NO PERSON SHALL...be deprived of liberty, without due process of LAW

[jillian]

You see? This is why you should mind your own business.....OUR AG's serve at the pleasure of the President.

And that is why your system sucks...

Patek's answer, while correct as far as it goes, is not quite accurate. An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason. An AG being fired because he won't act as the enforcement arm of the RNC is NOT a legal or ethical reason for termination.

 

[jillian]

Let me see if I've got the straight??

1.The military tribunals were in progress, approved by the Supreme Court.

2. The dirtbag terrorists were all going to plead guilty and be executed.

3. OL'BO comes to power and stops the tribunals.

4. Now we are going to have an expensive dog and pony show in NYC. The dirtbags are going to plead not guilty so they can spew their garbage and quite possibly be aquitted.

Gotta wonder if anyone in OL'BO's team has an ounce of common sense?? I guess not. Then of course you have to wonder about the politics of the whole thing. Now that makes sense. The politics. Apparantly the victims of 9-11 don't count for much when you figure in the politics. Oh yeah, the politics
thats what seems to be important to this administration.

These guys have no rights under our Constitution. Graham asked Holder about how many enemy combatants had been captured overseas and tried in US courts? Holder didn't know but Graham did.
NONE.

If these guys are aquitted Me thinks the American People will not be happy at all. Hmmmmm. Another nail in OL'BO's coffin perhaps????

Are you really this stupid? Seriously? No one who voted for him has a problem with trying people accused of wrongdoing. Instead of being outraged for the last six years that people were being imprisoned on the say so of the governement... without evidence, without charges, you morons are complaining they're going to have a trial. If the right was interested in military tribunals, they would have occurred during the last admin. They didn't because the admin didn't want to charge people or be accountable. They only commenced the military tribunals when they were told by the Court that they couldn't do NOTHING.

Can't have it both ways... they are either POW's. entitled to all rights under the Geneva Convention...

or they are criminal defendants entitled to appropriate due process.

And no matter how many times nutters like you try to justify it, we had no problem trying the terrorist blind sheikh or timothy mcveigh.

nutbar...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You see? This is why you should mind your own business.....OUR AG's serve at the pleasure of the President.

And that is why your system sucks...

Patek's answer, while correct as far as it goes, is not quite accurate. An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason. An AG being fired because he won't act as the enforcement arm of the RNC is NOT a legal or ethical reason for termination.

Can you say "contradiction'?

"An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason"

 

[Intense]

You see? This is why you should mind your own business.....OUR AG's serve at the pleasure of the President.

And that is why your system sucks...

Patek's answer, while correct as far as it goes, is not quite accurate. An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason. An AG being fired because he won't act as the enforcement arm of the RNC is NOT a legal or ethical reason for termination.

How did Obama find out We were monitoring Cell Phones Jillian?

The Point is not whether the AG dances to RNC Tune, but is more related to is His Position Justified or will it Multiply Our Risks?

 

[Navy1960]

Let me see if I've got the straight??

1.The military tribunals were in progress, approved by the Supreme Court.

2. The dirtbag terrorists were all going to plead guilty and be executed.

3. OL'BO comes to power and stops the tribunals.

4. Now we are going to have an expensive dog and pony show in NYC. The dirtbags are going to plead not guilty so they can spew their garbage and quite possibly be aquitted.

Gotta wonder if anyone in OL'BO's team has an ounce of common sense?? I guess not. Then of course you have to wonder about the politics of the whole thing. Now that makes sense. The politics. Apparantly the victims of 9-11 don't count for much when you figure in the politics. Oh yeah, the politics
thats what seems to be important to this administration.

These guys have no rights under our Constitution. Graham asked Holder about how many enemy combatants had been captured overseas and tried in US courts? Holder didn't know but Graham did.
NONE.

If these guys are aquitted Me thinks the American People will not be happy at all. Hmmmmm. Another nail in OL'BO's coffin perhaps????

Are you really this stupid? Seriously? No one who voted for him has a problem with trying people accused of wrongdoing. Instead of being outraged for the last six years that people were being imprisoned on the say so of the governement... without evidence, without charges, you morons are complaining they're going to have a trial. If the right was interested in military tribunals, they would have occurred during the last admin. They didn't because the admin didn't want to charge people or be accountable. They only commenced the military tribunals when they were told by the Court that they couldn't do NOTHING.

Can't have it both ways... they are either POW's. entitled to all rights under the Geneva Convention...

or they are criminal defendants entitled to appropriate due process.

And no matter how many times nutters like you try to justify it, we had no problem trying the terrorist blind sheikh or timothy mcveigh.

nutbar...

Hello jillian, here is the question, are Military Tribunals considered due process. in my mind because of the long history of case law in such matters it is. Also as you know, in Article 131 of the Geneva Convention POW's are to tried by the detaining military power. So again Military Tribinals are wholly consistant with that as well as was the case with the International Military Tribunals for those at end of WW2. In my opinion, I see nothing at all wrong with having such trials in a Military setting and as such do not eleminate the constitution when it comes to such trials.

 

[Claudette]

No Jillian. I'm not stupid at all. I just don't see the need to try someone in Civil court when the Tribunals were already in progress with the approval of the Supreme Court after 8 years of fighting the ACLU and the defendents were already going to plead guilty. Done deal.

As for Timothy McVeigh and the blind Sheik trials I don't think either one of them pled guilty and were being tried by military tribunal doncha know.

The STUPID part is stopping the done deal so we can have a show trial. You seem to be all in favor of that so I guess your the stupid one. Stupid is as Stupid does my friend.

 

[Intense]

Let me see if I've got the straight??

1.The military tribunals were in progress, approved by the Supreme Court.

2. The dirtbag terrorists were all going to plead guilty and be executed.

3. OL'BO comes to power and stops the tribunals.

4. Now we are going to have an expensive dog and pony show in NYC. The dirtbags are going to plead not guilty so they can spew their garbage and quite possibly be aquitted.

Gotta wonder if anyone in OL'BO's team has an ounce of common sense?? I guess not. Then of course you have to wonder about the politics of the whole thing. Now that makes sense. The politics. Apparantly the victims of 9-11 don't count for much when you figure in the politics. Oh yeah, the politics
thats what seems to be important to this administration.

These guys have no rights under our Constitution. Graham asked Holder about how many enemy combatants had been captured overseas and tried in US courts? Holder didn't know but Graham did.
NONE.

If these guys are aquitted Me thinks the American People will not be happy at all. Hmmmmm. Another nail in OL'BO's coffin perhaps????

Are you really this stupid? Seriously? No one who voted for him has a problem with trying people accused of wrongdoing. Instead of being outraged for the last six years that people were being imprisoned on the say so of the governement... without evidence, without charges, you morons are complaining they're going to have a trial. If the right was interested in military tribunals, they would have occurred during the last admin. They didn't because the admin didn't want to charge people or be accountable. They only commenced the military tribunals when they were told by the Court that they couldn't do NOTHING.

Can't have it both ways... they are either POW's. entitled to all rights under the Geneva Convention...

or they are criminal defendants entitled to appropriate due process.

And no matter how many times nutters like you try to justify it, we had no problem trying the terrorist blind sheikh or timothy mcveigh.

nutbar...

I agree with You, that action needed to be taken. Distinguishing between the different categories, Combatant, Illegal Combatant, Terrorist, Conspirator, Accessory, different actions were required.

 

[California Girl]

The Constitution was written for and applies to, American citizens. The V Amendment does not apply to terrorist, enemy combatants, illegal aliens, and any other illegal entity.

Sorry, that's not true. It covers anyone on U.S. property.

That is how various courts have interpreted it. That doesn't make it right.

The Constitution was written to address the limited powers of the federal government, as it relates to the citizens of the United States. Period.

Actually, BBG, you're wrong. The SC has already ruled that the Constitution applies to non citizens.... This is why a lot of us knew Obama was lying when he guaranteed that a healthcare bill would not cover illegal aliens - because previous rules suggest that it would be unconstitutional to not cover them.

So, the constitition applies to these scumbag assholes too. Unfortunately for the country, Messrs Obama and Holder have their own agenda which is not necessarily the best interests of the citizens on the USA.

 

[jillian]

And that is why your system sucks...

Patek's answer, while correct as far as it goes, is not quite accurate. An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason. An AG being fired because he won't act as the enforcement arm of the RNC is NOT a legal or ethical reason for termination.

Can you say "contradiction'?

"An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason"

It's not a contradition to anyone who understands the subtleties of the law. It's actually the same standard the Court applies in discrimination cases.

it's really simple... i can fire you because you dress like garbage at work. i can fire you just because...

but i can't fire you because you're black, gay, a woman, or BECAUSE THEY WON'T DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL/UNETHICAL at your behest.

Try reading that carefully and wthout your partisan blinders on, because it's not really complicated.

 

[Navy1960]

The Constitution vests in Congress the power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court,” to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces,” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” By enacting Articles of War,
Congress defined not only the procedures but also the punishments to be applied to
the field of military law.

General Andrew Jackson resorted to military tribunals on two occasions: during
the War of 1812 and while commanding troops in Florida in 1818. Both exercises
of authority were highly controversial and led to responses by federal courts and
Congress.

During the War of 1812, Jackson invoked martial law when he commanded
American forces at New Orleans. On December 15, 1814, anticipating a British
invasion of the city, he issued a statement alerting residents to “his unalterable
determination rigidly to execute the martial law in all cases which may come within
his province.”35 The general order for martial law was released the next day,
requiring anyone entering the city to report to the Adjutant General’s office. Anyone
found in the streets after 9 p.m. “shall be apprehended as spies and held for
examination.”
After Jackson’s victory over the British, the citizens of New Orleans expected
him to rescind the order for martial law. However, Jackson continued to wait until
he received word that peace negotiations underway at Ghent were complete. An
article in the local newspaper by Louis Louallier insisted that persons accused of a
crime should be heard before a civil judge, not military tribunals, and called
Jackson’s policy “no longer compatible with our dignity and our oath of making the
Constitution respected.”37 Jackson had him arrested on March 5, 1815, for inciting
mutiny and disaffection in the army. Louallier’s lawyer went to U.S. District Judge
Dominick Augustin Hall to request a writ of habeas corpus, which the judge granted
after concluding that martial law could no longer be justified.

Military tribunals were used by General Winfield Scott during the war against
Mexico, when American forces found themselves in a foreign country without a
reliable judicial system to try offenders. He was concerned particularly about the
lack of discipline and misconduct among American volunteer soldiers. Before he left
Washington, D.C., to assume command, he drafted an order calling for martial law
in Mexico for both American soldiers and Mexican citizens. He showed the draft
order to Secretary of War William Marcy and Attorney General Nathan Clifford.
Neither official expressed disapproval or opposition.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32458.pdf

A little history on the subject.

 

[jillian]

No Jillian. I'm not stupid at all. I just don't see the need to try someone in Civil court when the Tribunals were already in progress with the approval of the Supreme Court after 8 years of fighting the ACLU and the defendents were already going to plead guilty. Done deal.

As for Timothy McVeigh and the blind Sheik trials I don't think either one of them pled guilty and were being tried by military tribunal doncha know.

The STUPID part is stopping the done deal so we can have a show trial. You seem to be all in favor of that so I guess your the stupid one. Stupid is as Stupid does my friend.

The stupid part is thinking just because the incompetent last admin did anything, that later admins should be bound by it.

you'd have plead guilty if someone was waterboarding you,too...

and if you say you wouldn't have, you're a liar.

THAT is why they can't use the "confession".

I'm ok with that, because if that's all the evidence they have, he shouldn't be held under any circumstances.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution vests in Congress the power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court,” to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces,” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” By enacting Articles of War,
Congress defined not only the procedures but also the punishments to be applied to
the field of military law.

General Andrew Jackson resorted to military tribunals on two occasions: during
the War of 1812 and while commanding troops in Florida in 1818. Both exercises
of authority were highly controversial and led to responses by federal courts and
Congress.

During the War of 1812, Jackson invoked martial law when he commanded
American forces at New Orleans. On December 15, 1814, anticipating a British
invasion of the city, he issued a statement alerting residents to “his unalterable
determination rigidly to execute the martial law in all cases which may come within
his province.”35 The general order for martial law was released the next day,
requiring anyone entering the city to report to the Adjutant General’s office. Anyone
found in the streets after 9 p.m. “shall be apprehended as spies and held for
examination.”
After Jackson’s victory over the British, the citizens of New Orleans expected
him to rescind the order for martial law. However, Jackson continued to wait until
he received word that peace negotiations underway at Ghent were complete. An
article in the local newspaper by Louis Louallier insisted that persons accused of a
crime should be heard before a civil judge, not military tribunals, and called
Jackson’s policy “no longer compatible with our dignity and our oath of making the
Constitution respected.”37 Jackson had him arrested on March 5, 1815, for inciting
mutiny and disaffection in the army. Louallier’s lawyer went to U.S. District Judge
Dominick Augustin Hall to request a writ of habeas corpus, which the judge granted
after concluding that martial law could no longer be justified.

Military tribunals were used by General Winfield Scott during the war against
Mexico, when American forces found themselves in a foreign country without a
reliable judicial system to try offenders. He was concerned particularly about the
lack of discipline and misconduct among American volunteer soldiers. Before he left
Washington, D.C., to assume command, he drafted an order calling for martial law
in Mexico for both American soldiers and Mexican citizens. He showed the draft
order to Secretary of War William Marcy and Attorney General Nathan Clifford.
Neither official expressed disapproval or opposition.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32458.pdf

A little history on the subject.

Thanks, Navy. Had they held military trials over the past six years, I'd have probably accepted it, assuming they gave them POW rights. But they didn't. And now the same people who did nothing for six years, until it became clear that they would no longer be in power, are being loud because they are loud about EVERYTHING this administration does or doesn't do.

We had no right to torture anyone and get confessions that way. When that is done to our troops, we disregad anything said by such detainees.

They had no right to diminish us by doing the same. Also, I think part of the confusion about how do deal with these people is that there is no enemy country. You can't wage a war against terrorism because terrorism is a tactic. You can't wage a war against Wahhabists because you can't wage a war against an ideology. If WWII had been a "war on fascism", we'd still be fighting...

People accused of wrongdoing are entitled to be charged and tried.

 

[germanguy]

The Constitution vests in Congress the power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court,” to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces,” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” By enacting Articles of War,
Congress defined not only the procedures but also the punishments to be applied to
the field of military law.

General Andrew Jackson resorted to military tribunals on two occasions: during
the War of 1812 and while commanding troops in Florida in 1818. Both exercises
of authority were highly controversial and led to responses by federal courts and
Congress.

During the War of 1812, Jackson invoked martial law when he commanded
American forces at New Orleans. On December 15, 1814, anticipating a British
invasion of the city, he issued a statement alerting residents to “his unalterable
determination rigidly to execute the martial law in all cases which may come within
his province.”35 The general order for martial law was released the next day,
requiring anyone entering the city to report to the Adjutant General’s office. Anyone
found in the streets after 9 p.m. “shall be apprehended as spies and held for
examination.”
After Jackson’s victory over the British, the citizens of New Orleans expected
him to rescind the order for martial law. However, Jackson continued to wait until
he received word that peace negotiations underway at Ghent were complete. An
article in the local newspaper by Louis Louallier insisted that persons accused of a
crime should be heard before a civil judge, not military tribunals, and called
Jackson’s policy “no longer compatible with our dignity and our oath of making the
Constitution respected.”37 Jackson had him arrested on March 5, 1815, for inciting
mutiny and disaffection in the army. Louallier’s lawyer went to U.S. District Judge
Dominick Augustin Hall to request a writ of habeas corpus, which the judge granted
after concluding that martial law could no longer be justified.

Military tribunals were used by General Winfield Scott during the war against
Mexico, when American forces found themselves in a foreign country without a
reliable judicial system to try offenders. He was concerned particularly about the
lack of discipline and misconduct among American volunteer soldiers. Before he left
Washington, D.C., to assume command, he drafted an order calling for martial law
in Mexico for both American soldiers and Mexican citizens. He showed the draft
order to Secretary of War William Marcy and Attorney General Nathan Clifford.
Neither official expressed disapproval or opposition.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32458.pdf

A little history on the subject.

