Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[taichiliberal]

The genus of Eric Holder....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjAXcU89gEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bDkZmRNvjg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch6IZ8zmkGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3x2MOgaGNw

AS YOU CAN SEE FOLKS, JROC IS LIKE YOUR TYPICAL NEOCON CHEERLEADER.....DEFEATED ON ONE POINT, HE SIMPLY TRIES TO CHANGE THE POINT OF DISCUSSION.

It's truly disgusting to me that the neocons/birthers/oathers, etc., are more interested in discrediting Obama at any level than the FACT that you have a successful trial where the accused terrorist conspirator was found guilty and gets a mandatory minimum sentence 20 years, with a possbile life without parole added on.

Jroc just switches gears and tries to discredit/slander Holder a'la' Faux News vid clips....another out of context accompanied with supposition and conjecture statements. And what would be funny if it weren't tragic is that neocon parrots like JRoc either don't know or lie about the FACT that it was the Justice Dept. UNDER THE SHRUB'S TERM IN OFFICE THAT DROPPED THE CHARGES AGAINST THE IDIOTS ACCUSED OF VOTER INTIMIDATION.


Like I said, you just can't satisfy Obama opponents....and JRoc proves my point with each of his posts.

 

[taichiliberal]

Why some of yall get so worked up over the alleged civil rights of some scumbags who actively tried to kill as many US citizens as humanly possible is beyond me. You DO realize that those very scumbags would love nothing more than to kill you and your entire family don't you?

Fuck the terrorists, wring them for every drop of information they have then shoot em in the fucking head.

Why don't you put on your socks and shoes, go over to your local library, and read up on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and how our Justice system applies to murders, robbers, rapists, thieves, war criminals, terrorists and enemy combatants, etc. You'll find that one of the things that makes America so appealing to the rest of the world is equal justice under the law, where the accused is granted a fair trial and protected against undo prosecution.

You don't like it, move to Saudi Arabia.

 

[rdean]

I think that under Bush, there were like three terrorists "convicted" by Military Tribunal and Bush let two go.

Please prove me wrong. Someone, anyone.

 

[Jroc]

The genus of Eric Holder....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjAXcU89gEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bDkZmRNvjg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch6IZ8zmkGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3x2MOgaGNw

AS YOU CAN SEE FOLKS, JROC IS LIKE YOUR TYPICAL NEOCON CHEERLEADER.....DEFEATED ON ONE POINT, HE SIMPLY TRIES TO CHANGE THE POINT OF DISCUSSION.

Those videos only prove the point that Holder is incompetent

It's truly disgusting to me that the neocons/birthers/oathers, etc., are more interested in discrediting Obama at any level than the FACT that you have a successful trial where the accused terrorist conspirator was found guilty and gets a mandatory minimum sentence 20 years, with a possbile life without parole added on.

Blah..Blah ...Blah one count out of 13 great job!

Jroc just switches gears and tries to discredit/slander Holder a'la' Faux News vid clips....another out of context accompanied with supposition and conjecture statements. And what would be funny if it weren't tragic is that neocon parrots like JRoc either don't know or lie about the FACT that it was the Justice Dept. UNDER THE SHRUB'S TERM IN OFFICE THAT DROPPED THE CHARGES AGAINST THE IDIOTS ACCUSED OF VOTER INTIMIDATION.

Were do you come up with that crap?

"In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.

Associated Press

Attorney General Eric Holder
.When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.

There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.

Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future."

 

[Liability]

I think that under Bush, there were like three terrorists "convicted" by Military Tribunal and Bush let two go.

Please prove me wrong. Someone, anyone.

You made the asshole assertion, douchey. You prove it.

Which allegedly convicted terrorist(s) did President Bush "let go?"

When?

Circumstances?

Lin?

Or are you just making up shit again, retardean?

 

[taichiliberal]

* * * *

WWII involved NATIONS declaring WAR on each other...with open field combat and open acts of massive troop aggression. Combatants CAPTURED were SOLDIERS, thus they fell under the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Ghailani was wanted by the FBI in connection to the bombing of an embassy that killed US personnel that was suspected of being an Al Qaeda connected operation. The current "war on terror" is actually an attempt to stop organizations that use terror tactics....these organizations are NOT a nation, NOT a massive army, navy or air force....which is why a federal court would be more suited to try the case....as with any other similar act that would fall under FBI jurisdiction.


