Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 52 of 52

Thread: Att'y general failed to give legal briefs to Senate

  1. #51
    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: Att'y general failed to give legal briefs to Senate

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Those terrorists were "in" our judicial system. This was begun under Bush.
    No, they were brought to Gitmo specifically because the government believed that that was outside our judicial system. Since the court disagreed in Boumediene, we've been funneling everyone to Bagram, where they're also outside our judicial system.

    As a defendant they have a right to a quality defense. Our Constitution grants certain rights to anybody in this country, citizen or not.
    In criminal trials. Which the bulk of these aren't.

    Calling those criminals "enemy combatants" raises their status to that of a soldier. They are not soldiers. They do not deserve that level of respect.
    Why do you persist in these falsehoods in spite of continually being corrected? "Enemy combatant" is not a term that elevates, no matter how many times you repeat it.

    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.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058603994

    Calling them enemy combatants was Bush-Cheeney wordsmithing to try to put terrorists into military tribunals. It didn't work.
    You are mindbogglingly misinformed.

    Quick quiz:

    Does the Obama administration still label terrorists the equivalent of "enemy combatants" (although using a different word)?

    Does the Obama administration still place terrorists in military tribunals?

    We didn't look at Timothy McVeigh as an enemy combatant. We tried him as a criminal. What he did was just as bad as what these "terrorists" are doing, if not worse.
    Because we weren't in a state of war at the time, which is a predicate to the tribunal system. Jesus christ.

    If you don't even understand the fundamental basics of national security law, please refrain from acting like you do.


    If you educate yourself with the bigger picture it might help you to feel better about those who defend your country knowing that they will win no medals for their trouble.
    Other than jobs in the DoJ, you mean.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #52
    Sage

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

    Re: Att'y general failed to give legal briefs to Senate

    he did it again

    damn, this admin is dumb

    rahm, ax, gibbs, nap, brennan...

    and this idiot, holder

    marc rich, faln, waco, that's not enough

    trying (and failing) to move ksm to manhattan, that's not enough

    trying (and failing) to close gitmo, not enough

    moving mutallab without even asking hig, insufficient

    getting ripped by little lindsey on youtube, nope, gotta do MORE

    hiding briefs amicus from senate judiciary is such a small thing, in comparison

    so YESTERDAY he has to PERFORM, once more

    Eric Holder: Osama bin Laden won't be brought in alive - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

    after testifying IN THE HOUSE that the mirandizing of obl would be moot because the 6'6" dialysis dependent sheikh would never be captured by us alive...

    oh?

    never? no way? you can't even CONCEIVE its occurence?

    darn, that's awful pessimistic

    oh well, what about others, mr ag? those who just MIGHT be CAPTURED, y'know, ALIVE?

    or are we just gonna KILL EM ALL?

    unbelievable

    but AFTER that, he GOES ON!

    just like CHARLIE MANSON, he says

    people "like" (LOL!) osama bin laden would "have the same rights that a CHARLIE... would have"

    whoa!

    THIS GUY MUST NOT HAVE BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY WHEN THAT TRIAL WENT DOWN

    you're gonna give the same LEGAL SERVICES to mr mutallab, the jingle bells jihadist, that judge older accorded CHARLIE?!

    and the GIRLS?

    that's truly STUNNING, mister ATTORNEY GENERAL

    do you REMEMBER, sir, when the THEN sitting president, mr nixon, just about RUINED the year long proceedings by PRE ANNOUNCING the family's GUILT?

    wow!

    for THIS guy to bring up CHARLIE MANSON in THIS context...

    it's like his boss, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, gratuitously PISSING OFF AIPAC...

    these guys, LITERALLY, have not been brought up in THESE PARTS like i

    THEY DO NOT KNOW AMERICAN POLITICS ANYWHERE NEAR AS WELL AS THE MOST EXPERIENCED MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM

    when it comes to american politics, they're like ALIENS

    i'm so sorry...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

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