Well, how to thank for the aforesaid and disapprove with the argument ?

Anyway:
All stated cases had one thing in common:
1. It was war or after a war.
2. Existing nations or nation states participated

Whatever you do, declaring a state of war between the US and (Who?), means that there is a war between one nation against, what, a state´, a bunch of killers, idiots ?

By definition, these people committed murder and whatever your laws consider a crime
(german law i.e. punishes even forming a terrorist grouo severely) and should be tried.
They are no nation, no combattants, spies or anybody beeing able to considered as an enemy in a war. They are criminals - treat them this way.

regards
ze germanguy

BTW: Waterboarding was no torture and legal, or torture and legal or no torture and not legal ? I am confused ...
So, if I say, that the german Gestapo used this interrogation method to good success, am I not PC ?

 

[Liability]

* * * *
People accused of wrongdoing are entitled to be charged and tried.

Nope. People accused of CRIMES are entitled to trials.

Enemies captured in war are not generally entitled to trials. And certain illegal combatants may even be subject to summary execution without involving our civilian criminal justice courts AT ALL. That is, the foregoing has been completely true and correct unitl JUST very recently. What is happening now is so massively stupid and disconnected from rationality and precedent that it defies logic and reason. It borders on suicidal, in fact, in some ways.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Patek's answer, while correct as far as it goes, is not quite accurate. An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason. An AG being fired because he won't act as the enforcement arm of the RNC is NOT a legal or ethical reason for termination.

Can you say "contradiction'?

"An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason"

It's not a contradition to anyone who understands the subtleties of the law. It's actually the same standard the Court applies in discrimination cases.

it's really simple... i can fire you because you dress like garbage at work. i can fire you just because...

but i can't fire you because you're black, gay, a woman, or BECAUSE THEY WON'T DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL/UNETHICAL at your behest.

Try reading that carefully and wthout your partisan blinders on, because it's not really complicated.

Claiming you can fire someone without reason, then give reasons why they can't be fired is a contradiction.

 

[Liability]

Patek's answer, while correct as far as it goes, is not quite accurate. An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason. An AG being fired because he won't act as the enforcement arm of the RNC is NOT a legal or ethical reason for termination.

Can you say "contradiction'?

"An AG can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal or unethical reason"

It's not a contradition to anyone who understands the subtleties of the law. It's actually the same standard the Court applies in discrimination cases.

it's really simple... i can fire you because you dress like garbage at work. i can fire you just because...

but i can't fire you because you're black, gay, a woman, or BECAUSE THEY WON'T DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL/UNETHICAL at your behest.

Try reading that carefully and wthout your partisan blinders on, because it's not really complicated.

Nonsense. The "subtleties of the law" pablum simply does not cut it.

If one can be fired for ANY reason OR for NO REASON AT ALL, then to impose a condition on it, calling for the person doing the firing to give a "legitimate" reason, is to DENY the original premise.

If one CAN be called upon to give an obligatory "reason," that must pass some ephemeral "test," then one cannot fire for ANY reason or for NO reason at all.

It is a flat-out contradiction.

Your effort is just designed to (in a veiled way, perhaps) DENY the original premise.

I deny your denial.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No Jillian. I'm not stupid at all. I just don't see the need to try someone in Civil court when the Tribunals were already in progress with the approval of the Supreme Court after 8 years of fighting the ACLU and the defendents were already going to plead guilty. Done deal.

As for Timothy McVeigh and the blind Sheik trials I don't think either one of them pled guilty and were being tried by military tribunal doncha know.

The STUPID part is stopping the done deal so we can have a show trial. You seem to be all in favor of that so I guess your the stupid one. Stupid is as Stupid does my friend.

The stupid part is thinking just because the incompetent last admin did anything, that later admins should be bound by it.

you'd have plead guilty if someone was waterboarding you,too...

and if you say you wouldn't have, you're a liar.

THAT is why they can't use the "confession".

I'm ok with that, because if that's all the evidence they have, he shouldn't be held under any circumstances.

You have evidence that his confession was made while he was being waterboarded?

