Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[Liability]

Well there you go...obviously reframing the issue to suit yourself better.

There's no problem with "the prospect of an acquittal"...either he did it or he didn't. And summary execution for someone...even an enemy...is wrong. The Founding Fathers wouldnt have wanted that in the least. You ARE one of those people who believes in the Founding Fathers, right? You can't just invoke their names when it's convenient.

I really can't stand the idea that we should just kill everyone we THINK is an enemy/terrorist with flimsy proof...just because some redneck beats his chest like a fucking gorilla.

If the proof is there...they'll get convicted. If you don't torture people to get info...perhaps your evidence will be allowed.

See, the rules of decency...even in wartime ...aren't that hard. Good generals can fight wars without stooping so low as you want them to.

No no, Vanquished. I am not the one "reframing" anything. Your idiot pal, tackylib, was the one who was trying to do that.

The issue is not now (and never was) whether the Government could obtain some conviction in any one case. Nor was the issue whether the "sentence" would be sufficient in any one case.

Those never were "issues" and your claim that they were issues is simply dishonesty on your part.

In reality (you should give reality a try someday), the issue is and has always been whether it makes any sense to treat these scumbags as mere criminals and therefore use our civilian courts of law as the venue to "try" them. Those on my side of the discussion have ALWAYS maintained that it is a stupid and dangerously stupid idea to use our civilian courts of LAW to "try" these fuckers as though they were merely "criminals" -- which is precisely what they are not.

You and tackylib can attempt to spin it any way you wish. But you fool nobody. YOU are attempting to re-frame the discussion. That effort will not succeed since it has been identified as the bullshit it it.

 

[Vanquish]

I seem to remember that it was a STUPID semantic difference between "could" and "should" actually.

And the spirit of that debate is the idea that conservatives said it "shouldn't" be done because you "couldnt" get the correct result. The result that was gotten. Maybe not on all counts. Maybe only one count. But it was achieved. And the lack of evidence was based on torture techniques. So stop getting info by torture and your conviction rate will spike.

 

[Liability]

I seem to remember that it was a STUPID semantic difference between "could" and "should" actually.

And the spirit of that debate is the idea that conservatives said it "shouldn't" be done because you "couldnt" get the correct result. The result that was gotten. Maybe not on all counts. Maybe only one count. But it was achieved. And the lack of evidence was based on torture techniques. So stop getting info by torture and your conviction rate will spike.

Vanquished, you are not bright enough to keep up.

The difference between "we should not do this" and "we cannot do this" is (a) quite significant, (b) large) and (c) very much along the lines of what I had just finished saying.

And no. The "spirit" of the debate was never an argument by conservatives that we shouldn't do it "because" we "couldn't" get the right results. That's dishonest of you to make that bogus claim. You couldn't support that crap if your life depended on it.

When you find that you have to make shit up (as you just did) to "make your point," you really are better off just keeping your cavernous mouth shut in the first place, stupid. Your arguments and your lies remain unpersuasive.

And since juries do not announce on what basis they render their verdicts, by the way, asshole, you don't know that any alleged "torture" had anything to do with their verdict. And, there's no evidence that "torture" was even used. Indeed, that seems unlikely since the U.S. does not use "torture."

But thanks for failing as you're flailing, Vanquished.

 

[taichiliberal]

Now that I've had to educate you on the facts......care to answer my question or are you going to continue to stall and blow smoke?

Can you post anything without all that useless bloviating? "bloviating"? Jeez, you're not very original, are you Jroc? Small wonder that I call you a neocon parrot. Seems every time I nail you on your BS point for point, you do the neocon shuffle, avoid the bulk of the response, excerpt one part and then continue your dodgy BS. There's a chronology of posts here, Jroc...so you look quite the fool pretending people can't see your folly. I stated my position, Like I said I'm not focused on that one person You seemed to think that trail was the be all end all the perfect model for all gitmo detainees were is you're evidence of torture? 3 people water boarded torture? That’s just some stupid liberal talking points, and that’s all you are.

Okay folks, here's where the wheels come off of JRoc's neocon BS train. As the chronology of the posts show here, I at least once demonstrate where JRoc makes a statement that displays a terrific ignorance of recent history involving Gitmo. He seems determined to continue in this vein by making absurd statements that defy a simple google search to produce corrections of Jroc's feigned ignorance. Essentially, I proved Jroc wrong on SO many levels thus far...and now I ask a simple question that he obviously cannot/will not answer.

Jroc personifies the attributes of a bitter neocon parrot having to face the decimation of yet another talking point. So he keeps repeating his opinion/wishful thinking, as if that's going to change the matter of fact and history that proves him WRONG!

So I leave him to his delusion, as he avoids reality and touts his nonsense as the REAL point of discussion.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Okay folks, here's where the wheels come off of JRoc's neocon BS train. * * * *

There is a pattern to the bloviating of tackylib. He engages in massive self-congratulation with no actual basis in reality. Next, he repeats his belief that he has correctly stated all things "factual" even though he clearly has not -- and cannot. Then, he repeats his feeble ad hominem effort to denigrate the person who has kicked his proverbial ass.

