November 19, 2009
— DrewM I'm second to no one in my loathing of Lindsay Graham's style of 'make a deal and get something done' politics but my guess is he's a hell of a lawyer.
There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man. Misguided? Sure. Diagnosably retarded? No. Watch this exchange between Graham and Holder. Graham leaves Holder stammering like a fool.
Here's the crap Holder is trying to sell that Graham won't let him get away with...Holder says, 'we don't need to question bin Laden because we have so much evidence already so we won't question him for a statement, therefor Miranda doesn't apply'.
Graham nails him with the fact Miranda isn't just about 'the right to remain silent'. It's also about an affirmative right to an attorney.
The fight is about when does a "military capture" become a "civilian arrest" and when and how do all the rights that come with a civilian arrest and trial attach. Right now there are no answers because as Graham points out, the Obama administration is making it up as they go.
Guess who is going to get involved in that question at some point. The courts. Given the arc of cases since 9/11 is anyone 100% sure (hell, 50% sure) that a court won't throw out a conviction or even a bar a trial on any number of 6th Amendment grounds?
Holder is left babbling like a fool about these basic questions.
I'd be interested in what the lawyers here have to say about Graham's style of questioning. My guess is they wouldn't want their client on the other side of it.
Graham did this during the Sotomayor hearings. He walked her down a path where there was absolutely no doubt she was incompetent and lying. Unfortunately at that point Graham's political instincts overrode his legal training and he let her off the hook. Worse still, he then voted for her but his questioning left her, like Holder, in shreds.
I found the above video at The Corner. To make up for swiping it, I commend this post to you. McCarthy has been all over this and as someone who actually convicted terrorists (the first WTC bombers), he knows the drill and the limitations of the Obama approach.
UPDATE:
If the U.S. captures Osama bin Laden, there's no need to interrogate him, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of that committee, said that arguments raised by Republican senators about whether bin Laden would be afforded Miranda rights if he were captured amount to a "red herring."
"The red herring that my friend [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.] was covering is not realistic," Leahy said during an appearance on "Washington Journal" on C-SPAN.
"For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him," Leahy added.
First, we don't need whatever intel OBL might have? Really?
Second, the walk back on this will be, 'sure we'll let the CIA at him for awhile but we don't need that intel to convict him'. Here's the thing, there's no proof that you can do this and then go to a civilian court. Just because Obama wants to create a distinction between custody and questioning by military/intelligence agencies and civilian ones doesn't mean the courts will buy it. Again, given the arc of these cases in the courts, there's every reason to believe that KSM and his ilk will likely win on at least some procedural grounds, maybe even acquittals.
Third, okay, this maybe the case with OBL, but what about lesser known but as dangerous terrorists? How does Obama want captured terrorists dealt with? Commanders in the field need to know and "Present" isn't an option.
Right now his approach is, "we'll review and make a decision later". Well, the US civilian court system doesn't work that way. All the protections that come with it start the second you are in custody, not when the executive feels like it.
Anyone want to take a stab at the Equal Protection arguments to begin with just for shits and giggles? Or the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment fights?
There is simply no basis in law for Obama and Holder's theory here. It's simply a political decision divorced from law.
Posted by: DrewM at
05:30 AM
| Comments (483)
Post contains 768 words, total size 5 kb.
don't they lose the argument by deciding to use commisions for some and law enforcement civilian courts for others?
so what the heck?
and interrogation? don't they lose that argument , don't they also having a problem with retaining renditions?
Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 05:36 AM (GkYyh)
Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 05:37 AM (GkYyh)
AG Holder is in the unenviable position of trying to justify a political decision with a legal argument. That is largely the reason why he looked like a retard yesterday.
Of course the fact that he is, in fact, a retard helped...
What IS of concern to the administration is how to energize the base of young Obama voters who stayed home in New Jersey and Virginia two weeks ago and get them to turn out to vote and keep Congress in Democrat hands next year. IMHO they've read the tealeaves and have determined that bringing back the Bush/Cheney bogeyman is the best way to do that and that a high profile "show trial" of KSM and the others is the best way to resurrect said bogeyman.
Justice, Rule of Law, and National Security all be damned- they need to hold on to Congress to hold on to power. That is all that matters.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 05:38 AM (OtQXp)
They aren't just criminalizing acts of war. They are criminalizing political disagreements (i.e. Bush administration policy).
They know exactly what they fuck they're doing and they're going to do it anyway.
Which I predicted. Not cause I'm smart. Cause they are predictable.
This post written by the ghost of Alger Hiss.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 19, 2009 05:39 AM (WvXvd)
Posted by: TheQuietman at November 19, 2009 05:40 AM (1Jaio)
The fact that Grahamnesty is fully capable of tearing down these shitballs, and yet refuses to do so, is the most disappointing thing about him.
Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 05:41 AM (Haq+B)
Remember the Seinfeld "Two Face" episode? That's Graham--why can't he be this way all the time? That train of argument with Holder was simple, focused and easy for a layman to follow.
Brilliant.
Of course, tomorrow, he'll want to cede control of all CO2 emissions to the UN, but that was brilliant.
Posted by: Bob Dole at November 19, 2009 05:41 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Bald Ninja at November 19, 2009 05:41 AM (4pdbX)
While Holder is a fool, we must all realize this problem falls squarely on the shoulders of President Obama. After all, the terrorists are in the custody of the military and subject to military courts no matter what Holder says. The only way for these terrorists to be transferred from the custody of the military to civilian custody is by order of the Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Ken at November 19, 2009 05:41 AM (9RNdO)
Posted by: rick at November 19, 2009 05:41 AM (7U33r)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 05:42 AM (z37MR)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 05:42 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: RM at November 19, 2009 05:43 AM (GkYyh)
Shannon Love at Chicagoboyz website wrote an excellent article regarding the constitutional dangers of this...
http://tinyurl.com/yeucoyq
Posted by: Huckleberry at November 19, 2009 05:43 AM (s2bW4)
It's come to a point where we applaud our representatives for, you know, doing their jobs.
Hooray, Lindsey Graham!
And, later, we'll get all wet when an (R) in Congress says a few nice things about Conservatism.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 05:45 AM (z37MR)
Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 05:48 AM (HaJD9)
As I said in the previous thread, let's not give this douche too much credit. In this case ANY credit is too much. He helped McLame castrate the Military Commisions act in 2005 and gave the terrorists more "rights" in military court than our own service men have.
He is grandstanding here playing lawyer for the cameras. I will repeat the truth:
Remember what "hearings" are for. They are there to give the participants more camera exposure and free rhetoric time.
They mean NOTHING. Its the actions you have to watch.
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2009 05:48 AM (CDUiN)
Civilian trials are identical to military tribunals and are not allowed.
Posted by: State of Texas at November 19, 2009 05:49 AM (m2CN7)
from Huckleberry's article;
They will have to overturn the requirement for Miranda warnings. They will have to overturn the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. They will have to overturn the right to face ones accusers and to examine all evidence and evidence gathering methods.
Even if the courts throw out his conviction, the government will never allow him to go free, so we will toss out protection against double jeopardy if they try to convict with a military tribunal, and toss out the right of no imprisonment without trial if they dont.
Our system of justice relies on precedent and equality of procedure. The same rules apply to every civil trail. We cant say that its okay to deny the right against self-incrimination in one persons trial while saying its okay in another. If the courts overturn the rights of one individual accused, it must overturn the rights of all of them.
Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 05:49 AM (GkYyh)
Holder looked like an incompetent boob. This trial will end in disaster.
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 05:50 AM (iYbLN)
I'd be interested in what the lawyers here have to say about Graham's style of questioning. My guess is they wouldn't want their client on the other side of it.
Graham is neither conducting direct or cross-examination here. He's doing some cross sprinkled with speeches, kind of like Matlock used to talk directly to the jury while the witness was on the stand.
Posted by: John Smallberries (rdb) at November 19, 2009 05:51 AM (bYZX2)
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at November 19, 2009 05:52 AM (kn+jW)
Posted by: volfan at November 19, 2009 05:53 AM (lF49h)
As a court reporter I have watched the best and the worst of cross-exes. This is the best: superb strategy and dramatic execution with perfectly calibrated emotionalism. Devastating. Lawyers are dreaming about Lindsey tonight.
Posted by: PJ at November 19, 2009 05:53 AM (Qpxxz)
Posted by: Old Sailor at November 19, 2009 05:54 AM (/Ft4q)
Posted by: GarandFan at November 19, 2009 05:54 AM (ZQBnQ)
Posted by: Winston Smith at November 19, 2009 05:54 AM (MFbfZ)
Posted by: Winston Smith at November 19, 2009 05:56 AM (MFbfZ)
Trying KSM in NY. What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 05:56 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 05:57 AM (vb5IK)
That's a fair point but he could also easily turn some of those speeches into questions (at least on cross where he could lead a bit).
Also, he knew Holder (also a political animal) would filibuster in answering some of those questions. In a courtroom he could have forced a witness to answer and the effect would have been even more devastating because we all know what those answers are.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2009 05:57 AM (FCWQb)
Hello!
Posted by: ACORN at November 19, 2009 05:57 AM (NtiET)
Posted by: awkward davies at November 19, 2009 05:58 AM (wb68R)
Obama and Holder are going to end up looking like fools when this "trial" starts.
The SRM will be in full damage-control spin and coverage mode for these c*cksuckers. It's inevitable. And they'll lead with "it's BOOOOSH'S fault!" meme.
Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 05:58 AM (Haq+B)
They aren't just criminalizing acts of war. They are criminalizing political disagreements (i.e. Bush administration policy). They know exactly what they fuck they're doing and they're going to do it anyway.
Yeah, I agree with you on this. Too bad they didn't think about this situation logically - even "politically" logically. This KSM trial will backfire on them - badly. In fact, I think the Wookie should start real estate shopping in Chicago while her hubby figures out where to build the presidential library, such as it will be.
You can be damn sure "fly-over" country will not be pleased with this show trial and even blue area, like NYC won't like it either, seeing as they were Ground Zero for KSM's attacks.
It won't be long before Republican/conservative pundits and politicans start hammering at this decision, including what should be so blatantly obvious: KSM's plan also involved an attack on the Pentagon - not a civilian target like the WTCs. This was an act of war and KSM was not a citizen, or even an USPER. KSM was caught in a foreign land.
If anything screams for military trial, it's this.
And when the civilian trial starts fucking this cat, Obama is going to be left holding the tail. Good-bye. Hope you enjoyed your four years. You Democrats in Congress? Hope you enjoy solid blue electorates, or you'll be out on your ass as well.
Our economy is starting to look like Japan in the 1990s (no economic growth, savings rate growing, consumer spending down, easy credit from banks) and in a couple of years, Washington will look like 1994 with a Republican takeover in Congress.
Posted by: Blogluddite at November 19, 2009 05:58 AM (fDWFP)
Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 19, 2009 05:59 AM (z4es9)
Posted by: jadedinga at November 19, 2009 06:00 AM (Uc/xV)
Posted by: Cicero at November 19, 2009 06:00 AM (+AEJn)
Actually, unfortuneately Holder was correct. Miranda is only about questioning. Once someone is in custody and before that person is questioned, that person must be read the Miranda rights. The right to an attorney is only available to someone who is being questioned or in a legal proceeding. I arrest people frequently and never Mirandize them unless I am going to question them. No questioning, no Miranda.
At a person's initial appearance, the Magistrate instructs the defendant on their rights, but by that time, at least at the federal level, they have already either been assigned an attorney or have their own.
However, Osama will have to be questioned for his intelligence value, not for any prosecution, and it appears that Lindsey Gramnesty missed that.
Posted by: Federale at November 19, 2009 06:01 AM (QZ/te)
I'll grudingly give kudos to Lindsay for his performance yesterday.
Next on his docket:
- Cap'n'Trade AGW bill: National economic suicide for an issue that is a hoax. Might as well just burning the money in a giant hole.
- Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Republican suicide in order to sound compassionate. Might as well just purge 10% of Republican voters from the rolls.
Posted by: Huckleberry at November 19, 2009 06:01 AM (s2bW4)
Soon our men and women in uniform will be required to carry around "Miranda cards" (of the type I'm told some police carry that has the warnings printed on it) with them on the battlefield. "We've done away with rifle qualifications so y'all can spend more time practicing your Miranda warnings."