BIG DIFFERENCE

* * * *

As I asked someone with your similar mindset before on this thread....is it customary for the Military tribunals to use testimony born of torture to get a conviction? If so, that sort of throws the whole truth, justice and the American way out the window, right?

The Shrub's ability to deem anyone an "enemy combatant" and toss them into Gitmo wasn't working out well....releasing 500 people after years of detainment and interrogation without explanation wasn't a positive thing...and holding others indefinitely without some definitive end game and being highly secretive wasn't exactly the smartest thing to do.

So instead, we have Ghailani tried in federal court...convicted and sentenced. America is secure, NYC wasn't ground to a halt and a conspirator with terrorists is off the streets in jail LEGALLY.

Had Ghailani been caught with a group of Al Qaeda in a firefight with US soldiers in Afghanistan, then your comparison to WWII would have been much closer (but no cigar).

So again, YOU WERE WRONG.....GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT.

Tackylib's infantile analysis is precisely what's wrong with the "thinking" of the modern American "liberal" on the topic of fighting the terrorists.

Tackylib will never be able to grasp just how wrong he is. He is a modern American uber lib and thus his mind is rigidly incapable of grasping obviously valid rejoinders to his silly notions.

Notice how Liability, who has NO ability to critically think for himself and cannot logically refute what he doesn't like always preambles with personal attacks based on NOTHING but opinion.

If a NATION declares war on us (think Germany or think Japan which didn't bother with the declaration before their sneak attack), then obviously we will be at war as soon as we authorize the use of our military to engage the enemy. The fighting, historically, has indeed been done on battlefields between uniformed combatants. Tackylib recognizes this as "war" and this is ALL he is capable of recognizing as war. Note how Liability tries to pose a moot point as if he's teaching me something...even thought the chronology of the post clearly shows how I initially used WWII as an example....and he throws in yet another accusation based solely on his personal opinion. Another testament to the intellectual bankruptcy that is Liability.

But if an organized non-governmental operation of international scope whose combatants do not wear identifying uniforms declares war on us (sneak attacks ring a bell, anyone?) and WE reciprocate by authorizing the use of our military to fight them, and then proceed to do just that, according to idiots like Tackylib, we are "not" at "war." Instead, jerk-offs like Tackylib, who are incapable of rational thinking, insist that the actions of the groups like al qaeda are merely criminal actions and should be treated as such by law enforcement (like the FBI and local police departments) and not by the military and intelligence agencies. Again, another dishonest revision of the previous conversation by Liability. Liability is ignorant of American history when dealing with terrorist organizations....it's done with intelligence and police actions along with surgical military strikes....which is why Clinton was able to take down, prosecute, convict and sentence so many terrorists who are doing time in jail today. Again, Liability LIES about what I wrote, as I NEVER said the USA wasn't at war with Al Qaeda (it was the Shrub who coined the idiotic phrase "war on terror", as you can't have a war with a military tactic)...which is a constant with neocon parrots who cannot logically and factually defend their beliefs....especially in the face of real life events that contradict them.

Federal Courts, say the idiots like Tackylib, are better suited to deal with these asshole al qaeda types. Why? Because (using his circular "reasoning") Courts deal with "crimes." When confronted with the fact that the information used to capture such scumbags may have been derived from our military/intelligence efforts, and that the information must not be permitted to get to the hands of our enemies for a wide variety of reasons, douche bags like Tackylib dismiss the objection. Yet, if we treat these captured enemies as mere criminals, then they would be entitled to "criminal" trials, and this entails giving them "discovery." For a failure to share such "discovery" the penalty could be dismissal of the case.


Why would we CHOOSE to place OURSELVES in the position of having to confront the dilemma of either sharing military/intelligence secrets WITH the very fucking enemy we are fighting or being ordered by our own legal system to let the captured enemy go?