It's therefore official. Tackylib is the official winner of the interwebz!

 

[Jroc]

Now that I've had to educate you on the facts......care to answer my question or are you going to continue to stall and blow smoke?

Can you post anything without all that useless bloviating? "bloviating"? Jeez, you're not very original, are you Jroc? Small wonder that I call you a neocon parrot. Seems every time I nail you on your BS point for point, you do the neocon shuffle, avoid the bulk of the response, excerpt one part and then continue your dodgy BS. There's a chronology of posts here, Jroc...so you look quite the fool pretending people can't see your folly. I stated my position, Like I said I'm not focused on that one person You seemed to think that trail was the be all end all the perfect model for all gitmo detainees were is you're evidence of torture? 3 people water boarded torture? That’s just some stupid liberal talking points, and that’s all you are.

Okay folks, here's where the wheels come off of JRoc's neocon BS train. As the chronology of the posts show here, I at least once demonstrate where JRoc makes a statement that displays a terrific ignorance of recent history involving Gitmo. He seems determined to continue in this vein by making absurd statements that defy a simple google search to produce corrections of Jroc's feigned ignorance. Essentially, I proved Jroc wrong on SO many levels thus far...and now I ask a simple question that he obviously cannot/will not answer.

Jroc personifies the attributes of a bitter neocon parrot having to face the decimation of yet another talking point. So he keeps repeating his opinion/wishful thinking, as if that's going to change the matter of fact and history that proves him WRONG!

So I leave him to his delusion, as he avoids reality and touts his nonsense as the REAL point of discussion.

Really? Who looks like a joke here? Neocon ..Neocon...Neocon..Do you even know what the word means? Talking points? Who’s the one with all the stupid talking points? Actually I think you're kind of funny, You keep repeating the same crap over and over no original thought there, no logic what so ever. I guess you think all you're long stupid posts make you sound intelligent...Sorry, Like I said "you're stuck on stupid" I love that phrase.. It fits you perfectly

 

[taichiliberal]

Here's a thought: if the discussion deteriorates into a personal range war of slam fests, then it's NOT about the topic of the thread....and therefore should be taken up on another subject thread, like "why I hate so and so?"

Too date, the most virulent complainers of Ghailani sentence offer more supposition, conjecture and a bizarre revision of relevent history than dealing with the actual valid facts regarding the case (as the chronology of the posts shows).

That being said...here's a question: Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?

As always, tackylib "asks" the wrong questions. And here's another example of why rational discussion with Liability is not possible after a certain point.....Liability has a serious revisionist bent when it comes to a reality that doesn't fit his ideology. As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability keeps trying to substitute his supposition, conjecture and opinion for facts and the logic based on those facts. Which is why he just doesn't respond to a question he doesn't like, and then creates his own. In short, Liability is NOT interested in facts, reality and history if he disagrees with it.
The probable sentence of 20 to life is NOT the problem.

Another example of Liability's intellectual dishonesty....the chronology of the posts shows Liabilty arguing JUST THAT POINT. But he never admitted that he was wrong, he just lies about what has previously transpired in order to try and avoid admitting that he and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong on this issue.
The prospect of an acquittal was more of a problem -- as ALL of the counts on which he GOT acquitted imply. Yes, he did get convicted of ONE count. I suppose we can all take some solace in small mercies. BUT, and this is one of those things that guys like you, tackylib, refuse to acknowledge: that one conviction of that one count is not even guaranteed to survive an appeal.

Again, Liability keeps pushing the latest neocon talking pointS..."well, he COULD'VE gotten off".

But as a matter of fact and history....he DIDN'T. Someone should school Liability on a little fact regarding trials....there is ALWAYS THE POSSIBLITY OF ACQUITTAL, unless the trial is rigged in favor of the prosecution...then it wouldn't be a fair trial then, would it? Which goes back to my question..... Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?More importantly, even if you wish to point to that one example as some kind of "shining success," that one instance of a non-damaging outcome is hardly proof that the idea of "trying" these fuckers as mere "criminals" and doing so in our civilian courts of law is a "good idea." It isn't. It remains a terrible idea.

And it remains a terrible idea for a number of reasons, many of which have already been discussed; all of which you choose to simply ignore. You don't even engage in "debate" honestly.

Again, Liability is pushing the absurd notion that a success is a failure because he and his ilk did not like the idea in the first place. Just you wait, Liability fumes! A terrorist will go free! Which is why I've stated time and again....little cretins like Liability don't give a damn about American values or security....they just want to be right all the time (that the little stupes go mute when you mention 500 people getting kicked from Gitmo under the Shrub is testament to their intellectual dishonesty)
Earth to liability......TFB if you don't like it, you and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong in a civilian court of law! Grow the fuck up and deal with. Well folks, I gave Liability a chance, and he fubbed it with his usual intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. Back to ignoring him.

 

[Liability]

Here's a thought: if the discussion deteriorates into a personal range war of slam fests, then it's NOT about the topic of the thread....and therefore should be taken up on another subject thread, like "why I hate so and so?"