I keep hoping one day someone will jump out and yell "Gotcha!" and this will all be a joke and we'll go back to acting like a society that gives a damn about preserving our civilization, but it looks like we'll have to wait three more years to end this joke.
Posted by: aggiebc at November 19, 2009 06:01 AM (xhPKT)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 06:01 AM (07n82)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 06:02 AM (1bQOq)
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 06:02 AM (iYbLN)
Graham;...has an enemy combatant been tried in a civilian court in US.
Holder's answer? well i dunno I'll have to look into that?
really? really? But we're going to do it, even though i admit i'm ignorant?
Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 06:02 AM (GkYyh)
27 Obama and Holder are going to end up looking like fools when this "trial" starts.
Does it really matter? The people that voted for Obama will not care. Hell the guy could seriously use the Constitution as a rolling paper for a huge joint and they would applaud.
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 06:03 AM (SqAkN)
Posted by: Old Sailor at November 19, 2009 06:03 AM (/Ft4q)
Soon our men and women in uniform will be required to carry around "Miranda cards"
For a while the Army had "stress cards" that they carried around in basic. If the mean old Drill got in your face and upset you, you could play your Stress Card and get a timeout. Un-fucking-believable. You probably aren't too far off, lord knows there's too many JAG officers running around.
Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 06:03 AM (Haq+B)
Posted by: NJConservative at November 19, 2009 06:04 AM (/Ywwg)
Holder's answer? well i dunno I'll have to look into that?
Wait a minute, Holder is the AG. Wouldn't you expect that the AG would have researched this little nugget before making a decision?
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 06:04 AM (iYbLN)
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE OVER THE PRESIDENT'S 'VERDICT FIRST, TRIAL SECOND' PRONOUNCEMENTS?
How does the defense not move for dismissal on day one of the trial? How does the government prove there is no bias when the President of the United States announces not only the verdict but the sentence before the trial?
The Constitution is in danger, my friends.
Posted by: Jones at November 19, 2009 06:05 AM (JL3qV)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 06:06 AM (SqAkN)
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at November 19, 2009 06:06 AM (kn+jW)
Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 06:06 AM (HaJD9)
Does it really matter? The people that voted for Obama will not care.
You know what, I was sitting next to a brother on the PnR this morning, and he was talking to someone on the phone about this. His exact words were "do it just like the Chinese, shoot them in the back of the head and charge them for the bullet." I was stunned. This KSM thing is going to bite them in the ass, it has already started to do so.
Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 06:07 AM (Haq+B)
Posted by: Chuck at November 19, 2009 06:08 AM (WSEFQ)
I'm sorry but Holder may be the dumbest cocksucker in this whole cocksucking administration. The Affimrative Action dimwit actually said the following:
"Here's the crap Holder is trying to sell that Graham won't let him get away with...Holder says, 'we don't need to question bin Laden because we have so much evidence already so we won't question him for a statement, therefor Miranda doesn't apply'."
A fucking 3rd grader should be smarter than that. Of course Bin Laden would be questioned. It doesn't A FUCKING GENIUS to figure this FACT out.
We catch Obama and we don't ask him who, what, where and when?? We just catch him for his past crimes against the U.S. and don't ask him any questions?
Who the FUCK does HOLDER think he's fooling?
Oh. The MSM.
Posted by: gus at November 19, 2009 06:08 AM (Vqruj)
I assure you a Fatwah awaits you and your family. Such wonderful incentives.
Posted by: Techie at November 19, 2009 06:09 AM (cxW4X)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 19, 2009 06:09 AM (b68Df)
Posted by: Old Sailor at November 19, 2009 06:10 AM (/Ft4q)
Posted by: iowahawk at November 19, 2009 06:10 AM (veL4N)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 06:10 AM (tJF9l)
Posted by: slade at November 19, 2009 06:10 AM (XsHAM)
Posted by: BigJohn at November 19, 2009 06:11 AM (vxaS5)
Federale,
You as a federal officer can't just arrest someone and throw them in a cell indefinitely and not provide them with access to counsel as long as you don't ask them a question.
If that were the rule, people could be arrested, thrown in a cell and held there indefinitely so long as no one asked them a question.
However, Osama will have to be questioned for his intelligence value, not for any prosecution, and it appears that Lindsey Gramnesty missed that.
Is anyone sure that a court won't say, 'wait, you guys held him for 5 years and are just bringing him to court now?" The administration will say, that was different and the clock starts...now.
There's no basis in law for that. A court could very well argue that KSM was denied his 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. There's only one remedy for that.
Also, the question is about going forward with lesser known terrorists. OBL and KSM are known commodiites but what about the next #3 guy in AQ or just a foot soldier.
As a battlefield commander, what do you do with them to preserve the options that Obama says he wants? It's great the Holder says there's a protocol for deciding what track to go down, but what happens in those first few minutes could impact that decision which will be made months/years later.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2009 06:11 AM (FCWQb)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 06:11 AM (tJF9l)
Posted by: DelD at November 19, 2009 06:11 AM (rC+/c)
Posted by: John Smallberries (rdb) at November 19, 2009 06:12 AM (bYZX2)
This silly political decision is Pandora's Box, and, once it's opened, everything falls apart (or it will once lawyers begin pushing those precedents to their limits).
Posted by: nickless at November 19, 2009 06:12 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:02 AM (iYbLN)
A jury of KSM's true peers would acquit him.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 06:14 AM (OtQXp)
Posted by: B.Hussein Obama at November 19, 2009 06:14 AM (GhHQb)
Slade,
They did that with the Military Commissions Act and the Courts took the case anyway.
That inconvenient part of the Constitution is a dead letter because the judges say so. So shut up, the law (like the science) is settled.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2009 06:15 AM (FCWQb)
Posted by: Old Sailor at November 19, 2009 06:15 AM (/Ft4q)
Posted by: volfan at November 19, 2009 06:17 AM (lF49h)
Posted by: Lindsey "Futurama" Graham at November 19, 2009 06:18 AM (rC+/c)
Posted by: OJ Simpson at November 19, 2009 06:18 AM (iYbLN)
Who wants to be in the jury pool?
I imagine if selected for the jury there will be a handsome little book deal at the end.
Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 06:18 AM (jvrmc)
Posted by: brak at November 19, 2009 06:18 AM (+6Y7G)
Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 06:19 AM (rVJH4)
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 06:20 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Joseph Brown at November 19, 2009 06:21 AM (mumWu)
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:20 AM (iYbLN)
If I was a juror, I'd write a book about it.
Posted by: Salmon Rushdie at November 19, 2009 06:21 AM (kn+jW)
I wanna give a shot out to Chuck Schummer! Thanks Chuck for all your hard work on my healthcare bill. Now this news today of KSM's aquital is shocking to us all. We need to retry him in a military tribunal.
Posted by: Obama at November 19, 2009 06:21 AM (SqAkN)
He walked her [Sotomayor ] down a path where there was absolutely no doubt she was incompetent and lying. Unfortunately at that point Graham's political instincts overrode his legal training and he let her off the hook.
So we should hope that Sen. Graham isn't on the jury.
Posted by: andycanuck at November 19, 2009 06:22 AM (2qU2d)
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:02 AM (iYbLN)
A jury of KSM's true peers would acquit him.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 11:14 AM (OtQXp)
Of course they would because he believe onkly in Sharia law and under sharia law any non muslims testimony is reduced in credibility by 50%....oh...and ladies???? FAGEDABOUDIT!
Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 06:22 AM (rVJH4)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 06:23 AM (Scxfk)
Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 06:23 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: wHodat at November 19, 2009 06:24 AM (+sBB4)
#81
you pretty much become a potential target by being selected,might as well make something from the deal
Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 06:24 AM (jvrmc)
Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 06:25 AM (rVJH4)
Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 06:26 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 06:27 AM (SqAkN)
Graham;...has an enemy combatant been tried in a civilian court in US.
Holder's answer? well i dunno I'll have to look into that?
really? really? But we're going to do it, even though i admit i'm ignorant?
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v., but Lindsay absolutely eviscerates Holder who is like a deer in headlights. Good on him. I've always thought that Graham was best when he's dealing with judiciary issues (ie. the Alito confirmation, Sotomeyer, and now this).
As Andrew McCarthy said this a.m. on the Laura Ingraham show, every lawyer bases decisions on precedent. Supposedly, Holder had done a lot of "careful consideration and research" before he made this decision to try KSM et al in civillian court. Yet as McCarthy pointed out, he couldn't justify this decision with any precedent as Graham so eloquently pointed out. McCarthy said no lawyer would ever do something like this without precedent in just an every day courtroom, and the fact that you have The Attorney General of the United States (who's suppose to be an expert in the law) doing this proves it is purely political. Both he and Laura agreed that this decision is going to bite the Obama administration in the butt when the U.S. ends up being the one on trial, not KSM.
This you-tube vid should be front page news, but unfortunately, I don't see that happening.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 06:29 AM (qP2BK)
Posted by: Crusty at November 19, 2009 06:29 AM (GvSpB)
Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 06:29 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 06:29 AM (Xm1aB)
#89
I wonder how much of the evidence Holder says we have against bin laden would be allowed in a civilian court.
Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 06:31 AM (jvrmc)
Where in the hell are they going to find a jury of KSM's peers? ...
Shouldn't be too hard, Afghanistan, Pakistan, The West Bank, etc.
As far as sitting on that jury, those people are going to get old and perhaps lose their livelihood. This trial is going to be interminably long. I can't even imagine how much that is going to cost NYC--to be on high alert with all that security for years. Not only that, but would anyone choose to go to NYC as a tourist with all that going on? Unbelievable.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 06:32 AM (qP2BK)
Undoubtedly they will. I'll say the chances of it being granted are around 50:50.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 06:32 AM (XUgp7)
Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 06:34 AM (GkYyh)
And it's notable that our fucking AG was too stupid to see it coming. Now, it helps to have the facts and law on your side (Holder has neither) but a decent lawyer should have seen the angles.
Yikes. Every day the question goes from "are they stupid or evil?" to "are they even more stupid and evil than I thought they were yesterday?"
Posted by: tachyonshuggy at November 19, 2009 06:34 AM (yUybe)
I'm starting to wonder if this will happen, or if it will be like the closing of Gitmo, postponed while they--hey, look over here, something shiny!
Whose cooperation do they need? New York doesn't want this circus, there are some really rocky legal issues that could derail it...I really wonder.
Posted by: Mama AJ at November 19, 2009 06:36 AM (Be4xl)
Where in the hell are they going to find a jury of KSM's peers?
The Columbia University faculty.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 06:36 AM (B+qrE)
Graham voted to confirm Holder. Now he gets to look all prosecutorial genius by questioning the idiot he voted for in the first place. Holder worked for the lawfirm in D.C. who reps a bunch of detainees. Graham and the rest of the rhinos who voted for him are reaping the whirlwind now. Congratulations to Graham, and now, watch as Bush and Cheney and half the CIA are gutted in front of inquiring minds. Yeah, he's a real fucking genius, alright.
Posted by: mikeyslaw at November 19, 2009 06:36 AM (QMGr1)
Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 06:36 AM (GkYyh)
Posted by: Lavrenti Beria at November 19, 2009 06:37 AM (5aa4z)
Naaa. It'll be jury of unemployed and retirees with nothing else to do. Anyone else in the pool will be smart enough to get themselves disqualified during Voir dire.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 06:37 AM (XUgp7)
106 running i know Schumer asked for 75 million for security costs.
The trial of KSM is about one three letter word, J-O-B-S.
Posted by: Joe Biden at November 19, 2009 06:38 AM (SqAkN)
Posted by: nickless at November 19, 2009 06:38 AM (MMC8r)
How fucking stupid are some of you people.
If these people are being tried in Civilian court, they are by law afforded ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. If they are afforded all Constitutional Rights, they HAVE to be Mirandized. IT IS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT. These men would have NO IDEA what their RIGHTS are or were, because we have never made such a MORONIC decision before. There was never a reason to MIRANDIZE on the battle field
ERGO and here is the big finish.
If they were no Mirandized, their RIGHT WERE VIOLATED. They were not informed of their right to SILENCE nor their RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY. Whether they were interrogated or NOT, we are REQUIRED to tell them what RIGHTS THEY HAVE.
We did not.
They walk.
It's as simple as that. Holder is a fucking moron.