No. When the faux "logic" of idiot uber libs like Tackylib reveals that we are creating such completely avoidable (false) dilemmas for ourselves, we have an obligation in logic to reject the original mistaken premise. Terrorists are not mere criminals. They are enemy warriors. Illegal combatants are still combatants.

Tackylib, where the result of your would-be "logic" is so perverse and untenable, it is your would-be "logic" that is mistaken.

But as I said, you will never be able to admit this or even grasp it. Thankfully, your extremely shallow thinking is the thinking of a distinct minority.

And here folks, is yet another classic case of neocon denial! All Liability's blathering has been PROVEN WRONG WITH THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF GHAILANI. Liability is a typical neocon parrot....despite the failure of their propaganda, the neocons just keep stubbornly repeating the lie to the point of insipidness.

 

[taichiliberal]

The genus of Eric Holder....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjAXcU89gEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bDkZmRNvjg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch6IZ8zmkGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3x2MOgaGNw

AS YOU CAN SEE FOLKS, JROC IS LIKE YOUR TYPICAL NEOCON CHEERLEADER.....DEFEATED ON ONE POINT, HE SIMPLY TRIES TO CHANGE THE POINT OF DISCUSSION.

Those videos only prove the point that Holder is incompetent

It's truly disgusting to me that the neocons/birthers/oathers, etc., are more interested in discrediting Obama at any level than the FACT that you have a successful trial where the accused terrorist conspirator was found guilty and gets a mandatory minimum sentence 20 years, with a possbile life without parole added on.

Blah..Blah ...Blah one count out of 13 great job!

Jroc just switches gears and tries to discredit/slander Holder a'la' Faux News vid clips....another out of context accompanied with supposition and conjecture statements. And what would be funny if it weren't tragic is that neocon parrots like JRoc either don't know or lie about the FACT that it was the Justice Dept. UNDER THE SHRUB'S TERM IN OFFICE THAT DROPPED THE CHARGES AGAINST THE IDIOTS ACCUSED OF VOTER INTIMIDATION.

Were do you come up with that crap?

"In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.

Associated Press

Attorney General Eric Holder
.When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.

There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.

Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future."

Ahhh, I was wrong on one point....you see, the Justice Dept. under the Shrub DID NOT PROSECUTE BECAUSE THEY FOUND THERE WEREN'T SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO DO SO. Do your homework if you don't believe me....and then go on a tirade against the Shrub's Justice Dept.

And just to bring you up to speed despite the mind numbing neocon nonsense from the Rev. Moon's Washington Times....even Olberman gets it:

http://www.snuson.com/forum/showthr...Racist-Liars-Bush-Pardoned-New-Black-Panthers


And again, only a complete neocon asshole would try to ingore or demean the FACT that a terrorist conspirator was successfully prosecuted and mandatorily sentenced to a minimum of 20 years with the possible addition of life without parole.

And the attempt to slander Holder by using the typical neocon slander machine just doesn't cut it when ALL the facts are known.

Now, let's watch Jroc repeat his disproven BS ad nauseum.

 

[taichiliberal]

I think that under Bush, there were like three terrorists "convicted" by Military Tribunal and Bush let two go.

Please prove me wrong. Someone, anyone.

You made the asshole assertion, douchey. You prove it.

Which allegedly convicted terrorist(s) did President Bush "let go?"

When?

Circumstances?

Lin?

Or are you just making up shit again, retardean?

Just off the top of my head.....Out of the 20 cases, Osama's limo driver was one of the 3 convictions via military tribunal under the Shrub. He got 5 years, which was reduced to 6 months for time served (Gitmo, I believe) and released to Yemen.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, we have a SAFE trial with a conviction....a hell of a lot more than Bush did for 8 years with all his Constitution/Bill of Rights bending actions. More to come, I'm sure

.


Since when do we bring the enemy captured on the battlefield to the U.S. and give them Constitutional rights? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been executed by now if not for you stupid libs. The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, you libs are such backwards idiots...Unreal!!

Justice for KSM!!

The constitution applies to human beings in our custody and jurisdiction you fuckin halfwit.

You have no more love of the constitution and the rule of law than most of the psycopathes in prison.

