Rudy Blasts Obama's Idiotic Move
- Thread starter Sinatra
- Start date
- Banned
- #162
In addition, I am WELL "educated" on the issue in question, as evidenced by my response. A response which you have not actually responded to.
Just because I didn't happen to listen to your singular instance of right-wing propaganda on the subject, does not make me "uneducated" on the issue.
You and your fellow right-wingers have been spouting this absolute garbage for days now.
Rudy's little FoxNews act doesn't stray from the talking points in the least.
- Thread starter
- #163
Now you are simply engaging in immature defensive deflection.
The thread pertained to the Giuliani comments - comments you did not bother to actually listen to prior to making your own comments.
As to your "question" - it was not needed, as it is already answered in the context of the Giuliani comments - those that you did not actually review prior to posing your question.
You see, your ignorance betrayed you at every turn here.
But take heart - you appear to have the ability to learn.
Now you must simply make it a reality.
I have faith in your potential.
Good luck!!!
- Banned
- #164
My "own-admission" of what???
You listen to a single extremely biased point-of-view on the subject, and that makes you more "educated" on the subject than me?
ROFL. You're pathetic.
Your attempt to dismiss the obvious, that both you and Rudy Giuliani are partisan hacks, is very sad.
I notice you didn't even address the fact that in the post you were responding to, I pointed out Mr Giuliani's obvious reason for a bias on the subject.
Nor did you respond when I actually pointed out the flaws in the propaganda piece's arguments.
But no, a partisan hack such as yourself wouldn't bother to actually argue the points of the matter.
Are you from New York? What makes you think that you have the right to try to take justice away from those of us that do live here?
Did you have any friends that died in the attack? I did. At least Rudy Giuliani is actually a New Yorker, which is why I bothered to watch the propaganda at all.
You have no reason to be spouting your BS opinion on the subject. So, with all due respect, piss off.
The T
George S. Patton Party
Yes but what you forget is that methods WILL be on trial, and it will be telegraphed around the world, and in particuliar our enemies.
That places our Security at risk. This whole scenario stinks, and it IS a way for Obama to placate his left-loon base by putting the Bush Administration on trial indirectly.
_______________
From Andy McCarthy:
[SNIP]
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
___________
And whom is Andy McCarthy you ask?
Andrew C. McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He was most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, resigning from the Justice Department in 2003.
SOURCE
___________________
He, better than anyone knows the score.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #166
There's some pot/kettle action.
Blah blah blah, repeat yourself much? See the prior posts for the answer to this repetition.
Really? Feel free to give us a quote or a post that specifically proves this.
Lol, says the partisan hack, who does not have the ability to learn from any source other than approved right-wing sources.
And I have faith that you will continue to live in a nice comfortable bubble-world of your own making.
- Thread starter
- #167
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jS-LJpG3HI]YouTube - Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (1 of 2)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aBn73x8kjM&feature=related]YouTube - Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (2 of 2)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aBn73x8kjM&feature=related]YouTube - Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (2 of 2)[/ame]
- Banned
- #168
(National Review article)
Oh? But I thought the Bush administration hadn't "tortured" anyone?
I thought that they hadn't committed any crimes?
Isn't that what you folks have been saying all this time?
Why should they be ashamed?
Be that as if may, none of what the Bush administration did has any bearing on the guilt of the people involved. And none of it will get them off.
- Banned
- #169
Yep, you just keep on posting the links, but don't actually think for yourself apparently.
Did you actually listen to what he was saying? Do you have an issue with listening comprehension that you can't make your own case in defense of what he actually said?
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
Define Torture. Rudy is correct. Andy is correct. This whole scenario is political and you know it.
Ravi
Diamond Member
Thank you for posting nonsense.
Ravi
Diamond Member
Rudy is a coward.
- Thread starter
- #173
___
There does appear to be reasonable concern over the safety implications of a so-public trial.
Certainly the trial of the '93 bombers did little to placate the radical enemies of America - as more attacks soon followed.
- Banned
- #174
Personally, I never really thought the waterboarding was wrong. Apparently some folks on the right think there's something to be ashamed of.
I think the scenario is political, at least insofar as the right-wing criticism is concerned.
As far as the actual scenario is concerned however, there is a very good reason for it which has nothing to do with partisan politics.
It's time to stop treating this situation as a "War". Treating it as a "war" has been extremely unsucessful so far, and treating these mass murderers as "enemy combatants" gives them legitimacy.
They are common criminals. The fact that they are organized only makes them mafia-like organized criminals, not a legitimate state.
They need to be treated like the criminals they are.
The more legitimacy you give these people, the stronger their position is.
Ravi
Diamond Member
Our job isn't to placate AQ...the sooner you get that through your head, the better.
- Banned
- #176
Now THAT is a good point. Finally.
I think you will find however, that the average New Yorker is not afraid.
We're a pretty resilient lot, and we want justice.
Not to mention that going that route is giving ground to AQ, as Ravi pointed out.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #177
Interesting take on the Holder decision - pointing out the seemingly naive (though possibly principled) approach of this administration - as well as some premise contradiction...
___
A Political Decision This Ain't
Here's what the Attorney General isn't doing. He's not following public opinion, which generally opposes conducting any sort of 9/11 terrorist trial in the United States. He's not following perceived political wisdom, in that the administration is not providing cover for Democrats who are afraid of Republican remonstrations on terrorism. He is not appeasing special interest groups, the bulk of whom -- the ACLU being an example -- oppose quite vociferously the prospect of any new military commissions.
If this is politics, it's really dumb politics. And that's why it's probably not politics. Occam's razor applies. Obama and Holder are sincerely -- perhaps naively, but that's something we won't know for a while -- attempting to change the way the American people and the world think about counterterrorism. They want to change the narrative from a "strength/weakness" metaphor to an "example/rule of law" metaphor. This sounds a little PoMo, but it's the mark of a president who, on this issue in particular, does not believe that the old ways of thinking make America any safer. Certainly, they don't contribute to a national security politics of consensus.
This will be a hard sell. The chief GOP arguments -- that terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans -- even common criminals -- and that the 9/11 terrorists are inherently of a different and more nefarious breed of species than people who break the law -- are generally supported by Americans.
Now -- there is a conspiracy theory out there that Holder decided to try the 9/11 five in Article III trials because he wants to find a way to get all the bad stuff the Bush administration did out into the open without being blamed for doing so. The idea is that federal trials will inherently lead to the compromise of classified information. On its face, it's sort of absurd -- the motive, that is. But the risk of disclosing sensitive methods and sources is real, albeit one that the interagency process has focused on and found manageable; the CIA's general counsel said yesterday that the agency is working quite closely on ways to protect its sources and methods in upcoming federal trial. Those promulgating this conspiracy certainly do not have much faith in the experienced terrorism prosecutors from the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of Virginia, or the federal judges who will administer the trials, or even the jurors who will decide them.
What distinguishes the 9/11 five from the five defendants who'll stay in the military commission system? The location of their terrorism. Plots that culminate inside the U.S. will be disposed of, it seems, using regular methods. Plots that culminate outside the U.S., like, say, in Yemen or in war zones -- will be treated differently. One of the five non-9/11 defendants whose disposition was announced today, Ahmed Haza al-Darbi, does not stand accused of plotting to kill or capture U.S. soldiers: he's on trial for trying to bomb oil tankers in the Straits of A Political Decision This Ain't
Here's what the Attorney General isn't doing. He's not following public opinion, which generally opposes conducting any sort of 9/11 terrorist trial in the United States. He's not following perceived political wisdom, in that the administration is not providing cover for Democrats who are afraid of Republican remonstrations on terrorism. He is not appeasing special interest groups, the bulk of whom -- the ACLU being an example -- oppose quite vociferously the prospect of any new military commissions.