Too date, the most virulent complainers of Ghailani sentence offer more supposition, conjecture and a bizarre revision of relevent history than dealing with the actual valid facts regarding the case (as the chronology of the posts shows).

That being said...here's a question: Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?

As always, tackylib "asks" the wrong questions. And here's another example of why rational discussion with Liability is not possible after a certain point.....Liability has a serious revisionist bent when it comes to a reality that doesn't fit his ideology. As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability keeps trying to substitute his supposition, conjecture and opinion for facts and the logic based on those facts. Which is why he just doesn't respond to a question he doesn't like, and then creates his own. In short, Liability is NOT interested in facts, reality and history if he disagrees with it.
The probable sentence of 20 to life is NOT the problem.

Another example of Liability's intellectual dishonesty....the chronology of the posts shows Liabilty arguing JUST THAT POINT. But he never admitted that he was wrong, he just lies about what has previously transpired in order to try and avoid admitting that he and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong on this issue.
The prospect of an acquittal was more of a problem -- as ALL of the counts on which he GOT acquitted imply. Yes, he did get convicted of ONE count. I suppose we can all take some solace in small mercies. BUT, and this is one of those things that guys like you, tackylib, refuse to acknowledge: that one conviction of that one count is not even guaranteed to survive an appeal.

Again, Liability keeps pushing the latest neocon talking pointS..."well, he COULD'VE gotten off".

But as a matter of fact and history....he DIDN'T. Someone should school Liability on a little fact regarding trials....there is ALWAYS THE POSSIBLITY OF ACQUITTAL, unless the trial is rigged in favor of the prosecution...then it wouldn't be a fair trial then, would it? Which goes back to my question..... Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?More importantly, even if you wish to point to that one example as some kind of "shining success," that one instance of a non-damaging outcome is hardly proof that the idea of "trying" these fuckers as mere "criminals" and doing so in our civilian courts of law is a "good idea." It isn't. It remains a terrible idea.

And it remains a terrible idea for a number of reasons, many of which have already been discussed; all of which you choose to simply ignore. You don't even engage in "debate" honestly.

Again, Liability is pushing the absurd notion that a success is a failure because he and his ilk did not like the idea in the first place. Just you wait, Liability fumes! A terrorist will go free! Which is why I've stated time and again....little cretins like Liability don't give a damn about American values or security....they just want to be right all the time (that the little stupes go mute when you mention 500 people getting kicked from Gitmo under the Shrub is testament to their intellectual dishonesty)
Earth to liability......TFB if you don't like it, you and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong in a civilian court of law! Grow the fuck up and deal with. Well folks, I gave Liability a chance, and he fubbed it with his usual intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. Back to ignoring him.

No, idiot. Your lies do not constitute my arguments.

What I said is what I believe. What you claim I am saying is either your ignorant ass misinterpretation or just a boring lib lie.

What I have said before and maintain is that it is a terribly stupid idea to treat captured enemy combatants (especially the illegal enemy combatants) as mere criminals and thus provide them with a "trial" in our civilian courts of law.

Dishonest gutless dickless ball-less assholes like tackylib are unable to formulate an argument without lying. A tragic state of affairs. Sucks to be him.

Notice that he can't actually address the points made against his "position." So all he does instead is lie, engage in pathetically feeble ad hominems and declare his fantasy "victory."

By the way, tackylib is far too stupid to figure out how to use the "quote" function. Isn't there some lib out there who will take pity on him and try to teach him the procedure? I mean, it's not exactly difficult. Too difficult for a retarded scumbag like tackylib, perhaps, but maybe with a little coaching?

By the way, the scumbag lying pussy tackylib likes to use meaningless phrases like "the chronology of his posts. . . ." But, that's just used to wrap the package. And his package contains nothing. He claims, for example, that I have argued that the "point" of my disagreement has been that the convicted scumbag may not get a sufficient sentence. In reality, I have never made that argument. Tackylib is just a liar.

What I have argued, quite consistently, is that it is a serious mistake to treat the actions of these enemy combatants as mere criminality. Tackylib is too much of a flaming pussy to concern himself with honesty, however.

 

[taichiliberal]

As always, tackylib "asks" the wrong questions. And here's another example of why rational discussion with Liability is not possible after a certain point.....Liability has a serious revisionist bent when it comes to a reality that doesn't fit his ideology. As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability keeps trying to substitute his supposition, conjecture and opinion for facts and the logic based on those facts. Which is why he just doesn't respond to a question he doesn't like, and then creates his own. In short, Liability is NOT interested in facts, reality and history if he disagrees with it.
The probable sentence of 20 to life is NOT the problem.

Another example of Liability's intellectual dishonesty....the chronology of the posts shows Liabilty arguing JUST THAT POINT. But he never admitted that he was wrong, he just lies about what has previously transpired in order to try and avoid admitting that he and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong on this issue.
The prospect of an acquittal was more of a problem -- as ALL of the counts on which he GOT acquitted imply. Yes, he did get convicted of ONE count. I suppose we can all take some solace in small mercies. BUT, and this is one of those things that guys like you, tackylib, refuse to acknowledge: that one conviction of that one count is not even guaranteed to survive an appeal.

Again, Liability keeps pushing the latest neocon talking pointS..."well, he COULD'VE gotten off".

But as a matter of fact and history....he DIDN'T. Someone should school Liability on a little fact regarding trials....there is ALWAYS THE POSSIBLITY OF ACQUITTAL, unless the trial is rigged in favor of the prosecution...then it wouldn't be a fair trial then, would it? Which goes back to my question..... Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?More importantly, even if you wish to point to that one example as some kind of "shining success," that one instance of a non-damaging outcome is hardly proof that the idea of "trying" these fuckers as mere "criminals" and doing so in our civilian courts of law is a "good idea." It isn't. It remains a terrible idea.

And it remains a terrible idea for a number of reasons, many of which have already been discussed; all of which you choose to simply ignore. You don't even engage in "debate" honestly.

Again, Liability is pushing the absurd notion that a success is a failure because he and his ilk did not like the idea in the first place. Just you wait, Liability fumes! A terrorist will go free! Which is why I've stated time and again....little cretins like Liability don't give a damn about American values or security....they just want to be right all the time (that the little stupes go mute when you mention 500 people getting kicked from Gitmo under the Shrub is testament to their intellectual dishonesty)
Earth to liability......TFB if you don't like it, you and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong in a civilian court of law! Grow the fuck up and deal with. Well folks, I gave Liability a chance, and he fubbed it with his usual intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. Back to ignoring him.

No, idiot. Your lies do not constitute my arguments.

What I said is what I believe. What you claim I am saying is either your ignorant ass misinterpretation or just a boring lib lie.

What I have said before and maintain is that it is a terribly stupid idea to treat captured enemy combatants (especially the illegal enemy combatants) as mere criminals and thus provide them with a "trial" in our civilian courts of law.

Dishonest gutless dickless ball-less assholes like tackylib are unable to formulate an argument without lying. A tragic state of affairs. Sucks to be him.

Notice that he can't actually address the points made against his "position." So all he does instead is lie, engage in pathetically feeble ad hominems and declare his fantasy "victory."

By the way, tackylib is far too stupid to figure out how to use the "quote" function. Isn't there some lib out there who will take pity on him and try to teach him the procedure? I mean, it's not exactly difficult. Too difficult for a retarded scumbag like tackylib, perhaps, but maybe with a little coaching?

By the way, the scumbag lying pussy tackylib likes to use meaningless phrases like "the chronology of his posts. . . ." But, that's just used to wrap the package. And his package contains nothing. He claims, for example, that I have argued that the "point" of my disagreement has been that the convicted scumbag may not get a sufficient sentence. In reality, I have never made that argument. Tackylib is just a liar.

What I have argued, quite consistently, is that it is a serious mistake to treat the actions of these enemy combatants as mere criminality. Tackylib is too much of a flaming pussy to concern himself with honesty, however.

P.S. - I detest liars: Post #42, 159, 178, 185 of this thread demonstrates why this latest diatribe by Liability makes him either a bald faced liar, incredibly dim or one brick shy of a load. I'm done with his nonsense.

 

[Liability]

Again, Liability is pushing the absurd notion that a success is a failure because he and his ilk did not like the idea in the first place. Just you wait, Liability fumes! A terrorist will go free! Which is why I've stated time and again....little cretins like Liability don't give a damn about American values or security....they just want to be right all the time (that the little stupes go mute when you mention 500 people getting kicked from Gitmo under the Shrub is testament to their intellectual dishonesty)
Earth to liability......TFB if you don't like it, you and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong in a civilian court of law! Grow the fuck up and deal with. Well folks, I gave Liability a chance, and he fubbed it with his usual intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. Back to ignoring him.

No, idiot. Your lies do not constitute my arguments.

What I said is what I believe. What you claim I am saying is either your ignorant ass misinterpretation or just a boring lib lie.

What I have said before and maintain is that it is a terribly stupid idea to treat captured enemy combatants (especially the illegal enemy combatants) as mere criminals and thus provide them with a "trial" in our civilian courts of law.

Dishonest gutless dickless ball-less assholes like tackylib are unable to formulate an argument without lying. A tragic state of affairs. Sucks to be him.

Notice that he can't actually address the points made against his "position." So all he does instead is lie, engage in pathetically feeble ad hominems and declare his fantasy "victory."

By the way, tackylib is far too stupid to figure out how to use the "quote" function. Isn't there some lib out there who will take pity on him and try to teach him the procedure? I mean, it's not exactly difficult. Too difficult for a retarded scumbag like tackylib, perhaps, but maybe with a little coaching?

By the way, the scumbag lying pussy tackylib likes to use meaningless phrases like "the chronology of his posts. . . ." But, that's just used to wrap the package. And his package contains nothing. He claims, for example, that I have argued that the "point" of my disagreement has been that the convicted scumbag may not get a sufficient sentence. In reality, I have never made that argument. Tackylib is just a liar.