NO!....Enemy COMBATANTS do not fall under the laws of our constitution.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Holder needs to go.....He's the biggest joke of an attorney general this country has ever seen.....But then, his boss, Barack Obama, is the biggest joke of a president this country has ever seen.

 

[taichiliberal]

.


Since when do we bring the enemy captured on the battlefield to the U.S. and give them Constitutional rights? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been executed by now if not for you stupid libs. The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, you libs are such backwards idiots...Unreal!!

Justice for KSM!!

The constitution applies to human beings in our custody and jurisdiction you fuckin halfwit.

You have no more love of the constitution and the rule of law than most of the psycopathes in prison.

NO!....Enemy COMBATANTS do not fall under the laws of our constitution.

Not quite....as Justice Stevens will tell you.

Justice John Paul Stevens and National Security - C-SPAN Video Library

 

[taichiliberal]

Holder needs to go.....He's the biggest joke of an attorney general this country has ever seen.....But then, his boss, Barack Obama, is the biggest joke of a president this country has ever seen.

And yet none of his critics have the cojones to acknowledge that his administration did what tthey said couldn't be done....try, convict and sentence a terrorist collaborator/conspirator in civilian court without endangering national security.

 

[Liability]

Holder needs to go.....He's the biggest joke of an attorney general this country has ever seen.....But then, his boss, Barack Obama, is the biggest joke of a president this country has ever seen.

And yet none of his critics have the cojones to acknowledge that his administration did what tthey said couldn't be done....try, convict and sentence a terrorist collaborator/conspirator in civilian court without endangering national security.

That might have something to do with the fact that you are lying, tackylib.

The criticism was NEVER that it couldn't be done.

The criticism was that it SHOULDN'T be done.

Securing the conviction (if it withstands the appellate rounds) of one stinking count is not exactly comforting.

Can't you grasp that this means that it was a freaking very near miss? It was just that close to being a complete acquittal.

And as OJ proves, an acquittal doesn't mean the guy didn't do it.

 

[HUGGY]

Holder needs to go.....He's the biggest joke of an attorney general this country has ever seen.....But then, his boss, Barack Obama, is the biggest joke of a president this country has ever seen.

And yet none of his critics have the cojones to acknowledge that his administration did what tthey said couldn't be done....try, convict and sentence a terrorist collaborator/conspirator in civilian court without endangering national security.

That might have something to do with the fact that you are lying, tackylib.

The criticism was NEVER that it couldn't be done.

The criticism was that it SHOULDN'T be done.

Securing the conviction (if it withstands the appellate rounds) of one stinking count is not exactly comforting.

Can't you grasp that this means that it was a freaking very near miss? It was just that close to being a complete acquittal.

And as OJ proves, an acquittal doesn't mean the guy didn't do it.

Oh ya...."Code" for blacks on the LA jury... I get it couselor..

SOOOooo...... You are suggesting there were Muslim terrorists on the jury?

 

[Liability]

And yet none of his critics have the cojones to acknowledge that his administration did what tthey said couldn't be done....try, convict and sentence a terrorist collaborator/conspirator in civilian court without endangering national security.

That might have something to do with the fact that you are lying, tackylib.

The criticism was NEVER that it couldn't be done.

The criticism was that it SHOULDN'T be done.

Securing the conviction (if it withstands the appellate rounds) of one stinking count is not exactly comforting.

Can't you grasp that this means that it was a freaking very near miss? It was just that close to being a complete acquittal.

And as OJ proves, an acquittal doesn't mean the guy didn't do it.

Oh ya...."Code" for blacks on the LA jury... I get it couselor..

SOOOooo...... You are suggesting there were Muslim terrorists on the jury?

No, Smugs, as happens all too often, you don't "get" diddly dog.

There was no "code." I said it in a very straightforward fashion. This must be what threw you.

OJ was guilty as hell, and despite that, he got "acquitted."

Have you never heard that sometimes an innocent person gets convicted? It's true. The system isn't perfect. And just as innocent men (or women) can be convicted of a crime they didn't commit, so too a guilty person (like that rat-fucker, OJ) can be as guilty as sin and yet avoid conviction

There need not be "Muslims" on a jury hearing a case against a Muslim terrorist for the terrorist to get acquitted. All that is needed is a jury that gets deprived of the needed information for any of a number of reasons. Or a collection of dopes who got picked to serve on a jury because their stupidity wasn't properly noted by the prosecutors.