Posted by: gus at November 19, 2009 06:38 AM (Vqruj)
Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 06:39 AM (GkYyh)
There is only Truth and the American Way; too many Lawyers raped Justice.
Posted by: syn at November 19, 2009 06:39 AM (ZjEOd)
#104
I was wondering about the peer thing,can he insist on muslims sitting on the jury or the exclusion of women?
Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 06:40 AM (jvrmc)
Question.
Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody?
Yes, I know they are sitting on them to gain info, but has there been any trials or tribunals?
I'm not aware of any.
Which could be part of the problem.
Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 06:40 AM (+jvXp)
Shit! Just when I was going to declare myself the duly elected official of one (or several (more votes the better don't you know)) of the ghost congressional districts where all of the jobs were both created and saved, the good and awesomely competent bastards running the website go and purge the database of all of the fictional districts.
I could have been a contender!
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 19, 2009 06:41 AM (r1h5M)
Posted by: jAYNE at November 19, 2009 06:42 AM (i+AQb)
Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 06:42 AM (AH8nd)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 06:44 AM (5ddCw)
Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody?
Yes, I know they are sitting on them to gain info, but has there been any trials or tribunals?
Countdown to when Holder or Obama says something condescending about how the military couldn't handle it...
Posted by: Mama AJ at November 19, 2009 06:44 AM (Be4xl)
Actually, I believe they're completely clueless. They THINK they know what they're doing, but clearly they've not thought through all the different angles.
Suppose the judge, recognizing the Obamunists game plan for what it is and how dangerous it will be, is a tad irked they want to use his court for said political spectacle?
Suppose that judge were to simply grant the defense's first motion to dismiss citing chapter and verse of whatever applicable statutes led him to the conclusion.
The Obamunists believe that's not going to happen.
If you get an older judge nearing retirement, who doesn't give a shit about political pressure or their career anymore, anything can happen.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 06:46 AM (XUgp7)
While Holder is a fool, we must all realize this problem falls squarely on the shoulders of President Obama. After all, the terrorists are in the custody of the military and subject to military courts no matter what Holder says. The only way for these terrorists to be transferred from the custody of the military to civilian custody is by order of the Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Ken
Dear Ken,
Nothing falls squarely in the shoulders of Obama. The buck stops everywhere else.
Sincerely,
Kansas
Posted by: kansas at November 19, 2009 06:46 AM (mka2b)
Countdown to when Holder or Obama says something condescending about how the military couldn't handle it...
They've already played the 'Bush and the military took 8 years to try them' card. Except that cocksucker Holder worked at the firm that represented the Gitmo terrorists, and their motions were the ones holding up the trials. Cocksuckers.
Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 06:47 AM (Haq+B)
Posted by: pat at November 19, 2009 06:48 AM (BvvsZ)
Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 06:49 AM (AH8nd)
On Laura's show, she also played the clip of Holder when someone at yesterday's hearing confronted him with McCarthy's opinon, that the right venue to try KSM et al. is in military tribunals not in civillian courts. Holder said something like "Well, that's easy to say in order to score political points on tv and radio shows, but this is not the time for ptolemics. The American way is to have jury trials, blah, blah, blah." McCarthy said something like "Well, is the American way putting terrorists in prison (which I did) or is it defending them and getting them pardons (which Holder did)."
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 06:49 AM (qP2BK)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 06:49 AM (SqAkN)
Drew:
I believe what the courts did vis a vis the subject matter jurisdiction clauses of the Military Commissions Act was determine on an ad hoc basis that federal habeas petitions would continue to be heard in the courts as this is an ancient writ later codified by law to be a unique tool in the courts. The federal courts did not rule that Congress lacked the power to strip the courts of SMJ on the issue of trials proper. Even our SCOTUS would probably rule that no district judge could overrule Congress' declaration that no trials would occur.
Slade
Posted by: slade at November 19, 2009 06:50 AM (XsHAM)
Posted by: kansas at November 19, 2009 06:50 AM (mka2b)
Posted by: Alex at November 19, 2009 06:51 AM (yMe+s)
On US soil.
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 06:51 AM (SqAkN)
I posted this video on my facebook page last night for all my libtard friends to see with the following headline "Holder admits that he will stage a show trial by testifying that even if KSM is acquitted or gets off on a technicality he will still be detained as an enemy combatant. Rather than demonstrating the strength of our judicial system (as is claimed) this trial will undermine the very foundations of it"
The legal implications that follow from Holder's testimony make the ham fisted handling of this issue by the Bush administration look deft and masterful by comparison. I cannot see how anyone but the most radical leftist can watch this clip and not be deeply disturbed.
Posted by: muggedbyreality at November 19, 2009 06:51 AM (eUGzR)
Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 06:52 AM (e8YaH)
Actually, I believe they're completely clueless. They THINK they know what they're doing, but clearly they've not thought through all the different angles.
I've worked with people like that. They plugged in an alarm clock once so now they are a fully qualified electrician. They built a treehouse for their kid so now they are a capenter. The fixed a clogged a drain with Drano so now they are a plumber.
They THINK they know what they're doing. After all, how hard could it be? It takes a heavy dose of immaturity to think that way.
Posted by: Alex's Cabin at November 19, 2009 06:52 AM (8RZx+)
Did KSM actually kill anybody himself? Aha! Neither did Charles Manson. So, in order to get the best perspective on the KSM trial, we should hear from the prosecutor in the Manson trial.
What have you to say about all this, Vincent Bugliosi?
Posted by: FireHorse at November 19, 2009 06:52 AM (Vl5GH)
They've already played the 'Bush and the military took 8 years to try them' card. Except that cocksucker Holder worked at the firm that represented the Gitmo terrorists, and their motions were the ones holding up the trials. Cocksuckers.
Dang, you are so right, I admire your perspicacity. Yesterday, Andrew McCarthy said that Holder's firm defended 18 of those scumbags so he should really recuse himself from this whole thing. He also said that those defense lawyers filed so many motions and delays that only 3 of the terrorists have been tried in military tribunals. So for Holder to decry the glacial pace of "justice" because of the Bush administration and tout that the Obama administration is moving things forward after only 8 months is completely disingenuous, at best. Oh and the thing you are the most right about is how you ended your comment. You are such a wordsmith--heh!
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 06:54 AM (qP2BK)
Drew:
One mo' thing: whereas certain federal district judges read the Military Commissions Act as not divesting them of subject matter jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions, that proceeding is initiated by the filing of a defense petition; it gets before the court that way. If Congress were to act now and decisively in stripping the federal courts of the power to even hear KSM trials, it would bind the EXECUTIVE too. It would be illegal for Holder and his cronies to even initiate a federal grand jury proceeding to obtain the indictment in the first instance. Even Holder wouldn't do this patently illegal maneuver.
Posted by: slade at November 19, 2009 06:55 AM (XsHAM)
#135 What have you to say about all this, Vincent Bugliosi?
These days, he's probably agree with Administration on KSM. I remember Bugliosi wrote a book (can't recall the title off-hand) where he said that basically the Supreme Court botched Bush vs. Gore and selected Bush as the President.
If there's two things that Leftism can kill quickly in one's mind, it's ethics and logic.
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at November 19, 2009 06:56 AM (9hSKh)
I do. I can't think of a single "smart" thing Holder has ever said or done, while I can can uickly come up with a number of really stupid things he's proudly backed and said.
Why do people seem so quick to ascribe intelligence to people who demonstrate none, just because they have wormed their way into high positions or been able to gain acceptance into "elite" institutions? I find this perplexing.
Maybe people have just formed some sort of respect for the intellect of people who do stupid things and then look like fools when they fail to justify them in public? I don't get it. I just don't get it.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 06:57 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: ahem at November 19, 2009 06:58 AM (Ldu+P)
Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 06:58 AM (AH8nd)
Starting to think the best thing for the country would be if the court lets KSM walk on day one. Rather see that than the leftist trash destroy CIA and our military by putting them on trial instead in this kangaroo court. Not to mention the backlash against Wee Wee and AG cocksucker.
Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 06:58 AM (Haq+B)
The trial of KSM is about one three letter word, J-O-B-S.
Yup, NYC is going broke, but let's just raise the taxes on the rich to pay for the KSM trial. If I lived in NYC and made any kind of money, I'd get the heck out of Dodge. Did you see that some big boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and that Philippino dude (I'm blanking on his name) will not take place in either NY or NJ because of....wait for it....the high tax rates! Heh!
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 06:58 AM (qP2BK)
Didn't KSM personally behead Daniel Pearl? Yes, I think he admitted that one on video.
Yes, he did. The Pearl family came out right away and denounced this decision.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 06:59 AM (qP2BK)
Damn it I said something nice about Graham, I have to go wash in bleach now.
Posted by: alexthechick at November 19, 2009 06:59 AM (8WZWv)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 07:00 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:00 AM (qP2BK)
Ptolemics? Yes indeedie RunningRn, Ptolemics are exactly what we get from the great Imperial Edifice with their "bad news dump" each Friday afternoon.
The Great Ptolemy tells us what we need (and are allowed) to know. In the meantime, the unwashed populace will continue to have the Great Ptolemy dump "bad news" all over us for the next three years.
On a happier note, it was good to see that Senator Graham has not entirely forgotten his prosecutorial chops. He still knows how to ask a question. But he disappears all too often into the great Senatorial fog of compromise and good fellowship. Still, an occasional glimmer of intelligence on the part of any Senator is good to see.
Posted by: Happy Fellow at November 19, 2009 07:00 AM (w6nDa)
Mr.Pink
The Nuremburg Trials were a military tribunal as were the trials of the Lincoln co-conspirators.
Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 07:01 AM (jvrmc)
Why do people seem so quick to ascribe intelligence to people who demonstrate none, just because they have wormed their way into high positions or been able to gain acceptance into "elite" institutions? I find this perplexing.
I hate to sound all conspiratorial and racist, but I really do believe both Holder and Obama are two of affirmative action's finest examples.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:01 AM (qP2BK)
The lefties were arguing just that over the "domestic wiretapping". The calls originated overseas, ended overseas, yet passed through telecom equipment in the US -- lefties say warrants are needed.
Meanwhile, of course, they say that NO WARRANT is needed to search a shipping container coming into a port. Which is correct, yet incompatible with their stance on communications.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:02 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: tunakermit at November 19, 2009 07:03 AM (f97Hn)
Quite simply, you cannot illegally kidnap people, hold them for years, deny them the right to a speedy trial and due process. Maybe water board them a few times and find out what they ate at Jack In the Box the night before. Then claim that the information you glean, largely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, was worth whatever torture you applied-thus justifying it.
And like Graham says, what we have done at Gitmo, would get tossed out of civilian court so fast it would embarrass the government beyond measure. That's why Obama is at a stalemate. You can't try them, look stupid when forced to release them. You can't simply release them and look careless and arrogant, and you can't hold them indefinitely without trial. Nobody even wants the miscreants.
Gitmo is a fucking disaster. It is one of the purest and most asinine ventures I can think of since the Japanese civilian internment camps. I cannot wait to see what the government eventually does because no matter what they do, they are fucked. And as they say, if you know it is unavoidable you might as well sit back and enjoy it.
Posted by: Dumb As A Rocks of Box at November 19, 2009 07:03 AM (wCzzW)
Posted by: GarandFan at November 19, 2009 10:54 AM (ZQBnQ)
They don't care. Their intention is to make a mockery of our system and make the US look foolish. Anything that removes trust and dignity from American institutions is right in line with their intentions.
This junta is organized towards nothing but destroying our system. If they have to look like idiots in the process (which is just par for the course for them, anyway) then so be it. These people are political suicide bombers who are looking to take our system down with them.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 07:03 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:03 AM (qP2BK)
Lots of smart people assume that simply being smart is enough. A nuclear physicist assumes that his skills are prefectly sufficient to, e.g., fix the wiring in his house. Later, when the EMTs pronounce him dead from massive electrical-shock trauma, it's too late to realize that smarts aren't everything. Skill and experience must exist alongside raw IQ. In fact, raw IQ is much less valuable than people think it is in most cases: it's like saying that any Joe Schmoe can win the Indy 500 if only he's driving the fastest car.
The Democrats have had a fetish for "intellectuals" going back for over a hundred years. They absolute love getting "experts" to sign on to whatever wild-eyed idea they have at any given time. How could it be a bad idea? Smart people support it! Their disdain for average folks is part and parcel of this fetish for "intellectualism" -- just look at the abuse they heaped on W. and Palin, and how much of it was directed at the (perceived) lack of intelligence. Yet when we witness at the hapless stumblings of Obama and his brain-trust...silence follows. How could this happen? They're smart!