What I have argued, quite consistently, is that it is a serious mistake to treat the actions of these enemy combatants as mere criminality. Tackylib is too much of a flaming pussy to concern himself with honesty, however.

P.S. - I detest liars: Post #42, 159, 178, 185 of this thread demonstrates why this latest diatribe by Liability makes him either a bald faced liar, incredibly dim or one brick shy of a load. I'm done with his nonsense.

Then you detest yourself since citing to post numbers does nothing to further your thoroughly dishonest claim that I have lied. I have not, as you know.

You uber libs do tend to be liars. But you are an abject liar of the lowest kind, tackylib. You have no honesty in you.

Again, the fact remains: the conservative argument (my consistently stated argument, you lying pussy, tackylib) is that it is an incredibly bad idea, bordering on criminal stupidity, to treat these al qaeda combatants as mere criminals. They should not be getting tried in our civilian courts of law. They are not engaged in mere criminality. They are engaged in war. Illegal methods to engage in war is not a "crime," except a war crime. Combatants do not get trials.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Here's a thought: if the discussion deteriorates into a personal range war of slam fests, then it's NOT about the topic of the thread....and therefore should be taken up on another subject thread, like "why I hate so and so?"

Too date, the most virulent complainers of Ghailani sentence offer more supposition, conjecture and a bizarre revision of relevent history than dealing with the actual valid facts regarding the case (as the chronology of the posts shows).

That being said...here's a question: Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?

As always, tackylib "asks" the wrong questions. And here's another example of why rational discussion with Liability is not possible after a certain point.....Liability has a serious revisionist bent when it comes to a reality that doesn't fit his ideology. As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability keeps trying to substitute his supposition, conjecture and opinion for facts and the logic based on those facts. Which is why he just doesn't respond to a question he doesn't like, and then creates his own. In short, Liability is NOT interested in facts, reality and history if he disagrees with it.
The probable sentence of 20 to life is NOT the problem.

Another example of Liability's intellectual dishonesty....the chronology of the posts shows Liabilty arguing JUST THAT POINT. But he never admitted that he was wrong, he just lies about what has previously transpired in order to try and avoid admitting that he and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong on this issue.
The prospect of an acquittal was more of a problem -- as ALL of the counts on which he GOT acquitted imply. Yes, he did get convicted of ONE count. I suppose we can all take some solace in small mercies. BUT, and this is one of those things that guys like you, tackylib, refuse to acknowledge: that one conviction of that one count is not even guaranteed to survive an appeal.

Again, Liability keeps pushing the latest neocon talking pointS..."well, he COULD'VE gotten off".

But as a matter of fact and history....he DIDN'T. Someone should school Liability on a little fact regarding trials....there is ALWAYS THE POSSIBLITY OF ACQUITTAL, unless the trial is rigged in favor of the prosecution...then it wouldn't be a fair trial then, would it? Which goes back to my question..... Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?More importantly, even if you wish to point to that one example as some kind of "shining success," that one instance of a non-damaging outcome is hardly proof that the idea of "trying" these fuckers as mere "criminals" and doing so in our civilian courts of law is a "good idea." It isn't. It remains a terrible idea.

And it remains a terrible idea for a number of reasons, many of which have already been discussed; all of which you choose to simply ignore. You don't even engage in "debate" honestly.

Again, Liability is pushing the absurd notion that a success is a failure because he and his ilk did not like the idea in the first place. Just you wait, Liability fumes! A terrorist will go free! Which is why I've stated time and again....little cretins like Liability don't give a damn about American values or security....they just want to be right all the time (that the little stupes go mute when you mention 500 people getting kicked from Gitmo under the Shrub is testament to their intellectual dishonesty)
Earth to liability......TFB if you don't like it, you and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong in a civilian court of law! Grow the fuck up and deal with. Well folks, I gave Liability a chance, and he fubbed it with his usual intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. Back to ignoring him.

Ahhhhhh, the ol' ignore button......The ultimate symbol of loony liberal weakness!

 

[taichiliberal]

As always, tackylib "asks" the wrong questions. And here's another example of why rational discussion with Liability is not possible after a certain point.....Liability has a serious revisionist bent when it comes to a reality that doesn't fit his ideology. As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability keeps trying to substitute his supposition, conjecture and opinion for facts and the logic based on those facts. Which is why he just doesn't respond to a question he doesn't like, and then creates his own. In short, Liability is NOT interested in facts, reality and history if he disagrees with it.
The probable sentence of 20 to life is NOT the problem.

Another example of Liability's intellectual dishonesty....the chronology of the posts shows Liabilty arguing JUST THAT POINT. But he never admitted that he was wrong, he just lies about what has previously transpired in order to try and avoid admitting that he and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong on this issue.
The prospect of an acquittal was more of a problem -- as ALL of the counts on which he GOT acquitted imply. Yes, he did get convicted of ONE count. I suppose we can all take some solace in small mercies. BUT, and this is one of those things that guys like you, tackylib, refuse to acknowledge: that one conviction of that one count is not even guaranteed to survive an appeal.

Again, Liability keeps pushing the latest neocon talking pointS..."well, he COULD'VE gotten off".

But as a matter of fact and history....he DIDN'T. Someone should school Liability on a little fact regarding trials....there is ALWAYS THE POSSIBLITY OF ACQUITTAL, unless the trial is rigged in favor of the prosecution...then it wouldn't be a fair trial then, would it? Which goes back to my question..... Exactly what sentence were all the critics of the recent Ghailani trial looking for that they would have found satisfactory? And how can they say that a minimum 20 year sentence (mandatory under federal court ruling) with an additional possibility of life without parole hanging in the balance is a "failure"?More importantly, even if you wish to point to that one example as some kind of "shining success," that one instance of a non-damaging outcome is hardly proof that the idea of "trying" these fuckers as mere "criminals" and doing so in our civilian courts of law is a "good idea." It isn't. It remains a terrible idea.

And it remains a terrible idea for a number of reasons, many of which have already been discussed; all of which you choose to simply ignore. You don't even engage in "debate" honestly.

Again, Liability is pushing the absurd notion that a success is a failure because he and his ilk did not like the idea in the first place. Just you wait, Liability fumes! A terrorist will go free! Which is why I've stated time and again....little cretins like Liability don't give a damn about American values or security....they just want to be right all the time (that the little stupes go mute when you mention 500 people getting kicked from Gitmo under the Shrub is testament to their intellectual dishonesty)
Earth to liability......TFB if you don't like it, you and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong in a civilian court of law! Grow the fuck up and deal with. Well folks, I gave Liability a chance, and he fubbed it with his usual intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. Back to ignoring him.

Ahhhhhh, the ol' ignore button......The ultimate symbol of loony liberal weakness!

As opposed to indulging the ad naseum squawks of insipidly stubborn neocon parrots? As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability has demonstrated time and again his intellectually dishonesty and congenital ignorance on various posts. No sense in wasting time and space scolling past his repetitive nonsense.

And as this thread shows, YOU couldn't offer any rational or logical or factual counters to what I've posted. All you've got is sour grapes. So bunky, if you don't like what I post, don't read it or IA me....but I suspect all you'll do is just blow smoke and spew neocon sour grapes, as it's obvious you can't debate worth a damn beyond a certain point. Carry on.

 

[Liability]

Again, Liability is pushing the absurd notion that a success is a failure because he and his ilk did not like the idea in the first place. Just you wait, Liability fumes! A terrorist will go free! Which is why I've stated time and again....little cretins like Liability don't give a damn about American values or security....they just want to be right all the time (that the little stupes go mute when you mention 500 people getting kicked from Gitmo under the Shrub is testament to their intellectual dishonesty)
Earth to liability......TFB if you don't like it, you and the rest of the neocon parrots, politico and punditry were proven wrong in a civilian court of law! Grow the fuck up and deal with. Well folks, I gave Liability a chance, and he fubbed it with his usual intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. Back to ignoring him.

Ahhhhhh, the ol' ignore button......The ultimate symbol of loony liberal weakness!

As opposed to indulging the ad naseum squawks of insipidly stubborn neocon parrots? As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability has demonstrated time and again his intellectually dishonesty and congenital ignorance on various posts. No sense in wasting time and space scolling past his repetitive nonsense.

And as this thread shows, YOU couldn't offer any rational or logical or factual counters to what I've posted. All you've got is sour grapes. So bunky, if you don't like what I post, don't read it or IA me....but I suspect all you'll do is just blow smoke and spew neocon sour grapes, as it's obvious you can't debate worth a damn beyond a certain point. Carry on.

The phrase you use so pretentiously, "the chronology of the posts," is meaningless. Chronology doesn't show any lie. The substance of my posts themselves don't show any lie, either, obviously, since unlike you, you moron, I have not lied.

You lie compulsively.

The fact is that I have consistently stated the same argument. You, by contrast, tackylib, flounder around helplessly because you don't have any working knowledge on the topics you try to discuss.

And you are functionally illiterate, too. That's always an added bonus when trying to read one of your gibberish-laden posts.

(By the way, post #42 was YOUR post, you fucking imbecile. That's interesting because you identified it as an containing some alleged "lie." Maybe, on a subconscious level, you are admitting that you are a liar?)

 

[Jroc]

Quote: Originally Posted by Liability

(By the way, post #42 was YOUR post, you fucking imbecile. That's interesting because you identified it as an containing some alleged "lie." Maybe, on a subconscious level, you are admitting that you are a liar?)

Nah... He just got his liberal talking points mixed up... You've got to love it when that idiot trashylib posts his stupidity, then congratulates himself for being an idiot. Like I said, his posts are funny to me.

 

[taichiliberal]

Quote: Originally Posted by Liability

(By the way, post #42 was YOUR post, you fucking imbecile. That's interesting because you identified it as an containing some alleged "lie." Maybe, on a subconscious level, you are admitting that you are a liar?)