And when a shit hole like OJ gets acquitted, that's just one scumbag who doesn't get put away. But when it is an actual terrorist who gets acquitted, that's a potential fucking disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Jroc]

Now, let's watch Jroc repeat his disproven BS ad nauseum.

A LIB BLOG?...KIETH OBERMAN?.... read the facts idiot.

 

[Trajan]

Holder needs to go.....He's the biggest joke of an attorney general this country has ever seen.....But then, his boss, Barack Obama, is the biggest joke of a president this country has ever seen.

And yet none of his critics have the cojones to acknowledge that his administration did what tthey said couldn't be done....try, convict and sentence a terrorist collaborator/conspirator in civilian court without endangering national security.

well, you may want to go back and read the admins benchmarks or that is in other words high expectations for KSM's and this guys trial, theoretically , he could be on the street in 20 years after he has served the 20, if thats what he gets.

Now, recently Obama has said he'll never let hem go anyway, I don't recall him sayng any such thing prior, in his campaign or in offcie, UNTIL it became apparent push back from members of his own party made the trials in NYC problematic etc.

Which begs the question, was this just a show trial? What was the point? And whats more where do you stand on people being held beyond their sentence OR not being tried at all and kept locked up in perpetuity sans due process?

 

[Jroc]

You know the libs want to put America on trial, it's not about the terrorists with them, and it’s about what America has done to cause the muslims to hate us. If KSM were put on trail in New York these libs would be sucking up all that Anti American bullshit they'd have a lot of sympathies for the terrorist and their dislike of this country will grow. Bush and Cheney tortured that poor man

 

[taichiliberal]

Holder needs to go.....He's the biggest joke of an attorney general this country has ever seen.....But then, his boss, Barack Obama, is the biggest joke of a president this country has ever seen.

And yet none of his critics have the cojones to acknowledge that his administration did what tthey said couldn't be done....try, convict and sentence a terrorist collaborator/conspirator in civilian court without endangering national security.

That might have something to do with the fact that you are lying, tackylib.

The criticism was NEVER that it couldn't be done.

The criticism was that it SHOULDN'T be done.

Securing the conviction (if it withstands the appellate rounds) of one stinking count is not exactly comforting.

Can't you grasp that this means that it was a freaking very near miss? It was just that close to being a complete acquittal.

And as OJ proves, an acquittal doesn't mean the guy didn't do it.

Folks, I just LOVE it when dumb neocon toots like Liability make these grand statements based solely on their personal low information derived from the likes of World Net Daily, NewsMax, Rev. Moon, Murdoch, Crowley, etc.

I love it because then I just show something like this:


Representative Peter King (R-NY) warned that “these terrorists’ new home and the courthouse in which they’ll be tried will immediately move to the top of al Qaeda’s target list.”

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has argued that federal courts cannot be trusted to safeguard sensitive evidence, citing the delivery to Osama bin Laden of a co-conspirator list provided to the defense counsel in the Rahman trial in the mid-1990s.

Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) “said he feared that Mr. Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators would try to make the trial ‘a circus’ and use it as a platform to push their ideology.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently wrote: “a judge may very well agree with the legal arguments of Guantanamo detainees and order them released into the United States.”
Third Way - Publications - Publication Content


The Ghailani trial proved them wrong...but they don't have the honesty, courage or morality to admit such.
And once again, we'll see Liability repeat his idiocy despite it's contradiction to reality....so much more to pity him.

 

[taichiliberal]

Now, let's watch Jroc repeat his disproven BS ad nauseum.

A LIB BLOG?...KIETH OBERMAN?.... read the facts idiot.

And can you FACTUALLY DISPROVE ANYTHING THAT OLBERMAN SAID ON THE LINK I PROVIDED?

IF YOU CAN'T, BE AN ADULT AND ADMIT SUCH OR STFU...BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T I'LL JUST PUT THE FACTS IN PRINT AND HUMILIATE YOUR DOPEY ASS (yet again).