If this is politics, it's really dumb politics. And that's why it's probably not politics. Occam's razor applies. Obama and Holder are sincerely -- perhaps naively, but that's something we won't know for a while -- attempting to change the way the American people and the world think about counterterrorism. They want to change the narrative from a "strength/weakness" metaphor to an "example/rule of law" metaphor. This sounds a little PoMo, but it's the mark of a president who, on this issue in particular, does not believe that the old ways of thinking make America any safer. Certainly, they don't contribute to a national security politics of consensus.
This will be a hard sell. The chief GOP arguments -- that terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans -- even common criminals -- and that the 9/11 terrorists are inherently of a different and more nefarious breed of species than people who break the law -- are generally supported by Americans.
Now -- there is a conspiracy theory out there that Holder decided to try the 9/11 five in Article III trials because he wants to find a way to get all the bad stuff the Bush administration did out into the open without being blamed for doing so. The idea is that federal trials will inherently lead to the compromise of classified information. On its face, it's sort of absurd -- the motive, that is. But the risk of disclosing sensitive methods and sources is real, albeit one that the interagency process has focused on and found manageable; the CIA's general counsel said yesterday that the agency is working quite closely on ways to protect its sources and methods in upcoming federal trial. Those promulgating this conspiracy certainly do not have much faith in the experienced terrorism prosecutors from the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of Virginia, or the federal judges who will administer the trials, or even the jurors who will decide them.
What distinguishes the 9/11 five from the five defendants who'll stay in the military commission system? The location of their terrorism. Plots that culminate inside the U.S. will be disposed of, it seems, using regular methods. Plots that culminate outside the U.S., like, say, in Yemen or in war zones -- will be treated differently. One of the five non-9/11 defendants whose disposition was announced today, Ahmed Haza al-Darbi, does not stand accused of plotting to kill or capture U.S. soldiers: he's on trial for trying to bomb oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz.
A Political Decision This Ain't - The Atlantic Politics Channel
___
A Political Decision This Ain't
Here's what the Attorney General isn't doing. He's not following public opinion, which generally opposes conducting any sort of 9/11 terrorist trial in the United States. He's not following perceived political wisdom, in that the administration is not providing cover for Democrats who are afraid of Republican remonstrations on terrorism. He is not appeasing special interest groups, the bulk of whom -- the ACLU being an example -- oppose quite vociferously the prospect of any new military commissions.
If this is politics, it's really dumb politics. And that's why it's probably not politics. Occam's razor applies. Obama and Holder are sincerely -- perhaps naively, but that's something we won't know for a while -- attempting to change the way the American people and the world think about counterterrorism. They want to change the narrative from a "strength/weakness" metaphor to an "example/rule of law" metaphor. This sounds a little PoMo, but it's the mark of a president who, on this issue in particular, does not believe that the old ways of thinking make America any safer. Certainly, they don't contribute to a national security politics of consensus.
This will be a hard sell. The chief GOP arguments -- that terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans -- even common criminals -- and that the 9/11 terrorists are inherently of a different and more nefarious breed of species than people who break the law -- are generally supported by Americans.
Now -- there is a conspiracy theory out there that Holder decided to try the 9/11 five in Article III trials because he wants to find a way to get all the bad stuff the Bush administration did out into the open without being blamed for doing so. The idea is that federal trials will inherently lead to the compromise of classified information. On its face, it's sort of absurd -- the motive, that is. But the risk of disclosing sensitive methods and sources is real, albeit one that the interagency process has focused on and found manageable; the CIA's general counsel said yesterday that the agency is working quite closely on ways to protect its sources and methods in upcoming federal trial. Those promulgating this conspiracy certainly do not have much faith in the experienced terrorism prosecutors from the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of Virginia, or the federal judges who will administer the trials, or even the jurors who will decide them.
