Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 120 of 120

Thread: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

  1. #111
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    yup, huge defeats

    gitmo

    cap and trade

    health care

    etc

    pretty big defeats

    absolutely

  2. #112
    Student doc mercer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    03-06-10 @ 05:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    156

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    Yep

    Cheney's defeats:


    Iraq

    Afghanistan

    Katrina

    Doubling the National Debt

    Leaving office with 18% approval numbers

    4500 dead American soldiers

    3000 Americans dead on 9-11

    Bin Laden still not captured

    Scotter Libby

    WH Employee arrested for Shop Lifting

    Busted for buying off the Media in the USA

    Running scared when NK launed numerous missles over 4th July weekend

    Finally admitting GW is real after busted for trying to silence scientists

  3. #113
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    no one cares

    cheney's out of power

    obama's a loser

  4. #114
    Student doc mercer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    03-06-10 @ 05:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    156

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    and so was Bush .....


    you should love the guy ...


    Cheney said in 2002 that "deficits" don't matter so why are you pissed off?

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    who's pissed, doc?

    LOL!

  6. #116
    Student doc mercer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    03-06-10 @ 05:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    156

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    I think its great


    The Right is showing no recollection of how we got into this mess and hell you don't even know what the hell the CFR is and why nothing was going to change and nothing will if Romney gets in the WH


    I find it funny as hell to watch the idiot Testicle Suckers scream they don't want govt running HC when they are too damn dene to understand who runs SS/ Medicare

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    obama's a loser

    his entire big agenda was taken from him by massachusetts

    all that was left was a little teeny platform---bank tax, debt commission, spending freeze and another stimu...

    and all that is now no go

    actually, he literally seems to have forgotten most of it

    even tho he laid it all out only a month ago in his sotu

    obama's very funny

    but he's a loser

  8. #118
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,434

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    Quote Originally Posted by doc mercer View Post
    The Bush "Legacy"???


    Educate me as a lot of words come to mind talking about Bush


    Legacy ain't one of them ...


    My God ... the Right and their "Bush protected this country" is laughable considering Clinton protected this country for a longer period of time after the 93 WTC attack than Bush did after 9-11
    I could care less about right or left or whatever but you should at least try to get your facts straight. It really is not that hard to take an objective viewpoint.



    Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

    Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

    In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.

    June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

    July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

    June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.


    Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.


    April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

    February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.


    Quite a few US targets were hit during the Clinton Administration.


    CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION

    Glad to help you out there.
    Last edited by akyron; 03-06-10 at 06:10 PM.
    Thank you

  9. #119
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,258

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Then educate yourself on the subject. Everyone of them we've tried except 3 has been in civilian, federal, court. Only 3 have been tried and convicted in a military tribunal. 2 of them got less than a year and are out free right now.



    Distraction. That's war.



    Part of me does like this. But, what if they're innocent?



    I look at it like we are showing them, right up in their faces, that we are not afraid of them. We are strong enough to try them all, as we have tried more than 300 already!, in public. Then, when they are convicted, they are sent away never to be seen from again.
    I think the trials should take place in your town.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #120
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Why are all you people so afraid of trying this guy, or anyone, in a civilian court?
    Nobody is "afraid" of anything - that's just a ridiculous trope put out by the Dems as some sort of feeble attempt to turn the tables on Reps re: the public's view of each party's handling of terrorism.

    I'm opposed to the trials because I can look at the alternatives and make a reasoned decision.

    On the one hand we have a sham civilian trial that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, cause substantial congestion and disruption in the heart of the financial district, take several years, risk the disclosure of sensitive information, and do a disservice to the principles of our civilian judicial system.

    On the other hand we have a military tribunal that will cost maybe a million dollars, cause no disruption, be resolved relatively quickly, limit the risk of disclosure, and protect the integrity of our civilian judicial system.

    Once you drop the childish rhetoric and look at the reality of the situation, it's pretty obvious which approach is better.

    I mean, seriously. We've done it before, in fact we've done it for 99% of terrorists.
    I've pointed out the dishonesty in this statement several times, and yet you keep on reciting it as if it's true. While the vast majority of terrorists who have been tried to completion may have gone through the civilian system, that says nothing about those who are either 1) currently in the military process or 2) currently being detained indefinitely. Perhaps even more importantly, it says nothing about the capabilities of the civilian system, since there is a fairly obvious selection bias.

    Imagine that you're in charge of prosecuting terrorists, and that we've captured 1,000 of them. You know of that 1,000, there are 300 who are relatively minor figures and for whom the evidence is admissible and overwhelming, there are another 300 for whom the evidence is not admissible, but whom you don't want to release, and another 400 for whom you haven't decided what to do yet. Imagine that you process the first 300 through the civilian court with little trouble, but decide to hold off on the other 700.

    Now, using your flawed logic, you would point out that 100% of the terrorists who have been prosecuted have gone through the civilian system and thus conclude that all terrorists can/should go through the civilian system. That's obviously an unwarranted assumption.

    The reality of the situation is that we've funneled the easy cases through the civilian system while punting on the hard cases. It's absolutely foolish to claim that this is proof that the hard cases can be handled the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    The Geneva Conventions cover people even if they don't follow it themselves.
    No, they don't (at least not the portions you're trying to refer to).

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Impartial jury requirement.
    Which only applies to criminal prosecutions, not military tribunals.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    It's not that I'm obsessed for it. I don't understand why you rightees are so against it when that's what has been used for ALL terrorist convictions except for THREE (3). You guys say these terrorists are not soldiers yet, you want them to be treated as soldiers in a military tribunal. They don't deserve the honor of being tried as a soldier.
    More hilarity - there is no "honor" in military tribunals. Actual soldiers don't get prosecuted in them - they're reserved for sabateurs, spies, and traitors. If you don't know how the tribunal system works, you should refrain from making broad pronouncements about its "honor.

    You wish. Most people want the civilian trials.
    Not that it really matters as to the legality, but this is demonstrably false.

    A majority of Americans also disagree with President Obama's plan to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in civilian courts, a Quinnipiac University poll found.

    By a 59% to 35% margin, voters prefer that Mohammed and his cohorts face justice from military tribunals instead of in federal courts.
    Read more: Poll: Americans don't want 9/11 terror trials in New York - or any court

    Almost two-thirds of Americans disagree with the decision by President Barack Obama's administration to try the suspected 9/11 mastermind in a civilian court, a poll showed Monday.

    Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, while only 34 percent agreed with Obama that the civilian judicial system was the best way forward, the CNN poll said.
    AFP: Suspected 9/11 bomber should face military trial: poll

    By switching to the untried and very new military tribunal we will be rolling the dice as to how this will effect us.
    And by "very new," you mean literally hundreds of years old, right?

    Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I wouldn't exactly call myself obsessed with this issue. The guy's gonna be executed either way.
    Which is argument #1 for why he shouldn't be tried in the judicial system. It makes a mockery of our courts to try someone when the result is preordained.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not restricted to U.S. citizens.
    Some constitutional rights are available only to citizens. Some are available to all persons. Some are restricted by age or by birth status. Some are dependent on the situation. Contrary to your claims, the right to a civilian trial in all circumstances for all persons does not exist.

    For someone who keeps on telling others to educate themselves, you don't seem to understand much about this topic.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •