Obama : KSM Will Undergo A Moscow Show Trial Then Will be Executed

[EriktheRed]

Do any of the various Republicans in this thread care to take a moment and help Thomas to stop making a fool of himself further? Seriously, anyone who disagrees with him is a enemy of the United States?

That way of thinking is so 2002-03. Guess it never goes out of style for some cons, though.

 

[Contumacious]

tried an convicted by both obama and holder before the trial even happens....

ok...what is the point of this.....

It gets worse, Holder has stated that if acquitted KSM will be sent to prison for life as an "enemy combatant"

.

.

 

[mal]

I don't believe the Feds keep people on death row for 10 years....how long did Timothy McVeigh wait? The Washington D.C. sniper?

It's the states that take forever...unless it's Texas. They'd forego the trial if it didn't look bad.

McVeigh was found guilty in June of 1997 and executed in June of 2001.

McVeigh was NOT a Foreign National DUMBASS.

Neither was the Beltway Islamist...



peace...

 

[Claudette]

I've heard on several of the news agencies that KSM has already pled guilty and would do so again in a Military court so why the dog and pony show of a civil trial??

Mayby Ol'BO and his right hand boot licker are trying to show the world the open and transparant legal system here??? Doesnt' seem to matter that it will cost NYC 75 to 100 million for the show trial (Shchumer has already asked for 75 million) and they take the chance of losing the trial. Not to mention the security risks. Not much common sense shown by any of these morons.

 

[mal]

tried an convicted by both obama and holder before the trial even happens....

ok...what is the point of this.....

It gets worse, Holder has stated that if acquitted KSM will be sent to prison for life as an "enemy combatant"

.

.

Wouldn't the Left be Shitting themselves with Outrage if (43) was doing this?...



peace...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, and what is the problem with putting the previous admin on trial?

I challenge you to list, oh, three or four of the 'crimes' you are implying, and/or what charges should be brought. Right or wrong, a linked and documented post will catapault you to the head of the class.

Be specific.

Should you be unable to do so, you will hence be self-identified as a pedantic, insipid partisan and fall into the 'bumper-sticker' class of poster.

Or, simply a coward who is aware that a post such as I have called for will simply open you up to the kind of ridicule that you so richly deserve.

Three choices.

Or, simply follow the outline in Liberal Libretto, Rule 5:


5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset.


It will be interesting to see which path you choose.

Which one will it be?

 

[Annie]

Oh, and what is the problem with putting the previous admin on trial?

Nothing, if that is what Holder/Obama wish to do, they should. Just shouldn't be doing so with the trial of the mastermind of 9/11.

 

[WillowTree]

Anyone want to take a shot at how much to drink tommy boy here has had?

If he tells us, the closest person could get rep.

Above is proof the argument is LOST.

yep! it's lost before dogbutt opens his yap!

 

[Newby]

tried an convicted by both obama and holder before the trial even happens....

ok...what is the point of this.....

It gets worse, Holder has stated that if acquitted KSM will be sent to prison for life as an "enemy combatant"

.

.

Wouldn't the Left be Shitting themselves with Outrage if (43) was doing this?...



peace...

Absolutely, but then again they did that no matter what he did.

 

[Contumacious]

Oh, and what is the problem with putting the previous admin on trial?

I challenge you to list, oh, three or four of the 'crimes' you are implying, and/or what charges should be brought. ?

Bush Behind Bars?

"In his new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Vanguard Press, 2008), Vincent Bugliosi, the man who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson for murder, argues convincingly that President George W. Bush's conduct in taking the U.S. military to war against Iraq under false pretenses in March of 2003 qualifies him to be prosecuted for murder in any state in the nation. The victims in the case would be all the soldiers from that state that were killed in the war against Iraq. He lays out his case in a devastatingly logical and methodical manner, weaving together all the relevant facts to paint the definitive portrait of just how reckless and criminal was the behavior of President Bush in his push for war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Famous for his true crime books, such as the book about Charles Manson that launched his literary career, Helter Skelter, Bugliosi shows us that he is still in fine form.