 

[Navy1960]

The Constitution vests in Congress the power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court,” to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces,” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” By enacting Articles of War,
Congress defined not only the procedures but also the punishments to be applied to
the field of military law.

General Andrew Jackson resorted to military tribunals on two occasions: during
the War of 1812 and while commanding troops in Florida in 1818. Both exercises
of authority were highly controversial and led to responses by federal courts and
Congress.

During the War of 1812, Jackson invoked martial law when he commanded
American forces at New Orleans. On December 15, 1814, anticipating a British
invasion of the city, he issued a statement alerting residents to “his unalterable
determination rigidly to execute the martial law in all cases which may come within
his province.”35 The general order for martial law was released the next day,
requiring anyone entering the city to report to the Adjutant General’s office. Anyone
found in the streets after 9 p.m. “shall be apprehended as spies and held for
examination.”
After Jackson’s victory over the British, the citizens of New Orleans expected
him to rescind the order for martial law. However, Jackson continued to wait until
he received word that peace negotiations underway at Ghent were complete. An
article in the local newspaper by Louis Louallier insisted that persons accused of a
crime should be heard before a civil judge, not military tribunals, and called
Jackson’s policy “no longer compatible with our dignity and our oath of making the
Constitution respected.”37 Jackson had him arrested on March 5, 1815, for inciting
mutiny and disaffection in the army. Louallier’s lawyer went to U.S. District Judge
Dominick Augustin Hall to request a writ of habeas corpus, which the judge granted
after concluding that martial law could no longer be justified.

Military tribunals were used by General Winfield Scott during the war against
Mexico, when American forces found themselves in a foreign country without a
reliable judicial system to try offenders. He was concerned particularly about the
lack of discipline and misconduct among American volunteer soldiers. Before he left
Washington, D.C., to assume command, he drafted an order calling for martial law
in Mexico for both American soldiers and Mexican citizens. He showed the draft
order to Secretary of War William Marcy and Attorney General Nathan Clifford.
Neither official expressed disapproval or opposition.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32458.pdf

A little history on the subject.

Thanks, Navy. Had they held military trials over the past six years, I'd have probably accepted it, assuming they gave them POW rights. But they didn't. And now the same people who did nothing for six years, until it became clear that they would no longer be in power, are being loud because they are loud about EVERYTHING this administration does or doesn't do.

We had no right to torture anyone and get confessions that way. When that is done to our troops, we disregad anything said by such detainees.

They had no right to diminish us by doing the same. Also, I think part of the confusion about how do deal with these people is that there is no enemy country. You can't wage a war against terrorism because terrorism is a tactic. You can't wage a war against Wahhabists because you can't wage a war against an ideology. If WWII had been a "war on fascism", we'd still be fighting...

People accused of wrongdoing are entitled to be charged and tried.

Jillian do not take anything I say here as an endorsement for the practice torture to those captured in combat. First the Supreme Court has already told the last Administration that they need to go back to congress and cannot hold Tribunals without constitutional mandate or a status hearing as provided under the Geneva convention. As to your assertion that this is not a war., I'm afriad that almost all those that are currently in power, as well as just left power as just about every current member of the military and and former who has ever been in harms way would disagree with you. The Attorney General himself has even said so, during his last appearence before the Senate.

 

[bodecea]

I wonder how many millions of Dollars were wasted because of this little show?

Nowhere near the figure wasted invading Iraq, let alone the lives lost....

I can promise you that there are millions of Iraqis who do not consider any of our efforts there a waste.

Would you include Iraqi Christians and Iraqi women in those millions?

 

[Claudette]

The fact remains that this was a done deal and is now a dog and pony show just to appease people like Jillian who seem consumed with the rights of these murderers. Seems to me I remember that these dirtbags were pretty proud of 9-11 and had no problem bragging about it to all their dirtbag friends. Kinda think that was before they were captured. No waterboarding there doncha know.

Apparantly 3000 dead don't mean much either just so long as these dirtbags get their day in Court.

Will have to see how the dog and pony show pans out. Ol'BO and his pal Holder had better hope that they get a guilty plea. Most polls I've heard on this say the majority of Americans, minus the left wing loons, are not happy at all with this trial. Another nail in the coffin. You betcha.