Nah... He just got his liberal talking points mixed up... You've got to love it when that idiot trashylib posts his stupidity, then congratulates himself for being an idiot. Like I said, his posts are funny to me.

Folks, I've already dumped the lying, mentally challenged Liability as it's impossible to have a rational discussion/debate with him.

Jroc seems to suffer from Liability's affilitions to a degree.

Anyone with an 8th of the brain that God gave them can see that Post #42 was a follow up TO THE INITIAL response by Liability. It's self explanatory to anyone with a GED reading comprehension what Liability stated and my accurate correcting response. But as you can see, Jroc is like his buddy.....it's not about facts or logic or honesty with neocon parrots....it's about trying to appear right in the anti-Obama agenda even when the facts speak to the contrary.

Well, my job is done in exposing these two neocon jackasses for their intellectual dishonesty. I leave them to their maudlin exchanges and mutual bitterness in defeat on a simple neocon talking point.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Folks, I've already dumped the lying, mentally challenged Liability as it's impossible to have a rational discussion/debate with him.

* * * *

And yet, the pussy liar known as tackylib is still deomstrating his boundless fascination with me and every scrap I deign to give him, That's ok. It's not like anybody would ever confuse tackylib with an honest person.

The problem that lying quiff has with me is that I don't accept his always unsupported ASSumptions. The douchey m-f-er is -- sadly -- nothing but an habitual liar and he is incapable of making a coherent (much less a logically valid) argument.

He wouldn't know a syllogism if it came up and kicked him where his nuts would be if he were actually a man.

 

[Liability]

Quote: Originally Posted by Liability

(By the way, post #42 was YOUR post, you fucking imbecile. That's interesting because you identified it as an containing some alleged "lie." Maybe, on a subconscious level, you are admitting that you are a liar?)

Nah... He just got his liberal talking points mixed up... You've got to love it when that idiot trashylib posts his stupidity, then congratulates himself for being an idiot. Like I said, his posts are funny to me.

He is entertaining in a juvenile way. Like watching the class retard trying to tie his shoes. He can't make any progress, but it is kinda funny to observe.

I must go back and re-read HIS post #42 now to spot which of his mutterings he considers the lie. (This will not be a challenge.)

 

[Jroc]

Quote: Originally Posted by Liability

(By the way, post #42 was YOUR post, you fucking imbecile. That's interesting because you identified it as an containing some alleged "lie." Maybe, on a subconscious level, you are admitting that you are a liar?)

Nah... He just got his liberal talking points mixed up... You've got to love it when that idiot trashylib posts his stupidity, then congratulates himself for being an idiot. Like I said, his posts are funny to me.

He is entertaining in a juvenile way. Like watching the class retard trying to tie his shoes. He can't make any progress, but it is kinda funny to observe.

I must go back and re-read HIS post #42 now to spot which of his mutterings he considers the lie. (This will not be a challenge.)

I didn't re-read his post, it doesn't really matter. They say when you continually argue stupid points with an idiot, it makes you as stupid as they are. I'd say just let it go. If you've read one of his posts on this subject you've read them all. Lets sum it up...The "Gahlani trial was a great success all terrorist should be brought to this country given Constitutional rights and high priced lawyers paid for by the tax payers"

 

[Varth Dader]

...For my part, I think the release (with some exception) of those detainees was a mistake since it DID permit some of the unlawful combatants to return to the "battlefield." That is EXACTLY what we have a right to avoid.

...
...
The problem is -- as any honest person can see, which explains why you refuse to see it -- that the voluminous number of counts on which the bastard was acquitted shows how dangerous it is to attend to these scumbags using our civilian courts of law as the mechanism. Further, as I have noted, the one count on which the fucker got convicted COULD be overturned on appeal.

Finally, of course, the REAL argument (which you, as expected, simply ignore and evade) is that trying these cases as though they are mere matters of criminal justice entails a whole array of "due process" rights to the "accused," which serves ONLY to put all of us behind the eight-ball.

.....

The real problem here is that you are prejudging the issue and totally disregard the legal process (and I would argue again, have no faith in the legal system).

You start from the outcome and want to reverse engineer the system.

You want convictions. You don't want any potential terrorist captured to be set free.

And from that outcome, you want to build a "fake" legal system that would give you the result you are seeking.

I will requote that first part of your answer:

...For my part, I think the release (with some exception) of those detainees was a mistake since it DID permit some of the unlawful combatants to return to the "battlefield." That is EXACTLY what we have a right to avoid.

Permitting some of the unlawful combatants to return to the "battlefield" equals a process that failed.

Maybe you could explain to us what it would take for someone to be returned to the battlefield? What criteria would that detainee have to meet to be returned to the battlefield?

I really think your argument is based on the outcome you are seeking. You are not willing to let the chips fall where they may. This isn't a way to have a democratic and free society. You have to accept the risks. If not, you could make that exact argument to justify just about any kind of police technique (being arrested for extensive periods but not charged, engaging in egregious profiling, getting rid of search and seizures protections, etc.)

 

[Liability]

...For my part, I think the release (with some exception) of those detainees was a mistake since it DID permit some of the unlawful combatants to return to the "battlefield." That is EXACTLY what we have a right to avoid.

...
...
The problem is -- as any honest person can see, which explains why you refuse to see it -- that the voluminous number of counts on which the bastard was acquitted shows how dangerous it is to attend to these scumbags using our civilian courts of law as the mechanism. Further, as I have noted, the one count on which the fucker got convicted COULD be overturned on appeal.

Finally, of course, the REAL argument (which you, as expected, simply ignore and evade) is that trying these cases as though they are mere matters of criminal justice entails a whole array of "due process" rights to the "accused," which serves ONLY to put all of us behind the eight-ball.

.....

The real problem here is that you are prejudging the issue and totally disregard the legal process (and I would argue again, have no faith in the legal system).

You start from the outcome and want to reverse engineer the system.

You want convictions. You don't want any potential terrorist captured to be set free.

And from that outcome, you want to build a "fake" legal system that would give you the result you are seeking.

I will requote that first part of your answer:

...For my part, I think the release (with some exception) of those detainees was a mistake since it DID permit some of the unlawful combatants to return to the "battlefield." That is EXACTLY what we have a right to avoid.

Permitting some of the unlawful combatants to return to the "battlefield" equals a process that failed.

Maybe you could explain to us what it would take for someone to be returned to the battlefield? What criteria would that detainee have to meet to be returned to the battlefield?

I really think your argument is based on the outcome you are seeking. You are not willing to let the chips fall where they may. This isn't a way to have a democratic and free society. You have to accept the risks. If not, you could make that exact argument to justify just about any kind of police technique (being arrested for extensive periods but not charged, engaging in egregious profiling, getting rid of search and seizures protections, etc.)

Wrong. "The problem here" is that you are unable or unwilling to view the matter as a problem that exists entirely OUTSIDE of the legal system or notions of "due process" which pertain to legal matters within the criminal justice system.

You WANT it to be a "legal" problem so that all of your arguments "flow" logically from that premise and your conclusion would necessarily follow. But it is not now and never was a "legal" problem. It is entirely a matter of war -- one involving the right of the nation to protect itself from all manner of attacks.

If I were to knowingly point a loaded gun at some random person on a city street, carefully aim and then pull the trigger and let a round fly trying to hit that person's heart or spinal cord or brain, intending to take his life, and if the gun worked properly and my aim were true, and the bullet struck the intended target snuffing out the life of that poor victim, in most circumstances, I would be guilty of murder.

I would be justifiably arrested and be given all manner of due process rights including being given Miranda warnings, getting a lawyer to help me if I couldn't pay for one of my own, getting the benefit of the rules of criminal procedure and evidence, impartial rulings from a detached judge and an evaluation by a jury of my peers premised on their findings of fact (from the trial evidence if I elect to exercise my right to go to trial). That and a whole lot more. And we all agree that giving these guaranteed rights to the criminally accused is perfectly proper.

But there are some powerful exceptions. If the shooting I did in that hypothetical example came under different circumstances, I might not be guilty of any crime -- so much so that I might not even have to face the indignity of being arrested. For example, if the dead guy had broken into my house in the dead of night and I had exercised my 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun, grabbed it and intentionally shot the burglar, I would be perfectly justified in the eyes of the law. No crime. Maybe not even an arrest. Even though my INTENT was to kill the bastard. Imagine that.

Now, with that as background, let's get down to the point. If a soldier has enlisted (or a Marine, say) and gone through basic training and has gotten deployed to some world hot spot, like Afghanistan, he is not only permitted to shoot the enemy in combat, he actually has an obligation to do so, normally. No crime at all.

However, it sometimes happens that it proves unnecessary to kill the enemy. Sometimes, when the circumstances allow for it, the enemy may surrender or get captured. Then, they get held. For uniformed legal combatants, they are most often then given status as Prisoners of War. How long are THEY held? Until the hostilities are over. This is to prevent them from having the ability to return to the field of battle where they might cause the death of servicemen and servicewomen on OUR side. There is no "issue" susceptible of a trial resolution. They simply and flatly get detained and held.

Illegal non-uniformed combatants are not legally entitled to the same classifications and are not entitled to the same generous treatment. But when we capture some of the present enemy combatants (the illegal variety, let's not forget), WE tend to defer to the requirements of civilization. We DETAIN them. We hold them. Our objective is to make sure they cannot return to the "field of combat." So we detain them until the hostilities are over.

IF (and I acknowledge that it could happen) there is an issue about whether a particular detainee is actually an enemy combatant, that might require a fair hearing. Not -- by the way -- a "trial" in our courts of law. Our Courts of LAW do have some input, after the fact. The law is settled that such determinations are subject to review. That's an appellate issue, not an original trial issue, however.

But other than that, there is nothing to resolve by way of a 'trial.'

It is not -- despite your desire for it to be otherwise -- a "legal" issue we are discussing here. It is a matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.