The legal definition of murder, as Bugliosi tells us, is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." Under the law, for there to be a true crime committed the two elements of a prohibited act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) must coexist in time. According to Bugliosi's legal argument, Bush's act in this case would be his sending U.S. troops to Iraq, resulting in the death of some 4,000 of them. The criminal intent that would need to be shown, malice aforethought, could be proven by demonstrating that Bush took them to war with "reckless and wanton disregard for the consequences and indifference to human life." The only legal defense that could be mounted against charges like this would be that Bush acted in defense of the nation. In order to prove that Bush did not act in defense of the nation in starting the war, knowing all too well that Saddam Hussein was no threat to this country, and had no role in the attacks of 9/11, Bugliosi takes us on a painful walk down memory lane."

.

 

[Jay Canuck]

"The equivalent of the college sport of chug-a-lug.

In fact, I think we have a shot of you engaging in same, right here:"



sure it is....that's why Hannity pussied out like a little girl and wouldn't do it for the troops!

Medical Definition of Torture

Torture: An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, for a purpose such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Survivors of torture often suffer from physical and psychological symptoms and disabilities. There may be specific forms of physical injury including broken bones, neurological damage, and musculoskeletal problems. Torture may results in psychological symptoms of depression (most common), post-traumatic stress disorder, marked sleep disturbances and alterations in self-perceptions together with feelings of powerlessness, fear, guilt and shame.

 

[Jay Canuck]

GOP senators grill Holder on decision to try 9/11 suspects in federal court Dallas Morning News

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The equivalent of the college sport of chug-a-lug.

In fact, I think we have a shot of you engaging in same, right here:"



sure it is....that's why Hannity pussied out like a little girl and wouldn't do it for the troops!

Medical Definition of Torture

Torture: An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, for a purpose such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Survivors of torture often suffer from physical and psychological symptoms and disabilities. There may be specific forms of physical injury including broken bones, neurological damage, and musculoskeletal problems. Torture may results in psychological symptoms of depression (most common), post-traumatic stress disorder, marked sleep disturbances and alterations in self-perceptions together with feelings of powerlessness, fear, guilt and shame.

1. Walling (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)

"A flexible false wall will be constructed. The individual is placed with his heels touching the wall: The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual's shoulder blades that hit the wall. During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash …

"You have orally informed us that the false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise the individual. In part, the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action."

2. The Facial (or Insult) Slap (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)

"With the facial slap or insult slap, the interrogator slaps the individual's face with fingers slightly spread. The hand makes contact with the area directly between the tip of the individual's chin and the bottom of the corresponding earlobe. The interrogator invades the individual's personal space. The goal of the facial slap is not to inflict physical pain that is severe or lasting. Instead, the purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation …"

3. Cramped Confinement & insects Placed In a Confinement Box (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)

"You would like to place (Abu) Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact place a harmless insect such as a caterpillar in the box with him...
"Focusing in part on the fact that the boxes will be without light, placement in these boxes would constitute a procedure designed to disrupt profoundly the senses...
"With respect to the small confinement box, you have informed us that he would spend at most two hours in this box ... For the larger box, in which he can both stand and sit, he may be placed in this box for up to eighteen hours at a time ..."

4. Dietary Manipulation (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005)
"This technique involves the substitution of commercial liquid meal replacements for normal food, presenting detainees with a bland, unappetizing, but nutritionally complete diet. You have informed us that the CIA believes dietary manipulation makes other techniques, such as sleep deprivation, more effective.

"Medical officers are required to ensure adequate fluid and nutritional intake, and frequent medial monitoring takes place while any detainee is undergoing dietary manipulation."

5. Nudity (Bradury memo, May 10, 2005)

"This technique is used to cause psychological discomfort, particularly if a detainee, for cultural or other reasons, is especially modest. When the technique is employed, clothing can be provided as an instant reward for cooperation. During and between interrogation sessions, a detainee may be kept nude, provided that ambient temperatures and the health of the detainee permit.
"... Interrogators can exploit the detainee's fear of being seen naked. In addition, female officers involved in the interrogation process may see the detainees naked, and … we will assume that detainees subjected to nudity as an interrogation technique are aware that they may be seen naked by females."

6. Abdominal Slap (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005)

"In this technique, the interrogator strikes the abdomen of the detainee with the back of his open hand. The interrogator must have no rings or other jewelry on his hand. The interrogator is positioned directly in front of the detainee, generally no more than than 18 inches from the detainees. With his fingers held tightly together and fully extended, and with his palm toward the interrogator's own body, using his elbow as a fixed pivot point, the interrogator slaps the detainee in the detainee's abdomen. The interrogator may not use a fist, and the slap must be delivered above the navel and below the sternum. This technique is used to condition a detainee to pay attention tot the interrogator's questions and to dislodge expectations that the detainee will not be touched."

7. Water Dousing and "Flicking" (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005)

"Cold water is poured on the detainee either from a container or from a hose without a nozzle. This technique is intended to weaken the detainee's resistance and persuade him to cooperate with interrogators. … A medical officer must observe and monitor the detainee throughout application of this technique, including for signs of hypothermia.

"… You have also described a variation of water dousing involving much smaller quantities of water; this variation is known as 'flicking.' Flicking of water is achieved by the interrogator wetting his fingers and then flicking them at the detainee, propelling droplets at the detainee. Flicking of water is done 'in an effort to create a distracting effect, to awaken, to startle, to irritate, to instill humiliation, or to cause temporary insult … Although water may be flicked into the detainee's face with this variation, the flicking of water at all times is done in such a manner as to avoid the inhalation or ingestion of water by the detainee."

8. Sleep Deprivation (more than 48 hours) (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005)

"The primary method of sleep deprivation involves the use of shackling to keep the detainee awake. In this method, the detainee is standing and is handcuffed, and the handcuffs are attached by a length of chain to the ceiling. The detainee's hands are shackled in front of his body, so that the detainee has approximately a two- to three-foot diameter of movement. The detainee's feet are shackled to a bolt in the floor.

"… In lieu of standing sleep deprivation, a detainee may instead be seated on and shackled to a small stool. The stool supports the detainee's weight, but is too small to permit the subject to balance himself sufficiently to go to sleep…

"… We understand that a detainee undergoing sleep deprivation is generally fed by hand by CIA personnel so that he need not be unshackled…

"If the detainee is clothed, he wears an adult diaper under his pants … If the detainee is wearing a diaper, it is checked regularly and changed as necessary. The use of the diaper is for sanitary and health purposes of the detainee; it is not used for the purpose of humiliating the detainee and it is not considered to be an interrogation technique.

"The maximum allowable duration for sleep deprivation authorized by the CIA is 180 hours ... You have informed us that to date, more than a dozen detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation of more than 48 hours, and three detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation of more than 96 hours."

9. Combination of Techniques (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005)

"Your office has outlined the manner in which many of the individual techniques we previously considered could be combined …

"In a prototypical interrogation, the detainee begins his first interrogation session stripped of his clothes, shackled, and hooded, with the walling collar over his head and around his neck. … The interrogators remove the hood and explain that the detainee can improve his situation by cooperating and may say that the interrogators 'will do what it takes to get important information.' As soon as the detainee does anything inconsistent with the interrogators' instructions, the interrogators use an insult slap or abdominal slap. They employ walling if it becomes clear that the detainee is not cooperating in the interrogation. This sequence 'may continue for several more iterations as the interrogators continue to measure the [detainee's] resistance posture and apply a negative consequence to [his] resistance efforts.' The interrogators and security officers then put the detainee into position for standing sleep deprivation, begin dietary manipulation through a liquid diet, and keep the detainee nude (except for a diaper). The first interrogation session, which could have lasted from 30 minutes to several ours, would then be at an end.

"If the interrogation team determines there is a need to continue, and if the medical and psychological personnel advise that there are no contraindications, a second session may begin."

10. Waterboarding (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)
"Finally, you would like to use a technique called the 'waterboard.' In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e., the perception of drowning...
"We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death. As you have explained the waterboard procedure to us, it creates in the subject the uncontrollable physiological sensation that the subject is drowning ...
"Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statuatory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering ... you have advised us that the relied is almost immediate when the cloth is removed from the nose and mouth. In the absence of prolonged mental harm, no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture."New Bush Torture Bombshell Memos: 10 Horrifying Discoveries | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet

 

[Claudette]

Lets note forget that a doctor is right there also.