Well, it turns out that what you need is not abstract intelligence so much as competence. Plenty of Hahvahd PhD's can't even change a tire or fix a leaky toilet; and the value of these abilities spikes in direct proportion to how badly you need them at any given time. The world can get along without brainy astrophysicists for a good long while; it wouldn't last long without good plumbers.
Posted by: Monty at November 19, 2009 07:03 AM (4Pleu)
A big loophole already and the trial hasn't even started
Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 07:04 AM (JKGfQ)
"For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him," Leahy added.
There's stupid.
There is criminally negligent stupid.
Then there is the senior senator from Vermont. Wow.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 07:04 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: spongeworthy at November 19, 2009 07:04 AM (rplL3)
Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody? KSM already plead guilty at his.
Really? What trial? Because if that happened, why wasn't he sentenced to death or life imprisonment? Thus negating this whole sham in NY.
Must have been something I missed.
Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 07:05 AM (+jvXp)
Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 07:06 AM (AH8nd)
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:01 PM (qP2BK)
Nothing conspiratorial or racist about it. You merely speak the truth. Affirmative action kills and these two are perfect examples of how.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 07:06 AM (A46hP)
Gitmo is a fucking disaster. It is one of the purest and most asinine ventures I can think of since the Japanese civilian internment camps. I cannot wait to see what the government eventually does because no matter what they do, they are fucked. And as they say, if you know it is unavoidable you might as well sit back and enjoy it.
You really are dumber than a box of rocks. As a child of parents who were both interned, you have no sense of history. The civilians who were interned were never guilty of any crimes against America. The guys in gitmo were. So right away your premise is flawed. The fact these terrorists have only had 3 military tribunals so far is because of liberal asswipe defense attorneys who have delayed prosecutions. If you think these show trials are going to accomplish anything but put the U.S. and the Bush administration on trial, you are sadly mistaken. I feel sorry for you because you really are stuck on stupid. You are a clueless F-tard.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:07 AM (qP2BK)
Question.
Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody?
Yes, I know they are sitting on them to gain info, but has there been any trials or tribunals?
I'm not aware of any.
You've been living under a rock or depending on the MSM. Every person held at Gitmo has had at least one hearing to determine whether there's cause to hold them. Many have been released because the tribunal did not believe there was enough information.
Some of those released have since been killed on the battlefield, which suggests the tribunals erred on the side of innocence.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:07 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 07:07 AM (e8YaH)
Section II of Stevens' Hamdan opinion.
The MCA of 05 specifically pulled jurisdiction.
Stevens got around it by saying it didn't explicitly cover cases in the courts so it was irrelevant. Of course that let the court rule, wreck havoc and then it was immediately applied to any other detainee, regardless if they were in the system or not.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2009 07:08 AM (FCWQb)
Fixed that for you.
We can do whatever the fuck we want with enemy combatants taken on the field of battle, up to and including summary execution. Your bleating about what's "illegal" or not obscures the fact that the Geneva Accords do not carry the weight of law, and do not burden the US as to our actions in the field. We choose to abide by the Accords; we are not bound to.
American citizens have the right to due process in civilian courts, not enemy aliens.
You, sir, are a credulous douchebag. A feckless chump, a gulllible pigeon ripe for the plucking. Someday, you may find yourself at the mercy of these Jihadi swine; I hope you can explain your theories of crime and punishment, and enjoy the sound of their laughter as they cut your fucking throat.
Posted by: Monty at November 19, 2009 07:08 AM (4Pleu)
Gitmo is a fucking disaster. It is one of the purest and most asinine ventures I can think of...
Please tell us why and what you would do with captured terror suspects and illegal combatants. Specifics, please.
Posted by: spongeworthy at November 19, 2009 07:08 AM (rplL3)
On Sen. Graham's first point, of "has there been a time in history...", wouldn't John Walker Lindh qualify for this? I know it's the same war, but this was an American picked up as an enemy combatant, but then tried in court for his crimes.
John is an American citizen. None of these terrorists are.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:08 AM (qP2BK)
Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 07:09 AM (AH8nd)
Actually, I believe they're completely clueless. They THINK they know what they're doing, but clearly they've not thought through all the different angles.
They have a Plan. And if you have a Plan, everything goes according to the Plan, right?
Remember the shrieks from the left that Bush didn't have a Plan? I guess their outrage was sincere -- they really, really do have that level of faith in the mere existence of a Plan.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:10 AM (ZJ/un)
Captured terrorists are flying over the ocean headed for trial. The pilot jumps in his chute. CIA blames terrorists for shooting down plane.
Good plot?
Posted by: wHodat at November 19, 2009 07:11 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:10 PM (ZJ/un)
Andrew McCarthy thinks these guys are going to live to regret this decision when they get shellacked by public opinion. He was wondering who is advising them to do this. Laura said "Bill Ayers."
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:11 AM (qP2BK)
Gitmo detainees have all been convicted, is that what you are saying?
Unlike you, I do not feel the urge to call names. I outgrew that sometime after the playground, but by all means indulge yourself.
Posted by: Dumb As A Rocks of Box at November 19, 2009 07:12 AM (wCzzW)
Your bleating about what's "illegal" or not obscures the fact that the Geneva Accords do not carry the weight of law, and do not burden the US as to our actions in the field. We choose to abide by the Accords; we are not bound to.
Additionally, terrorists are not signatories to Geneva. We have no responsibility to honor Geneva with regards to terrorists even if we continue to honor them towards other signatories.
Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 07:12 AM (e8YaH)
Hatch on FN this a.m. said "I like Holder" just disagree about trial. Like he was talking about a restaurant he didn't like.
I guess Hatch liked the FALN terrorist bombings, Mark Rich pardon, and all of the jihaddi defenders......
Who are these people.
They should all apologize to the American people for voting for him, and today they will step right up and vote for Hamilton
Posted by: non_dhimmie at November 19, 2009 07:12 AM (cFwGO)
And like Graham says, what we have done at Gitmo, would get tossed out of ******civilian court******* so fast it would embarrass the government beyond measure.
Hey, genius...spot the key words.
Are you following the argumetn at all? These enemy combatants should be subject to military tribunals as they are ENEMY COMBATANTS. Got it?
The whole premise behind Guantanamo was to ensure they did not reach the civilian courts becasue of the very circus we are now going to face. Is this so effing hard to follow?
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 07:13 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:13 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: Dumb As A Rocks of Box at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (wCzzW)
You should watch the Steven Crowder video on Gitmo so you can educate yourself a little. And quit insulting boxes of rocks. You really pissed me off.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:13 AM (qP2BK)
That's the conclusion I've come to. It thwarts Obama/Holder's dis-ingeniousness about what the trial is really about and allows the civil process to maintain the fig leaf of "blind justice" necessary to maintain general civil order in the country. People need to have some (minimal) faith that the civil courts aren't completely corrupt and bowing to political pressure.
I'd rather see KSM beat this set of charges than see the Obamunists corrupt the whole civil legal system for their ideological carnival.
Its not like KSM walks out the door, since there's a gazillion other charges he could be tried on, but it would be a major black eye for the Obamunists.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 07:14 AM (XUgp7)
As a lawyer, I found Graham's questioning effective, but honestly, I thought he went fairly easy on him. When Holder responded to his question about when he would Mirandize Bin Laden by saying "it depends," I would have asked Holder:
"Mr. Attorney General, we could be capturing Bin Laden as we speak. Do you mean to tell me that the only direction that has been given to people who may take him into custody about how to deal with the issue of custodial interrogation is 'IT DEPENDS'???"
This is genuinely frightening stuff.
Posted by: Leeotis at November 19, 2009 07:15 AM (4skUZ)
Patterico, who got it from Greenwald, which may just be the Chaos that someone's been predicting 'round here:
[Holder:] Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism . . . On the same day I sent these five defendants to federal court, I referred five others to be tried in military commissions. I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor, my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case with the best law. . . . At the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is a federal court.
In other words, "I looked myopically at the issue of best venue and didn't notice the political, legal, or logistical issues."
Posted by: Mama AJ at November 19, 2009 07:15 AM (Be4xl)
Yeah, I'd hate for that to happen
Posted by: Barack Obama at November 19, 2009 07:15 AM (yUybe)
Posted by: Dumb As A Rocks of Box at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (wCzzW)
Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you educate yourself about the internment camps. You have no fricking idea. My family was there.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:15 AM (qP2BK)
Posted by: jp at November 19, 2009 07:15 AM (DFDtC)
Really? What trial? Because if that happened, why wasn't he sentenced to death or life imprisonment? Thus negating this whole sham in NY.
Must have been something I missed.
Yes, it's something you missed -- and your ignorance renders its existence null and void.
The trial -- before a military tribunal as established by Congress -- began and then was shut down by -- I believe -- order of Obama.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:16 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: B. Obama at November 19, 2009 07:16 AM (4iIhs)
Truman North at November 19, 2009 12:07 PM (e8YaH)
That is why I call him DUUUH WON.
DUUUH for lack of any common sense and DUUUH won the election over common sense hence DUUUH WON.
Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 07:17 AM (JKGfQ)
Actually, I believe they're completely clueless. They THINK they know what they're doing, but clearly they've not thought through all the different angles
Spot on. This disconnect is the central theme of this administration. If you have never been challenged, and have only ever been told how brilliant you are for doing any little thing, even if only at a mediocre level, then this is what you get. You could see the self-esteem leaking out of Holder in real time. Reminded me of the Wicked Witch melting.
Posted by: pep at November 19, 2009 07:18 AM (5GcKk)
Gitmo detainees have all been convicted, is that what you are saying?
I am not saying that. I'm saying that these men were picked up on the battlefield engaging illegally. A lot of these people were released, and what you have left now are the worst of the worst. If you would like, why don't you adopt some of those innocent detainees and have them go live with you and your family. Really, you are unbelievable. I will waste no more words or time on you.
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 07:18 AM (qP2BK)
Posted by: t-bird at November 19, 2009 07:19 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 07:19 AM (HaJD9)
There is simply no basis in law for Obama and Holder's theory here. It's simply a political decision divorced from law.
Bennett bets that Holder will be forced to reconsider this political decision.
Pat Buchanan bets that otherwise, Obama becomes a lame duck now.
Posted by: Cletus at November 19, 2009 07:19 AM (+CLh/)
Actually, even if they WERE signatories, by targeting civilians, failing to wear distinctive insignia (hiding as civilians), committing false surrender and many, many other acts, they're not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
We're actually doing damage to the Geneva Conventions by giving these animals room and board -- we're rewarding war crimes with a status equivalent to a burglar, while a fundamental premise of the GCs is that sides that commit war crimes as a matter of policy are no longer protected and may (arguably SHOULD) be executed upon capture.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:20 AM (ZJ/un)
So let me get this straight, Rob Crawford. KSM was held by the military, never came to trial, because of Obama and Congress, and is now going to see justice in NYC?
Care to site something to that proposition?
Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 07:21 AM (+jvXp)
Posted by: Salman Rushdie at November 19, 2009 07:22 AM (2jywx)
Posted by: jp at November 19, 2009 07:22 AM (DFDtC)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 07:23 AM (7K04W)
Dumb as a Rocks of Box
Khalid was not "illegally kidnapped" he was arrested in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities
Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 07:23 AM (jvrmc)
Pat Buchanan bets that otherwise, Obama becomes a lame duck now.
Holy hell. I agree with Pat Buchanan.
I feel dirty.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 07:23 AM (B+qrE)
Captured terrorists are flying over the ocean headed for trial. The Before the pilot jumps in his chute., he aims the plane for a Somali pirate ship. CIA blames terrorists for shooting down plane.
yeah, now it's better.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 07:24 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: soozer at November 19, 2009 07:24 AM (OnRdm)
Now officers in the field will not know how to best question captives. Do they use standards based on military law, or civil law?
Whichever one they choose, they might retroactively be subject to punishment of some kind if the captive ends up in the opposite legal system.
The result? Paralysis on the ground, and likely more dead American soldiers when important intelligence is not uncovered.
Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 07:27 AM (e8YaH)
Posted by: t-bird at November 19, 2009 12:19 PM (FcR7P)
That requirement was traditionally for the SecState. The cancer of extreme stupidity has metastasized and now infects all positions of the executive branch. Thanks, Affirmative Action.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 07:27 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: Hotspur at November 19, 2009 07:27 AM (c158/)
Holy hell. I agree with Pat Buchanan.
I feel dirty.
Jesus, go get yourself scrubbed down with a stiff brush
Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 07:28 AM (e8YaH)
Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 07:28 AM (EL+OC)
So let me get this straight, Rob Crawford. KSM was held by the military, never came to trial, because of Obama and Congress, and is now going to see justice in NYC?
Care to site something to that proposition?
I dispute the proposition that he's going to "see justice in NYC". Proper application of the law would have given him justice long ago -- determine he's a member of al'Qaeda and execute him on those grounds alone.
Anyway, from 2007, reports of KSMs combatant status review. The current news has swamped stories about the more recent tribunal, and I'm having trouble locating them, but they're out there.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:29 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: dfbaskwill at November 19, 2009 07:29 AM (ympAm)
I thought it was Alan Dershowitz who wrote the book you're describing. He, at least, has some cred in constitutional law. Bugliosi, not so much.
Posted by: OregonMuse at November 19, 2009 07:30 AM (hoowK)
Summary battlefield executions per the Geneva Conventions. I'm OK with that.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 07:30 AM (XUgp7)
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:30 AM (ZJ/un)
Yep.
He either did pro bono work to defend jihadis or took jihadi cash for it.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:31 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: Bender at November 19, 2009 07:31 AM (FDZUn)
Posted by: wrg at November 19, 2009 07:31 AM (7t+Ws)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 07:32 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 07:32 AM (vb5IK)
Justice, Rule of Law, and National Security all be damned- they need to hold on to Congress to hold on to power. That is all that matters.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 10:38 AM (OtQXp)
This is quite a damning assessment, not even of Holder and Obama, but of the voters they are trying to reach.
They are going to pervert the rule of law and bring show trials to the US to make the ignorant and easily misled believe that we are pursing the WoT in a just manner. And keep in mind, once the government is allowed to proceed in such a fashion it might not be quite so easy to put the genie back in the bottle.
As Churchill noted of the NAZI leadership, we'd be better off legally and morally just shooting captured jihadis.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 19, 2009 07:33 AM (7BU4a)
There you go.
Posted by: Berserker at November 19, 2009 07:33 AM (gWHrG)
Ummm...sharp NCOs will make sure no "captives" make it to officers if we get to that point. Shot trying to escape, blew himself up with a grenade when we had him surrounded, took poison, etc, etc.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 07:33 AM (XUgp7)
Wonder if he mentioned to Holder that he was for tribunals before he was against them...?
Posted by: jadedinga at November 19, 2009 07:34 AM (Uc/xV)
Posted by: Captain Obvious at November 19, 2009 07:34 AM (DYYHe)
Ummm...sharp NCOs will make sure no "captives" make it to officers if we get to that point. Shot trying to escape, blew himself up with a grenade when we had him surrounded, took poison, etc, etc.
Which will result in a shocking expose in the NYT, Congressional hearings, and show trials that end in the sharp NCOs being sentenced to death for war crimes.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:34 AM (ZJ/un)
He either did pro bono work to defend jihadis or took jihadi cash for it.
Holder may not be very bright, but like any lawyer he's cunning as hell when it comes to getting paid. Now he's going to grandstand and pander to the leftist trash with this show trial, bashing the U.S. at every opportunity. He'll be set for life on the book and lecture tour or with a big lefty firm.
Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 07:35 AM (Haq+B)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 07:35 AM (QeLzv)
Posted by: t-bird at November 19, 2009 07:36 AM (FcR7P)
As Churchill noted of the NAZI leadership, we'd be better off legally and morally just shooting captured jihadis.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 19, 2009 12:33 PM (7BU4a)
But for the loss of intelligence information I think that would be the best approach.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 07:36 AM (OtQXp)
I've yet to see an Obama position with anything longer than a 6 month expiration date.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 07:36 AM (XUgp7)
And what is this mountain of evidence against bin Laden??
Who is there to testify against him?
The only real evidence we have is hearsay. We have no direct witnesses, we have no eyewitnesses, we have no physical evidence that ties him to the attacks. We have enough evidence for history and commonsense, we already know for a fact that bin Laden was in charge, but court trials are NOT about facts, they are about legally admissible evidence. And most of the evidence against him -- whether obtained by enhanced methods or not -- is not admissible under current court rules.
Posted by: Bender at November 19, 2009 07:36 AM (FDZUn)
Bennett bets that Holder will be forced to reconsider this political decision.
And call it delays, working out the details, copy and past from the closing Gitmo claims.
Posted by: Mama AJ at November 19, 2009 07:37 AM (Be4xl)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 19, 2009 07:37 AM (b68Df)
Headline: "NYT reporter tragically killed during crossfire in firefight with terrorists"
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 07:37 AM (XUgp7)
Posted by: Katie Couric at November 19, 2009 07:38 AM (DtTM9)
Leahy is an ass. No wonder Cheney told him what he could do to himself.
Posted by: Blogluddite at November 19, 2009 07:39 AM (fDWFP)
His own jihadi propaganda video where he admitted ordering 9/11 might be fairly compelling.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 07:39 AM (XUgp7)
Stupid is as stupid does, and stupid sticks to Holder's decision from the inside out.
I ask how, from his entire professional career, has Eric Holder proven he is a brilliant lawyer?
Fred Thompson just said that Holder has not proven himself worthy of being the Attorney General of the United States.
One sad and simple fact that we must face: POTUS Obama does not have the will or the determination to do what it takes to win. Obama is unwilling and/or unable to make the case required in order to win in Afghanistan. Obama has already chosen; America has already lost in Afghanistan. --Thompson
Pull out because corruption is discovered in Afghanistan? In Iraq?
HOW ABOUT IN CONGRESS AND
IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND
IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE?
Posted by: maverick muse at November 19, 2009 07:39 AM (+CLh/)
Andrew McCarthy thinks these guys are going to live to regret this decision when they get shellacked by public opinion. He was wondering who is advising them to do this. Laura said "Bill Ayers."
Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:11 PM (qP2BK)
Hey, I'm, sorry Obama is not righting anymore books right now, so I've got the time.
Posted by: Bill Ayers at November 19, 2009 07:39 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 07:39 AM (pIKTP)
As I posted on earlier thread:
The number one question for Holder and especially Teh Ø:
If the civil court system is so great at 'getting terrorists' WHY is fuggin BILL AYERS out there saying 'GUILTY AS HELL, FREE AS A BIRD????????'
Posted by: Schwalbe at November 19, 2009 07:40 AM (UU0OF)
I remember Bugliosi wrote a book (can't recall the title off-hand) where he said that basically the Supreme Court botched Bush vs. Gore and selected Bush as the President.
The one you're thinking of is The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President.
The one I'm thinking of is The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
Posted by: FireHorse at November 19, 2009 07:41 AM (Vl5GH)
Posted by: wHodat at November 19, 2009 07:42 AM (+sBB4)
Sure, and the underlying message will be this:
You're screwed. No matter what you do, you're screwed. If the guy surrenders, the left back at home is going to drag him into court to testify against YOU, because you didn't bandage every scrape and bruise on the cocksucker. They're going to want to know why the guy showed up at POW processing dehydrated -- never mind that your own troops were running low on water for themselves, they're gonna demand to know why he wasn't in peak physical condition within minutes of capture.
If they guy ends up dead, they're going to declare you a cold-blooded murderer. They're going to point to close-cropped photos of his body and declare the lack of a visible firearm -- which had already been policed for everyone's safety -- as proof he was a civilian. They're going to demand to know how you applied the rules of engagement, second by second, and if there's the least bit of inconsistency or missing information, well, they may not get a court martial to convict you, but you can kiss the possibility of a military career goodbye. And just wait until you return to civilian life; the Code Pinkers and ANSWER and their ilk are going to be camped out on your front yard, demanding you be dragged into Federal Court -- or the International Criminal Court -- and "held to account".
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:42 AM (ZJ/un)
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
Posted by: wrg at November 19, 2009 07:43 AM (7t+Ws)
138
Bugliosi is craphouse rat crazy. He wrote a book called "The prosecution of GWB for murder". The premise was that Bush should be convicted of murder for starting the Iraq war.
The sheer insanity of the book's premise kept all the networks (even MSNBC so far as I know) from granting Bugliosi an interview to promote the book.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 19, 2009 07:43 AM (b68Df)
The military began the hearings last Friday to determine whether the 14 should be declared "enemy combatants" who can be held indefinitely and prosecuted by military tribunals.
If the 14 are declared enemy combatants, as expected, the military would then draft and file charges against them. The detainees would be tried under the new military commissions law signed by Bush in October.
This is from the link R.C. gave me. This was 2yrs ago. So WHY IN HELL weren't these guys nailed then?
Is the military so slow?
Jesus, how long did the Nuremburg Trials take?
Anyhow, thanks Rob.
Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 07:43 AM (+jvXp)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 07:45 AM (ouk5a)
Which is enough to convince a sizable minority of the public that are soldiers are -- to a man -- war criminals, borderline insane, and a danger to themselves and others.
A milblogger recently had a story about a school board thug ragging on a serviceman for his PTS. The serviceman disagreed with the school board over the uniform policy at his kids' school; the school board thug decided the proper response was to declare the serviceman a lunatic, make accusations about what soldiers to do captives, etc.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:46 AM (ZJ/un)
Are you kidding? These civilian trials are designed to fail. Then Obama can say, "see what Bush did?"
Posted by: the real joe at November 19, 2009 07:46 AM (rFTt2)
Want some good news?
A Republican 47-year old mother of two beat the long-time incumbent Democrat mayor of the city of Lynn, Massachusetts. Judith Flanagan Kennedy won by 27 votes.
Incumbents are taking a lot of losses up here in Massachusetts, which is kinda rare. But it shows how people want real change, the kind of change Sarah Palin was talking about in her recent interviews.
Hopefully we can get rid of Deval Patrick next year.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 07:47 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: Bald Ninja at November 19, 2009 07:48 AM (4pdbX)
There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man.
He's wrong about everything. Still think a man who's wrong about everything is smart? Drew, who do you think is smarter, Sarah Palin or Eric Holder?
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 07:50 AM (jVldi)
This is from the link R.C. gave me. This was 2yrs ago. So WHY IN HELL weren't these guys nailed then?
Is the military so slow?
If you had been paying attention, you'd realize it took so long because every time they had a system ready to go, defense cocksuckers like Holder would run to a federal court with another reason to delay the trials.
The goal was to run out the clock so that the next president could find a politic way to pardon the war criminals they were representing.
To quote the immortal Sideshow Bob: "You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever; and when they get in, I'm back on the street! With all of my criminal buddies!"
Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 07:51 AM (ZJ/un)
goforitbillbelichik
That is great news. I live close to Lynn, but hadn't paid attention to race there.
Together we can get rid of Cadlillac Deval!
Go Baker, Go. We need Cahill to disappear or agree to be Baker's Lt. Governor for a guaranteed slam dunk.
Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 07:51 AM (Ud6F+)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 07:51 AM (mtAmx)
Posted by: Bald Ninja at November 19, 2009 07:51 AM (4pdbX)
Posted by: PKO Strany at November 19, 2009 07:51 AM (9XH7k)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 07:52 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 07:54 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 07:54 AM (EL+OC)
A Republican 47-year old mother of two beat the long-time incumbent Democrat mayor of the city of Lynn, Massachusetts. Judith Flanagan Kennedy won by 27 votes.
Incumbents are taking a lot of losses up here in Massachusetts, which is kinda rare. But it shows how people want real change, the kind of change Sarah Palin was talking about in her recent interviews.
Hopefully we can get rid of Deval Patrick next year.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik
Wow, that's awesome. Lynn is not a moderate kind of a place! Awesome!
Now, I wonder if the GOP will upt up a candidate, ANY candidate, in MA-3. McGovern has not faced an opponent in six years.
Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 07:55 AM (e8YaH)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 07:55 AM (jVldi)
Leftie tards will just say it is all Bush's fault. If he hadn't started a Neocon war for oil we wouldn't have these complexities to deal with.
And I bet a critic I deal with on my blog will add that Obama isn't a real liberal anyway, people should have voted for Nader.
So it is never liberals faults. QED
Posted by: Mark at November 19, 2009 07:56 AM (Vvbjc)
On Topic.
Our firm won a SJC appeal for a client whose statements made after a crime scene had been secured were ruled inadmissible.
Under this new policy of granting rights to combatants, how will military personnel be able to determine when the battle field is secured? Is it ever?
Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 07:57 AM (Ud6F+)
The truly amazing part of the Graham/Holder exchange was the stark contrast between the concrete "yes or no" question by Graham versus the nebulous and weakness of the "it depends" answers by Holder.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 19, 2009 07:57 AM (ZGhSv)
He is my Senator as well, unfortunately. I voted against him as I told him in the last letter I sent him after he supported the terrorists in 2005.
As I said in the earlier posts you can not go by grandstanding rhetoric in these damn hearings. Hearings are worthless and designed only to get the Senator in front of a TV camera. Wahtch what he does, not what he says.
And asshole Graham, well he gets a two-fer here. Fox is putting him on for some more coverage now.
Why is it that Fox puts two or three squishy RINOs and 4 or 5 communist Dems on for every conservative. Yeah, fair and balanced that.
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2009 07:57 AM (CDUiN)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:54 PM (jVldi)
all 19% of citizenry
Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 07:59 AM (Ud6F+)
McGovern, Delahunt, Tierney, Fag, Markey...
none of these douche bags get challengers, and when they do, the challengers are pathetic
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:00 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 08:01 AM (+jvXp)
Have any of you applied for the FEMA Detention Guard positions yet?
Posted by: Todd the guy who hate muslims, all muslims at November 19, 2009 08:02 AM (LLOGQ)
goforitbillbelichik
Tierney has a challenger this year - Bill Hudack. He's generated a lot of energy and his campaign is very well organized. I met him at the Portsmouthm, NH BarryCare rally. Nice guy, well spoken, fired up.
Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 08:03 AM (Ud6F+)
Posted by: Eric Holder at November 19, 2009 08:03 AM (Oxen1)
Are you shittin'me?
The Army Corps of Engineers has been found responsible for the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina?
What about all the politicians who squandered the money, for years and years, to fix the levees?
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:03 AM (jVldi)
Cool. For your next hit job, can you get to the RANDOM caps used IN other peoples' POSTS of late?
Posted by: Iskandar at November 19, 2009 08:05 AM (u1pln)
Posted by: Zombie Johnnie Cock-ran at November 19, 2009 08:06 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 08:06 AM (Ud6F+)
Innocent victims, of course.
Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 08:07 AM (n1uMU)
Posted by: the real joe at November 19, 2009 08:08 AM (rFTt2)
John Kerry's daughter Alexandra got busted for DUI this morning.
I'm sure Andrew Sullivan will get right on that.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 08:09 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 08:09 AM (Ud6F+)
Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 08:10 AM (jvrmc)
Posted by: Al Gore at November 19, 2009 08:11 AM (ia/06)
Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 08:13 AM (n1uMU)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 19, 2009 08:13 AM (5PPi5)
Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 08:13 AM (+jvXp)
Call us when she does something actually shameful, like giving birth in lieu of having an abortion.
Posted by: Current-Event Driven Comedy Shows at November 19, 2009 08:14 AM (NtiET)
#272
As I have always said, clearly, the real cause was the failure to have comprehensive health insurance for every member of the United States.
Posted by: Barry Obama at November 19, 2009 08:14 AM (ia/06)
Either they give OBL and KSM the same rights as Bernie Madoff or they don't. If they don't, they set precedent for other defendants to have their constitutional rights ignored. And good luck picking a jury. Anyone know what the Arab word is for the practice of pretending to be something they aren't so they can fool an enemy?
You know, the 9/11 killers also hit Washington D.C. Why don't they have the trial there?
Posted by: vivi at November 19, 2009 08:14 AM (knNJg)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 19, 2009 08:14 AM (554T5)
That precedent having been set, so shall it be for all of us.
Exactly.
Posted by: baldilocks at November 19, 2009 08:15 AM (wDz7C)
Here's the only vid I could find of Obama in 2007 supporting a military tribunal for KSM.
2006? I dunno.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:16 AM (jVldi)
I give Holder 2 months, max, before he's thrown under da' bus.
Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at November 19, 2009 08:17 AM (dwwPD)
Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 08:17 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 01:17 PM (EL+OC)
and so it begins...
Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 08:18 AM (Ud6F+)
Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 08:19 AM (pU4D7)
Here I am bitch, you want some?
Look at you. Hiding in the comments. You think you can appear whenever you want to. You'll get yours, greaseball.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:19 AM (jVldi)
Shocking, and by that I mean not shocking in any way.
No but it is disgusting. That means he still intends to run for prfesident in 2012, along with the other RINOs Huck and Romney. We will wind up with the same shit as last time and they will not have Palin to bail their stupid squishy asses out.
This is a guaranteed 4 more years of Obama.
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2009 08:21 AM (CDUiN)
She has produced documentaries and has had several small acting roles.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:21 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 08:21 AM (+sBB4)
Now officers in the field will not know how to best question captives. Do they use standards based on military law, or civil law?
Question them as spies and sabatours. Then shoot them.
Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 08:21 AM (JKGfQ)
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 19, 2009 08:21 AM (GkYyh)
Posted by: wrg at November 19, 2009 08:22 AM (7t+Ws)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 08:24 AM (7K04W)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:24 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: nickless at November 19, 2009 08:24 AM (MMC8r)
The GOP leadership will decide that the 2012 presidential race just isn't a hill they want to fight for. They will nominate some Dole type sacrifice, fund raise against the eeeeevil Obama for 4 years, and take the sure thing(they think) in 2016.
Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 08:24 AM (n1uMU)
Anyone know what the Arab word is for the practice of pretending to be something they aren't so they can fool an enemy?
conservative liberal democrat
Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 08:24 AM (JKGfQ)
Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 08:24 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:25 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: Reiver at November 19, 2009 08:26 AM (Yi1Sk)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 19, 2009 08:26 AM (554T5)
Oh wait....nevermind.
I believe he is continuing his Republican racism apology tour at some undisclosed location.
Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 08:27 AM (n1uMU)
Now he wants to spend so much money we have to borrow from Red China! My father (who fought China in Korea) must be spinning in his grave! Boy, he must be pissed off!
But no matter. The President is such a hunk. But at least I am not creaming in my jeans.
Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 08:27 AM (pU4D7)
Italics go here ----> Does someone need to put out an APB on Michael Steele?
Why, 'cuz he's black?
That's racist!
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:27 AM (jVldi)
Mavafancullo!!!
Posted by: the real joe at November 19, 2009 08:27 AM (rFTt2)
Er, that's not sand, guys, it's kitty litter.
Posted by: the real joe at November 19, 2009 08:29 AM (rFTt2)
Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 08:29 AM (n1uMU)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:30 AM (jVldi)
@290 goforitbillbelichik
the video caption you linked to says that his support for tribunals and insistence that terrorists would not get the same rights as in civilian trials was 2006.....
I blame the italics.....
Posted by: jadedinga at November 19, 2009 08:31 AM (Uc/xV)
Posted by: Barry Obama at November 19, 2009 08:31 AM (ia/06)
Exactly how much is the Obama Administration paying Gallup to keep his Approval Rating at 50% or higher?
For about the tenth time, Obama's Rating on Gallup has plummeted to 50% only to hit an brick wall. Then, after 3 days or so, he rallies back up between 4 and 6 points and the process begins again.
3 days ago, Obama's rating on Gallup fell 3 points in one day to 50%. Anyone who follows polling knows that when you fall that far in one day on a 3 day moving average poll, you typically get some over-blow and drop another point or two the next day.
Nope, Gallup has had Obama right at 50% for 3 days now after falling 3 points in one day. Statistically a challenge to say the least. The fact that this exact same scenario has occurred numerous times gives on a serious, 'hmmmm' moment.
I expect Gallup is taking money from the WH to pull this off simply because no one else will pay them for their services after coming in 17th in 2008 as to accuracy (a dismal showing for an 'independent' pollster). Of course, this is only my opinion so take it for what it's worth.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 19, 2009 08:32 AM (Gm9rd)
I don't like those lazy bastids.
On the bright side of things, they are leaning to the right.
Well, ya know, just sayiing.
Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 08:33 AM (+jvXp)
Because she is a hard working, smart, babe. Who was not programed by the left.
They sure hate her because they want the first female president to be a far left lesbo. Like Hilary.
Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 08:33 AM (pU4D7)
Posted by: stitches at November 19, 2009 08:33 AM (KyqYb)
Posted by: joncelli at November 19, 2009 08:33 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 19, 2009 08:33 AM (554T5)
...they will have left a lasting legacy through their judicial revisionism.
That's one of the scary parts. Hope none of the SCJ's leaves the bench until 2012.
Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 08:34 AM (JKGfQ)
Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 08:34 AM (+sBB4)
[italics]...the video caption you linked to says that his support for tribunals and insistence that terrorists would not get the same rights as in civilian trials was 2006.....[/italics]
ahh, thanks, the kook talking over the vid was confusing me in the dates
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:34 AM (jVldi)
Mill Bitchell, the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll today has President Apology at 46%.
If he gets below 42%, which is unlikely, he'll have challengers in the primary, I predict.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:38 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:39 AM (jVldi)
Those that are arguing whether this decision to try KSM in New York falls on Obama's shoulders rather than Holder's are overlooking one detail. The real blame falls on the shoulders of the 52% that voted for the most radical, left wing President in the history of the country. The MFM tried mightily to camoflauge that information, but it was there and 52% couldn't be bothered to pay attention. Although I'll bet you that those same motherfuckers could tell you in painstaking detail all about the contestants on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.
Preserving your freedom is Hard Work. Being fucking stupid makes it harder.
Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 08:40 AM (v/rEn)
Will KSM be taken to NY by one of the Biden limo drivers?
Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 08:40 AM (JKGfQ)
Posted by: Mike H at November 19, 2009 08:40 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 08:42 AM (EL+OC)
I'll ask again, and hope that some Republicans in the Senate ask too. How will this tactic of Obama's improve our image in the world with respect to the rule of law? (No, I do not accept that it needs improvement, but just hypothetically...)
1. Will it be because the President of the United States declares a defendant guilty before trial, and promises the citizens of the United States that he will be put to death?
2. Or is it because the President of the United States declares that the trial's outcome is of no consquence, and that the defendant will remain incarcerated, presumably forever, even if acquitted?
The political and media chorus that accused George W. Bush of destroying the Constitution for exercising powers specifically granted him, and confirmed by the Congress, is suddenly struck silent and averts its eyes!
This is what happens when you elect thugs. They (duh) behave like thugs and everyone who supports them becomes a participant in thuggery! This is how nations degenerate from the rule of law, to the rule of powerful men. It is starting to happen before our eyes.
The Democrat Party must be quarantined until it can be reformed and purged of the criminal class that now infests it. That should be the mission of every honest American the next time and every time they cast their vote until the deed is done. At this point our nation is in such grave peril that I would not vote for a Democrat for dogcatcher if she was my Mother!
Posted by: sherlock at November 19, 2009 08:42 AM (ktKOD)
He'd be a fine senator.
BS, his RINO gun grabbin ass needs to stay in NY.
Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2009 08:42 AM (CDUiN)
Wow, he must have Bush appointees driving his cars for him.
No pedestrians mess with Joe!
Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 08:42 AM (n1uMU)
Anyone notice why the Leftist hate Sarah?
My theory is that they're afraid of her. Not because she's a strong woman or any of that nonsense, but because she was ruthless toward corrupt politicians in Alaska. Some people are genuinely scared, and they ought to be.
Posted by: FireHorse at November 19, 2009 08:42 AM (Vl5GH)
Posted by: Mike H at November 19, 2009 08:43 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:44 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 08:44 AM (v/rEn)
Posted by: wrg at November 19, 2009 08:45 AM (7t+Ws)
Well we must keep in mind that a significant chunk of folks in this country that fancy themselves as "independents" voted for Toonces. These are generally people who couldn't make a meaningful decision to save their lives. They wake up each day astride the political fence, lick their index finger and thrust it defiantly into the air to see which way the wind is blowing that day.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 19, 2009 08:45 AM (554T5)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at November 19, 2009 08:45 AM (DIYmd)
Posted by: gus at November 19, 2009 11:38 AM (Vqruj)
Well, the only exception I take to what you said is that they are entitled to be Mirandized whether or not they are interrogated. That is not supported by case law. They are only entitled to the profelactic of Miranda if they are subject to custodial interrogation. Detaining them alone does not trigger it.
Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 08:46 AM (rVJH4)
>>Anyone know what the Arab word is for the practice of pretending to be something they aren't so they can fool an enemy?
> taqqiya
No, it's italics.
Posted by: BOLD at November 19, 2009 08:46 AM (Be4xl)
Anyone notice why the Leftist hate Sarah?
Monica Crowley on Fox the other night said it best, IMO. She said that Sarah represents an existential threat to all things liberal and as such, must be destroyed.
I think she nailed it. Sarah is anti-matter to the leftard's matter.
Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 08:46 AM (v/rEn)
seriously, speakingof guns...
Is Detroit becoming like a third-world hellhole like Somalia?
A man shoots his own (naked) 15yo son in the back of the head.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:46 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: sherlock at November 19, 2009 01:42 PM (ktKOD)
Here, here sherlock. Well said.
Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 01:44 PM (v/rEn)
Ditto. (Except hear hear!)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 19, 2009 08:48 AM (xxgag)
Anybody who has connections to Graham or Kyl get them to sponsor legislation immediately to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear and determine these terror trials.
Unless my memory fails me, Congress already passed such a law. Getting the courts to pay attention to it is the problem.
Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 08:49 AM (fqDKB)
Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 08:51 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 08:51 AM (pIKTP)
Posted by: NAMBLA at November 19, 2009 08:52 AM (NtiET)
Posted by: barack JESUS obama at November 19, 2009 08:53 AM (rVJH4)
Anyone notice why the Leftist hate Sarah?
They need somebody to hate. And with Bush retiring they needed a new witch to burn.
Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 08:54 AM (fqDKB)
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 08:54 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 08:54 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: Mad fucKing Obama at November 19, 2009 08:55 AM (wAQA5)
I am within my capacity as President to tell you now what the outcome of the trial will be. I am the third of teh Triune...I.Am.The.MESSIAH!
No way dude, I totally am. My pet Chewy told me.
Posted by: Barry Obama at November 19, 2009 08:55 AM (ia/06)
If President Bush had made a comment that a defendant would be convicted and put to death regardless of the trial, countless American lives would have been lost..............trampled to death by the stampede of ACLU lawyers rushing to the microphones and TV cameras to denounce him. I guess we should be grateful that it was a Democrat that said that.
Hey, that would make a good new statistic for these fuckers. The number of American lives saved or not killed...............
Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 08:55 AM (v/rEn)
"Actually, even if they WERE signatories, by targeting civilians, failing to wear distinctive insignia (hiding as civilians), committing false surrender and many, many other acts, they're not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
We're actually doing damage to the Geneva Conventions by giving these animals room and board -- we're rewarding war crimes with a status equivalent to a burglar, while a fundamental premise of the GCs is that sides that commit war crimes as a matter of policy are no longer protected and may (arguably SHOULD) be executed upon capture."
I have been saying that forever. What these liberal douche nozzles don't understand, is by demanding terrorists have Geneva convention rights they are directly responsible for civilian deaths caused by terrorists. The moment they hide among civilians, the moment the fight in civilian clothes they should be marked for extermination as the Geneva convention allows.Anything else is completely rewarding war crimes and just endangers civilians in the future. The left wants the Geneva convention applied to these scumbags? Cool, 2 bullets in the fucking forehead as the geneva convention allows, and no frigging US constitutional protections.
Posted by: Berserker at November 19, 2009 08:57 AM (gWHrG)
Posted by: Bugler at November 19, 2009 08:58 AM (YCVBL)
What do I find? Far left blogs blaming the military for killing civilians when they did not have to. After all, Japan just bombed Navy targets at Pearl, not civilians. No mention of how many US soldiers and marines would have died if we had to invade Japan. No mention of the mass murder of civilians in places they invaded. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 08:58 AM (pU4D7)
Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 08:58 AM (EL+OC)
359, 358, 354
Ok, which one of the three Obama's is the real one? They all have such nice pant creases, I can't tell.
Posted by: That guy who likes creased pants at November 19, 2009 08:58 AM (ia/06)
Posted by: aurelius at November 19, 2009 08:59 AM (7rOET)
Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 08:59 AM (+sBB4)
FDR had the captured German saboteurs questioned, then executed. The courts tried to butt in, and were told to stuff it. That seems like ample precedent to me, and Obama would gain about 20 points in popularity if he'd man up and do the same.
As Reagan said, there's no end to the good that can be accomplished as long as you don't care about who gets the credit. Alas, our current president would rather be liked than respected. He's learning the hard way that weakness is always despised.
Posted by: MarkD at November 19, 2009 08:59 AM (MMy4A)
Posted by: LGF Fan at November 19, 2009 09:00 AM (SqAkN)
me
Posted by: da prez at November 19, 2009 09:01 AM (7t+Ws)
Posted by: The Dow at November 19, 2009 09:03 AM (+sBB4)
FIFY.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 19, 2009 09:03 AM (NtiET)
Posted by: jadedinga at November 19, 2009 09:05 AM (Uc/xV)
Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 09:07 AM (qU2w5)
Case in point: Why do so called intelligent people leave their car keys in the lock after they open the drunk? How many times do they close the trunk and get the keys stuck in the trunk? It is very common. I can't make this stupid stuff up. It is mind boggling.
Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 09:07 AM (pU4D7)
"Obama and Holder know exactly what they are doing.
Putting these animals in civilian court is basically a huge middle finger to Bush/Cheney and the War on Terror. A bone tossed to the leftist anti-America base of the democrat party.
While I don't doubt that Obama and Holder are affirmative action punks, these fuckers are smart enough in this instance to know exactly what they are doing"
I'm pretty sure that The One thinks he knows what he is doing, after all he won.
But I'm not so sure whether he really understands the implications of what he has done. Whatever victory he thinks he has in moving KSM's trial to NY, the fact is that the very notion of putting POW's into Federal court is now being tested.
They now have to deliver.
Failing to get a convection is a guilty verdict against Obama and the idea that military prisoners can be dealt with inside a civilian legal system. Does Holder really understand the damage that this trial can do to America's intelligence activities?
I'm beginning to think that he doesn't.
As much as I hate to say it: This trial has to happen.
America and the rest of the world needs to know whether this can work or not.
Posted by: RayJ at November 19, 2009 09:09 AM (YcjCJ)
Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder, there is evil in this world---protect the American people from it.
Nathan R. Jessup
(www.the-raw-deal.com)
Posted by: Nathan R. Jessup at November 19, 2009 09:13 AM (f9dhA)
Its really amazing what one line of code can do isn't it?
if (Approval < 0.5) Approval = 0.5;
I should be a pollster knocking down the phat cash.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 09:14 AM (eESb/)
Times like this are when I have to remind myself that my own knee-jerk desire to "run the RINOs out" might be throwing some babies out with the bathwater.
As much as Graham and McCain drive me nuts on issues like immigration and Sotomayor, both he and Maverick are fairly dependable on national security issues (with the obvious exceptions of amnesty and "torture"). In my more lucid and thoughtful moments (OK - when I'm sober) I have to recognize that even a RINO is most often better than an actual Democrat.
Props to Graham - he gets 1 "free knife in my back" card for this one.
Posted by: societyis2blame at November 19, 2009 09:20 AM (rPDD/)
Actually, in an odd sort of way, a KSM acquittal would be a good thing in the macro "arc of national history" POV. It would starkly demonstrate to the public in no uncertain terms the absolute bankruptcy and ineffectiveness of the Obamunist approach to handling terrorists.
Sometime it pays to "lose" a particular battle to win a wider war.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 09:26 AM (eESb/)
As much as Graham and McCain drive me nuts on issues like immigration and Sotomayor, both he and Maverick are fairly dependable on national security issues (with the obvious exceptions of amnesty and "torture").
Nope. They have the opposite problem to the Dems. The Dems want to treat the WoT as purely a law enforcement issue. McCain and Graham want to treat it as purely a foreign war with a nation state and to treat the captured terrorists as POW's. The problems we are seeing now with KSM are due in large part to McCain and Graham. Andy McCarthy has frequently pointed out that the extraordianry legal protectons the terrorists enjoy is due to those two men.
Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 09:33 AM (fqDKB)
Posted by: Blogluddite at November 19, 2009 10:58 AM (fDWFP)
The Obama Presidential Library. Hadn't thought about that until now. Will the contents be secret?
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 19, 2009 09:35 AM (w41GQ)
The Obama Presidential Library. Hadn't thought about that until now. Will the contents be secret?
There will be no presidential library for the kenyan princess. His sorry ass will be lucky to escape into overseas exile a half-step ahead of the pitchfork-wielding mobs.
Posted by: MikeO at November 19, 2009 09:37 AM (dYNrR)
Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 02:33 PM (fqDKB)
Hear, hear!
But, McShame and Grahamnesty converge with the left on "torture". They like to call minor emotional trauma, "torture", for whatever reason. Horror movie directors need to watch out.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 09:38 AM (A46hP)
What?.............Never mind. Wrong war. Cause to the leftists, this aint a war.
Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 09:40 AM (pU4D7)
Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 09:41 AM (HaJD9)
If its apparent to every third party observer that KSM might be acquitted, you'd think that some of the career Justice Department lawyers on the ground in charge of getting a prosecution here will quickly come to that conclusion too.
Posted by: looking closely at November 19, 2009 09:52 AM (6Q9g2)
Posted by: MikeO at November 19, 2009 02:37 PM (dYNrR)
I was kind of looking forward to visiting and getting a look at all the leather, ivory and chrome; and the deep, deep shag carpeting.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 19, 2009 09:56 AM (w41GQ)
Posted by: ktgreat at November 19, 2009 10:16 AM (+YHBx)
If Obama or Holder was arrested held and not given their Miranda Rights nor the services of a lawyer.
What would happen to the charges?
A They would be dropped for violations of the defendants civil rights
B)They would be dropped for violations of the defendants civil rights.
C)They would be dropped for violations of the defendants civil rights.
CHOOSE ONE.
Posted by: gus at November 19, 2009 10:16 AM (Vqruj)
"There is simply no basis in law for Obama and Holder's theory here. It's simply a political decision divorced from law. "
Exactly. And this suprises you how?
Posted by: Penultimatum at November 19, 2009 10:23 AM (LxXXO)
Mr. Pink, reporters make good money, if they work really, really hard. It's hard also to get a full time gig with benefits. Pretty good job tho!
Posted by: PJ at November 19, 2009 10:46 AM (Qpxxz)
Bugliosi was an incredible prosecutor and defense lawyer back in the day. Somewhere along the line he bought into the left wing loon side of things. Books advocating: prosecute Bush for the Iraq war, Bush stole the election, another book about how Clinton's impeachment was a debacle, etc.
Not sure what happened. He gave an interview about the Manson murders a few months ago and seemed on track, but somewhere some of the wheels fell off.
Posted by: RM at November 19, 2009 11:11 AM (GkYyh)
As much as I hate to say it: This trial has to happen.
America and the rest of the world needs to know whether this can work or not.
Fuck the world. We don't need to do this at all. Jezus Xhrist on a crutch! Quit with the mamsy pamsy, people! Let's grow some and dance with the one what brought us! It makes me sick when supposed conservatives start acting like they are being level headed but in truth are selling the farm!
Posted by: barack JESUS obama at November 19, 2009 11:12 AM (rVJH4)
Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 11:12 AM (rVJH4)
There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man. Misguided? Sure. Diagnosably retarded? No
The word you're looking for is anti-American.
Posted by: drjohn at November 19, 2009 11:18 AM (IVWgQ)
If its apparent to every third party observer that KSM might be acquitted, you'd think that some of the career Justice Department lawyers on the ground in charge of getting a prosecution here will quickly come to that conclusion too.
I don't think that KSM's acquittal or non-acquittal really figures into Obama/Holders plans. Their eyes on fixed on other targets.
Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 11:27 AM (fqDKB)
How is it he can be such an extreme moderate faggot, mewling platitudes and generalities in that faggy little Carolina drawl of his and then turn around and completely eviscerate Holder?
He does this from time to time. Just when you think he's a total pussy Democrat shill he'll actually act like the loyal opposition to shore up his Republican bonafides. Then promptly piss it all away again by acting like McCain Jr.
