What’s another $100 million added to the $12 trillion debt. I hate the guy in the WH.

Uh, so what? Is that the best argument you can make after the tons of money spent on Iraq and in Gitmo? That it will cost $100 million?

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 12:54:58

Its interesting now that Conservatives put a price on justice, because it costs to much we shouldnt do this? It is amazing how far they will go now to criticize, had Bush proposed this they would be all over it. Let us keep in mind that Bush did try many terrorists in civilian courts over the course of his 8 years. The shoe bomber was one, Walker was another. How quickly they have forgotten. Pathetic.

Sure they have. Like they whine about a “show trial” being a mockery of our justice system. And yet, they would have preferred these guys just stay incarcerated indefinitely.

Both American citizens dumbass … and therefore under the laws of the Constitution… as opposed to KSM, who is a (foreign) enemy combatant whose appropriate place is in a military trial, not civilian courts.

That’s ok. The liberal solution to everything is to raise taxes. So what if everyone is leaving New York because thair taxes are so high? A good liberal shuts up and pays his fair share, right?

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 13:10:46

Take it up with Law Professor Obamateur. He has already made statements prejudiced against the accused defendant. His fancy Livy League law degree didn’t allow him to understand innocent until proven guilty is the way the courts work in the US.

Hopefully, the defense won’t use the POTUS’s own words in KSM’s defense and get the case thrown out on a technicality any first year law student with sense understands.

Lol, forget it. To libs everybody is a ‘citizen of earth’ and all entitled to the benefits of an American citizenship without of course any of the responsibilities. So of course they conflate how American terrorists and foreign terrorist should be dealt with. And if it screws the US in the process, so much the better.

Ivy not Livy. Wrong subject.

And why hasn’t Obamateur closed Gitmo as he promised?

Wrong, JohnJohn.

The Shoe Bomber was not a US citizen, neither was Zacarias Mousoui, neither was Sheik Rahman, neither was Ramzi Yousef.

D-Vega
12:54pm
Uh, so what? Is that the best argument you can make after the tons of money spent on Iraq and in Gitmo? That it will cost $100 million?

He (bush) spent money on a war that was going to happen in 2003 or 2013. He did the right thing by going in, in 2003. Ask anyone who serves.

Posted by JohnJohn
2009-11-20 13:19:17

Incorrect my friend. The shoe bomber was not an American citizen, really do a little research before spouting off. Numerous enemy combatants were tried by Bush in the federal court system. Interesting that you werent complaining when that happened.

Interesting that you werent complaining when that happened.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 13:48:10

You weren’t in support of it. Of course, that was under one of your other user names. Why do you have so many? Why did you lie about David Duke voting for Bush in 04? Why do you lie often?

He (bush) spent money on a war that was going to happen in 2003 or 2013. He did the right thing by going in, in 2003. Ask anyone who serves.

I don’t need to ask anyone who serves, because they can no more predict the future than anyone else.

I just want to know is how this guy can possibly get a fair trial?
Will the jury members be sequestered?
Even if they get a change in venue it doesn’t matter because every American knows about this clown and has come up with a verdict.
It’s a lame idea.

every American knows about this clown and has come up with a verdict.

Starting with the POTUS going public. Nixon agrees with your statement fully btw.

Why not? Cheney & Bush found them guilty a long time ago.

Why not? Cheney & Bush found them guilty a long time ago.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 14:25:11

Obama did it this week right after the trial was announced. Almost immediately after the announcement.

Why not? Cheney & Bush found them guilty a long time ago.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 14:25:11

What shall we name the law that’s analogous to “Goodwin’s”? Whenever a thread will eventually contain “but Bush did it too” or “It was Bush’s fault”. Such a lame and weak form of arguement.

My bad, Reid was a Brit… but Walker was a US citizen…

Interesting that you werent complaining when that happened.
Posted by whats_up

Actually I was… I see no reason any enemy combatant should be afforded the luxuries of the American Constitution… they’re subject to the Geneva Convention, not our civilian courts…. of course, I wasn’t on this site really during the Bush years, so you wouldn’t know that, but thanks for playing…

All an attempt by Obama to try and advance his same old “im the opposite of Bush” campaign.