Wonder if the terrorists had one on site when they chopped that guys head off on video???

 

[saveliberty]

LOL! I cannot help it...This is too easy. So many Statist Liberals...So many apologists, So many America Haters...too EASY the laughs...

Too many retards posting on the USMB....

Feel free to restrict yourself immediately.

 

[manu1959]

anyone see where the defense attorney is filing a motion for dismissal because the pres and the ag esentially guaranteed a conviction so any potential juror is tainted.....


damn i am so glad we have a smart president in office this time.......and a smart ag.....

 

[Dr Grump]

LOL! I cannot help it...This is too easy. So many Statist Liberals...So many apologists, So many America Haters...too EASY the laughs...

Too many retards posting on the USMB....

Feel free to restrict yourself immediately.

After you....

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh, and what is the problem with putting the previous admin on trial?

I challenge you to list, oh, three or four of the 'crimes' you are implying, and/or what charges should be brought. Right or wrong, a linked and documented post will catapault you to the head of the class.

Be specific.

Should you be unable to do so, you will hence be self-identified as a pedantic, insipid partisan and fall into the 'bumper-sticker' class of poster.

Or, simply a coward who is aware that a post such as I have called for will simply open you up to the kind of ridicule that you so richly deserve.

Three choices.

Or, simply follow the outline in Liberal Libretto, Rule 5:


5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset.


It will be interesting to see which path you choose.

Which one will it be?

Already done so at least two other times on this board in the past 3.5 years. Not about to do that research AGAIN, just for you. It's on here and if you are interested you'll find it. Or are you just another partisan hack after a cheap shot (rhetorical question)?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, and what is the problem with putting the previous admin on trial?

I challenge you to list, oh, three or four of the 'crimes' you are implying, and/or what charges should be brought. Right or wrong, a linked and documented post will catapault you to the head of the class.

Be specific.

Should you be unable to do so, you will hence be self-identified as a pedantic, insipid partisan and fall into the 'bumper-sticker' class of poster.

Or, simply a coward who is aware that a post such as I have called for will simply open you up to the kind of ridicule that you so richly deserve.

Three choices.

Or, simply follow the outline in Liberal Libretto, Rule 5:


5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset.


It will be interesting to see which path you choose.

Which one will it be?

Already done so at least two other times on this board in the past 3.5 years. Not about to do that research AGAIN, just for you. It's on here and if you are interested you'll find it. Or are you just another partisan hack after a cheap shot (rhetorical question)?

What a sleazy way to decline defending your flaccid post.

No doubt you shook with fear, knowing full well how flimsy your arguments are.

You have chosen your own label: self-identified as a pedantic, insipid partisan and fall into the 'bumper-sticker' class of poster.

 

[Dr Grump]

I challenge you to list, oh, three or four of the 'crimes' you are implying, and/or what charges should be brought. Right or wrong, a linked and documented post will catapault you to the head of the class.

Be specific.

Should you be unable to do so, you will hence be self-identified as a pedantic, insipid partisan and fall into the 'bumper-sticker' class of poster.

Or, simply a coward who is aware that a post such as I have called for will simply open you up to the kind of ridicule that you so richly deserve.

Three choices.

Or, simply follow the outline in Liberal Libretto, Rule 5:


5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset.


It will be interesting to see which path you choose.

Which one will it be?

Already done so at least two other times on this board in the past 3.5 years. Not about to do that research AGAIN, just for you. It's on here and if you are interested you'll find it. Or are you just another partisan hack after a cheap shot (rhetorical question)?

What a sleazy way to decline defending your flaccid post.

No doubt you shook with fear, knowing full well how flimsy your arguments are.

You have chosen your own label: self-identified as a pedantic, insipid partisan and fall into the 'bumper-sticker' class of poster.

So you're too lazy to look huh? You want somebody else to do your work for you. Being an uber conservative, why am I not surprised. As I said, it's already been done twice, if you're too lazy to look, that's on you.

Sleazy? Do you even know what the word means? (again, a rhetorical question).

As for drooling partisan, didn't I see your pic next to the word in my kids' picture dictionary?