I still don't trust the little twerp. He won't get on any Sunday Morning shows making an utter fool out of high ranking Democrats.
We can all expect to see this little wussy get mavericky in the near future.
Posted by: CozMark at November 19, 2009 11:37 AM (2cQDR)
And to point 3 by Ace- Holder tries to get off the hot seat and gather himself by talking about an OBL capture scenario and avoid the kernel of the question. So, they'll yip yap all day about OBL to avoid having to actually explain anything.
Sort of like:
Me (to my cat): Why is the cabinet door open?
Cat: See, the door has hinges and when you pull on the door the hinges allow the door to swing out so that you can get what you need from the cabinet.
Me: I know about hinges you stupid cat. Why is the frikken door open?
Cat: I think you'll agree with me when I say that the hinges are in excellent working condition or else the door would not have been able to swing out for ease of access. But more to the point I think you are driving at is that hinges sometimes do not work properly and need to be replaced. Luckily for us, these are some safe, stout, reliable hinges and they should continue to work flawlessly for years to come.
Posted by: CozMark at November 19, 2009 11:50 AM (2cQDR)
400th!!!!1!!!
Posted by: CozMark at November 19, 2009 11:59 AM (2cQDR)
Posted by: TimothyJ at November 19, 2009 12:22 PM (IKKIf)
The standard of intellect we expect from our leader has fallen so low that if they can just figure out how to staunch the spittle and drool that flows from their lips long enough to get a fully formed question out that actually makes some sense we all act like they are Thomas Jefferson. They are not. They are idiots and dangerous ones at that. Graham is like the guy at the retard halfway house who can tie his own shoes. He is a genius compared only to his peers. He looks perfectly normal only why doing his one trick and then reverts to form when he sticks his wiener in the light socket to see if it will glow.
And Leahy? That he can say what he did without fear of being called on it can only be attributable to the fact that our press corp has been wholly compromised by the enemy and needs to be put down to the last man.
Posted by: Voluble at November 19, 2009 12:51 PM (nZNTl)
Posted by: массаж at December 10, 2009 06:01 AM (8/ov4)
Links of London Gift is releasing new products which are of elegant shape and fashionable pattern.
Posted by: Michael at December 28, 2009 10:10 PM (s8+gi)
Posted by: MiuMiu Handbags on sale at January 09, 2010 02:04 AM (ndPTv)
Posted by: pink ghd straighteners at January 09, 2010 02:12 AM (YpLyn)
Posted by: weddingnova123 at February 08, 2010 02:23 AM (/b2zt)
Posted by: Chehov at March 16, 2010 01:19 PM (nNsQp)
ccie routing and switching lab boot camp
ccie service provider lab boot camp
ccie r&s lab boot camp
Posted by: hanliu at April 21, 2010 03:06 AM (kXuNL)
Posted by: Jacob at April 28, 2010 06:01 PM (oJZYr)
Thank you very much for this information.
Good post thanks for sharing.
I like this site Negeriads.com Solusi Berpromosi, Arenabetting.com Dukung Fair Play FIFA World Cup Afsel 2010, Berita HarianPosted by: ndyteen at May 05, 2010 06:36 PM (hajwI)
Posted by: Mark at May 06, 2010 07:13 AM (6DZhO)
Türkiyen en güzel tatil oteller hakkında geniş açıklamalı bilgiler popüler oteller ve bilgi kaynakları mevcut
Saç dökülmesi ve saç bakımı hakkında genel haberler doğal bitkisel külrer ve en son uygulamalar.
Lazer ile ilgili bilgiler lazer epilasyon ve diğer yeni yöntemler cilt güzellği ve estetik konuları
Hamilelik ile ilgili her türlü konu hamile kalmak isteyenlere genel tavsiyeler. hamilelik portalına bekleriz.
Ev dekorasyonu yaptırmak ve ev dekoru hakkında faydalı yeni bilgiler. Dekorasyon bilgi sitemiz
Posted by: dekorasyon at May 07, 2010 02:28 PM (hczDC)
Posted by: Toronto Tile Installation at May 11, 2010 10:18 PM (38+qj)
Posted by: liaoqijing at May 13, 2010 05:55 AM (ncBmn)
Posted by: dghdf at May 13, 2010 10:20 PM (YxMyi)
visitors will find that very useful.
vps hosting | hosting | ucvhost
Posted by: Herry at July 08, 2010 06:47 AM (8kq3l)
What is TiVo? And whats the function of it? TiVo is a digital video recorder device; it can help people to record and filter through television programs in easiest way. There is another nickname for TiVo is Google in television industry. When you record some favorite TV shows and you wan to enjoy then with your iPad, a Mac TiVo to iPad Converter is necessary for you. This TiVo to iPad Converter for Mac provides the easy and proved solution to convert TiVo files to MP4 for use on iPad or AVI, MPEG, and WMV media formats for use on iPod, iPhone and many others.
MKV stands for Matroska video, Matroska is the extensible open standard Audio/Video container like avi, mp4, mpg, asf, rm, and mov. When you convert MKV to iPad mp4 on Mac OS X Leopard, a powerful and professional Mac MKV to iPad Converter program which can convert MKV to MP4 format perfectly. With easy conversion procedures, it makes MKV to iPad MP4 conversion routine very simple.
Mac MTS to iPad Converter
WMV to iPad Converter for Mac
Posted by: goodymary at September 06, 2010 08:35 PM (VDfJR)
Posted by: travesti at September 26, 2010 02:44 PM (tODMq)
Posted by: uggsunset at September 28, 2010 08:18 PM (U8zIG)
Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2010 08:20 AM (fgLcB)
Posted by: constantin at October 18, 2010 01:56 AM (U1g9S)
Posted by: darcy at October 21, 2010 07:24 PM (ygYRs)
Posted by: Blankets at November 02, 2010 09:58 PM (/voL3)
Posted by: nicholas at November 15, 2010 08:15 PM (QRtFb)
Posted by: bour at November 20, 2010 12:36 AM (TdD91)
This is my first time i visit here. I discovered so numerous interesting stuff in your weblog especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all of the enjoyment here! maintain up the great work.
Posted by: Office 2007 Keygen at November 23, 2010 11:37 PM (1/aEF)
Posted by: mariah at January 08, 2011 12:18 AM (72uSD)
Posted by: shixian at January 15, 2011 10:14 PM (1FYRm)
Posted by: Sex medicine at January 18, 2011 10:39 PM (1pVLn)
Posted by: custom caps at January 19, 2011 10:52 PM (xuypn)
Posted by: embroidered caps at January 31, 2011 02:18 AM (mBhkk)
Posted by: หนังโป๊ออนไลน์ at February 23, 2011 08:33 AM (bq6Qj)
Posted by: Anonymous at March 01, 2011 07:30 PM (wW3uo)
Posted by: idm ถาวร at March 07, 2011 07:18 AM (24/6c)
Posted by: Agriculture at March 11, 2011 03:53 AM (d2fKQ)
Posted by: zune vs ipod touch at April 06, 2011 01:24 AM (vZ+Yk)
Posted by: Jack wills at April 21, 2011 03:28 AM (1N/z1)
Posted by: Jack wills at April 21, 2011 03:29 AM (1N/z1)
Posted by: Jack wills outlet at April 21, 2011 03:29 AM (1N/z1)
Posted by: hollister uk at April 21, 2011 03:30 AM (1N/z1)
Posted by: laser cutter at May 09, 2011 08:11 PM (2gSgT)
Posted by: asus vh242h at May 24, 2011 04:40 AM (bPnJP)
reebok zigtech offers you many fashion shoes,which could also cater for all the people's styles.Just open your PC and click on reebok zigtech sale or reebok zigtech cheap.Sincerely hope you have a good shopping time!
Posted by: easytoneonline at June 14, 2011 04:48 AM (pxhJ+)
o In the summer,there are many kinds of Designer Bags in the market. Such as Chanel 2.55,Chanel Cambon and Chanel Flap. In addition, there also have Chanel Classic if you like the classic items. You won't never regret to purchase it!
Posted by: Chanel 2.55 at June 14, 2011 04:49 AM (pxhJ+)
Posted by: Fly Fishing School at June 30, 2011 06:06 AM (Jk6AP)
Posted by: occasion dresses at June 30, 2011 09:07 PM (jSSiL)
Additional products and services can be provided. Many manufactures that incorporates laser cutting into their process find this business opportunity. Laser cutters are capable of creating complex shapes with fine detail that are beyond the capability of even the smallest saw blade.
Posted by: laser cutters at July 03, 2011 10:51 PM (OUkEH)
Posted by: asdf at July 06, 2011 12:48 AM (5a2XP)
Posted by: asdf at July 06, 2011 12:51 AM (5a2XP)
Posted by: asdf at July 06, 2011 12:53 AM (5a2XP)
Posted by: คลิบงูกินคน at July 17, 2011 07:10 PM (IwD23)
Posted by: mlm rankings 2010 at July 29, 2011 01:24 AM (bIcas)
Posted by: คําพูดโดนๆ at August 06, 2011 12:50 AM (JcxoV)
Posted by: asdfa at August 29, 2011 09:55 PM (TPLgL)
Posted by: asdfa at August 29, 2011 09:57 PM (TPLgL)
Posted by: Hans at October 14, 2011 01:29 AM (NPkvM)
Posted by: descarca filme gratis at October 17, 2011 11:08 AM (AFNGc)
Posted by: descarca filme porno at October 17, 2011 11:09 AM (AFNGc)
Posted by: sbobet at November 08, 2011 01:54 AM (7IU0B)
Posted by: ups battery at November 15, 2011 04:36 AM (4Qgjm)
dominos coupons and popeyes menu
Posted by: dominos coupons at December 06, 2011 06:36 PM (HmexN)
digital radiography</a>has been popularized in Chinese center hospitals. digital radiography system
has more powerful functions that traditional X-ray film technology can not match with. Digital radiography system is often compatible with medical diagnostic X-ray equipment to form TV Remote Control X-ray System .
Posted by: medical-x-ray at December 12, 2011 02:22 AM (THa9j)
Posted by: คําพูดโดนๆ at December 18, 2011 02:58 PM (y7lGT)
Posted by: hath80 at December 19, 2011 09:21 PM (ef97d)
Posted by: cosmetic dentistry at December 30, 2011 04:22 AM (RRm/5)
yups.. kali ini job jasa seo murah saya tinggal 3 website dengan beberapa keyword,
website yang pertama adalah filiarvitamedia.com dengan keyword neon box dan
Posted by: titket pesawat murah at December 31, 2011 05:37 PM (UDDLC)
yahuuuhuuu dfdf dan huruf timbul. posisi sementara untuk keyword neon box berada pada halaman 2 sedangkan huruf timbul di halaman 3,
kemudian website yang kedua adalah http://www.iwanphotographybali.com/ dengan 3 keyword, yaitu bali wedding photographer
Posted by: pulsa elektrik at December 31, 2011 05:38 PM (UDDLC)
wedding bali photographer, dan wedding photographer bali. semua beradadi halaman 2 dan 3
yang ketiga adalah shepyshop.com dengan keyword
Posted by: pulsa murah at December 31, 2011 05:40 PM (UDDLC)
yang ketiga adalah shepyshop.com dengan keyword butik batik online dan jual dress batik, ada di halaman 2 semua, semangat ya.
Posted by: bisnis online at December 31, 2011 05:41 PM (UDDLC)
Posted by: bisnis pulsa at December 31, 2011 05:43 PM (UDDLC)
Posted by: pulsa murah at December 31, 2011 05:44 PM (UDDLC)
Posted by: คําพูดโดนๆ at January 07, 2012 09:33 PM (M7WRF)
Read more:http://za-bata.exteen.com/20111024/entry#ixzz1jRPvowqr อักษรพิเศษ
Posted by: คําพูดโดนๆ at January 14, 2012 09:05 AM (Ny8Th)
Posted by: คําพูดโดนๆ at January 22, 2012 09:50 PM (ZUGtt)
Posted by: คําพูดโดนๆ at January 25, 2012 02:54 AM (xA1c1)
Posted by: คําพูดโดนๆ at January 27, 2012 12:56 PM (L0M88)
Posted by: คําพูดโดนๆ at February 02, 2012 02:14 PM (525qI)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.