What distinguishes the 9/11 five from the five defendants who'll stay in the military commission system? The location of their terrorism. Plots that culminate inside the U.S. will be disposed of, it seems, using regular methods. Plots that culminate outside the U.S., like, say, in Yemen or in war zones -- will be treated differently. One of the five non-9/11 defendants whose disposition was announced today, Ahmed Haza al-Darbi, does not stand accused of plotting to kill or capture U.S. soldiers: he's on trial for trying to bomb oil tankers in the Straits of A Political Decision This Ain't
Here's what the Attorney General isn't doing. He's not following public opinion, which generally opposes conducting any sort of 9/11 terrorist trial in the United States. He's not following perceived political wisdom, in that the administration is not providing cover for Democrats who are afraid of Republican remonstrations on terrorism. He is not appeasing special interest groups, the bulk of whom -- the ACLU being an example -- oppose quite vociferously the prospect of any new military commissions.
If this is politics, it's really dumb politics. And that's why it's probably not politics. Occam's razor applies. Obama and Holder are sincerely -- perhaps naively, but that's something we won't know for a while -- attempting to change the way the American people and the world think about counterterrorism. They want to change the narrative from a "strength/weakness" metaphor to an "example/rule of law" metaphor. This sounds a little PoMo, but it's the mark of a president who, on this issue in particular, does not believe that the old ways of thinking make America any safer. Certainly, they don't contribute to a national security politics of consensus.
This will be a hard sell. The chief GOP arguments -- that terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans -- even common criminals -- and that the 9/11 terrorists are inherently of a different and more nefarious breed of species than people who break the law -- are generally supported by Americans.
Now -- there is a conspiracy theory out there that Holder decided to try the 9/11 five in Article III trials because he wants to find a way to get all the bad stuff the Bush administration did out into the open without being blamed for doing so. The idea is that federal trials will inherently lead to the compromise of classified information. On its face, it's sort of absurd -- the motive, that is. But the risk of disclosing sensitive methods and sources is real, albeit one that the interagency process has focused on and found manageable; the CIA's general counsel said yesterday that the agency is working quite closely on ways to protect its sources and methods in upcoming federal trial. Those promulgating this conspiracy certainly do not have much faith in the experienced terrorism prosecutors from the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of Virginia, or the federal judges who will administer the trials, or even the jurors who will decide them.
What distinguishes the 9/11 five from the five defendants who'll stay in the military commission system? The location of their terrorism. Plots that culminate inside the U.S. will be disposed of, it seems, using regular methods. Plots that culminate outside the U.S., like, say, in Yemen or in war zones -- will be treated differently. One of the five non-9/11 defendants whose disposition was announced today, Ahmed Haza al-Darbi, does not stand accused of plotting to kill or capture U.S. soldiers: he's on trial for trying to bomb oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz.
A Political Decision This Ain't - The Atlantic Politics Channel
The T
George S. Patton Party
- Thread starter
- #179
I am quite certain this trial will be a vehicle of promotion for anti-American terrorism.
It will devolve into a disgusting platform put in place by our own political hand - and I cannot understand as to why.
Unlike the '93 terrorists for example, these 9-11 terrorists were not "arrested" - they were captured. They were not read their Miranda rights, underwent military interrogation, etc.
How in the hell does one successfully go to trial in a civilian court under those circumstances? How does any civilian evidence obtained w/o the reading of the accused rights become admissible?
Imagine if these terrorists are allowed to walk free due to legal technicalities.
My God....
The T
George S. Patton Party
____________________
Translation of the Raviolish Launguage?
"I don't give a shit about facts and didn't BOTHER to read it"
Similar threads
New Topics
-
If Trump Didn't Sign Off on $220M In Ads, Shouldn't Someone Be Prosecuted?- Started by candycorn
- Replies: 0
-
scientist programing brain cells like a biological computer!- Started by Slyhunter
- Replies: 2
-
Trump slammed for wearing golf hat at slain soldiers dignified transfer ceremony.- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 9
-
