He also warned that if a defendant is acquitted and cannot be deported, the former detainee could end up being released onto United States soil....
...Aside from statements under interrogation, at a hearing held there released in March 2007, Mr. Mohammed took full credit for the 9/11 attacks and a number of other plots. (He also asserted that he had personally decapitated a kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, in Pakistan.) On Dec. 8, 2008, Mr. Mohammed, along with four co-defendants, sent a note to a military judge at Guantánamo asking to confess and to plead guilty.
Mr. Mohammed, an ethnic Baluchi, was born in Kuwait on April 24, 1965. He is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. He studied mechanical engineering in the United States in the 1980s....
Poor Jesse. He was body slammed so many times it made him as batshit fucking crazy as that Ron Paul nutjob!
Translation:After you tortured the bastards, you should have shot them--not have a media party demonstrating how "tough" you are!!
But many people think waterboarding is not torture. So evidence collected under duress can be admitted--yeah right.
Mistranslation, you mean.
Anyway, what I said requires no translation from you.
Waterboarding, by the way, still isn't "torture." But the acquisition of such coerced statements need not be acquired by "torture" to be deemed inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial.
What SHOULD have happened, of course, was that the fuckbubble should have been compelled to give up every fucking scrap of intel WE needed to minimize the threat he and his cohorts represented. Having done so, obviously none of that intel could be used against him in any criminal trial. There should never have been any criminal trial.
He was captured. He was an unlwaful enemy combatant. He should have been detained and HELD in a way similar to how we may legitimately hold captured legal enemy combatants. True, THEY would be POWs and given HIS illegal status HE would NOT be a "POW." Irrelevant to the point. If we could legitimately hold LAWFUL enemy combatnats captured during battle as POWs, there's NO rational reason why we couldn't do the same for the unlwaful variety.
If POWs could be held until the war is over, so too could the illegal enemy combatants.
If the "war" is endless, ok. Their detention is forever. Who cares? They brought it on themselves.
When we capture saboteurs in time of war, they are subject to summary execution. Ditto that for enemy spies. There is no valid reason why these mutant illegal savage motherfucking illegal enemy combatants fucks ("terrorists") could not also be subjected to summary execution. But, since we are not the savages and since killing them summarily might deprive us of the ability to extract from them the intel we need, we instead give them three hots and a cot and medical attention and similar civilized courtesies in their lovely new Gitmo abodes. That works.
The fact remains: there is no issue of criminal law guilt or innocence to even be decided. Fuck that. Hold them until all hostilities are terminated. Simple enough. And right.
If George Washington could defeat the most powerful military of the day without torture - I think it is an issult to our armed forces to suggest THEY can't get the job done against these semi-organized criminals without it.
2) They are criminals - they should be tried like criminals. Their actions have not earned the honor of military justice.
Poor Jesse. He was body slammed so many times it made him as batshit fucking crazy as that Ron Paul nutjob!
Rudy Gilliani on the radio now, incensed over this, calling it irresponsible and putting citizens of New York at greater risk. Rudy is a former prosecutor and mayor of New York during the 9-11 attack. He states that defense attorney's are under oath to do anything and everything to free their clients. The defendent is innocent until proven guilty. He states that you could get a liberal judge that could enforce the miranda laws and free those terrorists or be sympathetic to the ones who were water boarded. Also, the defense attorney's will look to do a change of venue, because they don't think that they can get a fair trail in New York. You could end up with an OJ jury, the defense will look to find those people and stack the jury that way. There are many muslims in New York and in my opinion they will often lean towards the views of the terrorists. They show sympathy towards the jihadists.
Gilliani calls it following an ideology by the Obama administration and not following reality. The reality is that it should be treated as an act of war, not a criminal act.
I have listened to Gilliani and have never heard him rail like this, he is incensed about this decision.
Rudy Gilliani on the radio now, incensed over this, calling it irresponsible and putting citizens of New York at greater risk. Rudy is a former prosecutor and mayor of New York during the 9-11 attack. He states that defense attorney's are under oath to do anything and everything to free their clients. The defendent is innocent until proven guilty. He states that you could get a liberal judge that could enforce the miranda laws and free those terrorists or be sympathetic to the ones who were water boarded. Also, the defense attorney's will look to do a change of venue, because they don't think that they can get a fair trail in New York. You could end up with an OJ jury, the defense will look to find those people and stack the jury that way. There are many muslims in New York and in my opinion they will often lean towards the views of the terrorists. They show sympathy towards the jihadists.
Gilliani calls it following an ideology by the Obama administration and not following reality. The reality is that it should be treated as an act of war, not a criminal act.
I have listened to Gilliani and have never heard him rail like this, he is incensed about this decision.
no he is fearful of it..fearful of the truth
Rudy Gilliani on the radio now, incensed over this, calling it irresponsible and putting citizens of New York at greater risk. Rudy is a former prosecutor and mayor of New York during the 9-11 attack. He states that defense attorney's are under oath to do anything and everything to free their clients. The defendent is innocent until proven guilty. He states that you could get a liberal judge that could enforce the miranda laws and free those terrorists or be sympathetic to the ones who were water boarded. Also, the defense attorney's will look to do a change of venue, because they don't think that they can get a fair trail in New York. You could end up with an OJ jury, the defense will look to find those people and stack the jury that way. There are many muslims in New York and in my opinion they will often lean towards the views of the terrorists. They show sympathy towards the jihadists.
Gilliani calls it following an ideology by the Obama administration and not following reality. The reality is that it should be treated as an act of war, not a criminal act.
I have listened to Gilliani and have never heard him rail like this, he is incensed about this decision.
no he is fearful of it..fearful of the truth
The truth that 2 airplanes loaded with American civilians rammed into 2 buildings full of U.S civilians?
Methinks they don't want one.
Rudy Gilliani on the radio now, incensed over this, calling it irresponsible and putting citizens of New York at greater risk. Rudy is a former prosecutor and mayor of New York during the 9-11 attack. He states that defense attorney's are under oath to do anything and everything to free their clients. The defendent is innocent until proven guilty. He states that you could get a liberal judge that could enforce the miranda laws and free those terrorists or be sympathetic to the ones who were water boarded. Also, the defense attorney's will look to do a change of venue, because they don't think that they can get a fair trail in New York. You could end up with an OJ jury, the defense will look to find those people and stack the jury that way. There are many muslims in New York and in my opinion they will often lean towards the views of the terrorists. They show sympathy towards the jihadists.
Gilliani calls it following an ideology by the Obama administration and not following reality. The reality is that it should be treated as an act of war, not a criminal act.
I have listened to Gilliani and have never heard him rail like this, he is incensed about this decision.
no he is fearful of it..fearful of the truth
The truth that 2 airplanes loaded with American civilians rammed into 2 buildings full of U.S civilians?
Washington would have had them hung without trial, as he did Major John Andre./If George Washington could defeat the most powerful military of the day without torture - I think it is an issult to our armed forces to suggest THEY can't get the job done against these semi-organized criminals without it.
2) They are criminals - they should be tried like criminals. Their actions have not earned the honor of military justice.
The USA captued one of the attackers, and he became a POW.It was an act of war. I wonder if we would have tried the JAPS who bombed Pearl Harbor.
These same fucks who tried destroying everything America and the Constitution represents will now be protected by it and get their due process.
What a fucking joke