I don’t need to ask anyone who serves, because they can no more predict the future than anyone else.

The war was going to happen know matter what, he needed to be taken out. Better do it when he had no military.

You can’t run from the horrible record of your Rep President, Living.

It’s bad that Obama’s predicted a guilty verdict in a U.S. Federal Court, but it’s okay that Bush/Cheney could find them guilty and lock them up for years with no due process.

The war was going to happen know matter what, he needed to be taken out.

Says you, first of all.

Second of all, that’s not why we went into Iraq in 2003.

It’s bad that Obama’s predicted a guilty verdict

Big difference between a prediction and making a statement, which is what the Obamateur did. He stated that when he was found guilty, not that he thought KSM would or might be found guilty. Huge difference.

And Bush is not in the WHite House. Are you saying KSM is innocent?

You can’t run from the horrible record of your Rep President, Living.

It’s bad that Obama’s predicted a guilty verdict in a U.S. Federal Court, but it’s okay that Bush/Cheney could find them guilty and lock them up for years with no due process.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 15:27:03

Of “my” President? Says who? Another assumption by DV, (rolls eyes, shakes head). Obama did not predict, he made a direct statement by using the word “when” instead of “if” or “likely” or “probably”. But as in the past you do not even understand the definition of English’s most basic words.

“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

DV spin and redfining English words in 3-2-1…

And actually DV, KSM was in a Military proceeding that Obama stopped after taking office and then made this political decision. An d why is it that other detainees are being put through Military Courts, do they have less “rights” then KSM?

If he would have said “If”, you would be having a canary over that (“His plan is to free KSM”) rather than “when”.

Look at VH’s graphic. He jerks the turk over casting the illusion that Obama wants this guy to get ahead.

And the process and length of time BushCo took to put into place the MTs was a disgrace. And one that he started after the SCOTUS said he HAD to.

“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

Leftists throughout history have enjoyed giving fair trials before the planned execution. While this target deserves it, this is for all the wrong reasons.
Also; Mr. Obama and the leftists think this guy deserve death, which in itself is inconsistent, but doesn’t deserve Gitmo?

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 16:04:20

Leave the strawmen out of this. We were discussing Obamatuer and his biased comments on KSM. Again, Bush is no longer in office and has not been for 10 months. This is the Obamateur in action.

Second of all, that’s not why we went into Iraq in 2003.

You are right, we went in because every major world power (and Clinton) said he had WMD’s. And he did have them at one point. Remember when he used them on his own people? I know you libs loved the guy, but he’s dead so get over it.

I’m praying that it only costs us $100 million. I think that with all the bomb damage, dead Americans, and other assorted costs that will accompany this show trial, $100 million is going to be a drop in the bucket. The real cost will probably be well into the billions.

It’s bad that Obama’s predicted a guilty verdict in a U.S. Federal Court, but it’s okay that Bush/Cheney could find them guilty and lock them up for years with no due process.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 15:27:03

If we’re under the moral obligation to give everyone we capture the right of due process then we have a moral obligation to act as the world’s policeman because everybody on Earth also has the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You cannot cherry-pick rights.

Interesting how the left screams when terrorists are not given their rights. KSM was denied his Miranda warnings that that alone has allowed criminals to go free. Criminal law is EXTREMELY CLEAR that Miranda warnings must be given to criminals. The Eighth Amendment also prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, could interrogation violate this Amendment?

Obama has painted himself in a corner this time. If the judge frees KSM then Obama will either have to hold KSM indefinitely or release him. Obama will not win a second term either way.

Where were the Iraqi’s rights when Hussein killed them? It’s one thing to oppose war due to moral reasons but the very same people that demands rights for terrorists never raised a voice when it came to innocent people. Another excellent example is the recent riots in Iran. Where was the left to demand that their rights be preserved and protected? Name the leftists protests that protested Hussein’s crimes against his own people.

Leave the strawmen out of this.

It’s not a strawman. Why is it that conservatives run from Bush at every opportunity? He is the one who began this process, so he shares responsibility. I know Bush, and as a whole Republicans, rarely ever accept responsibility for poor performance but those are the facts.

We were discussing Obamatuer and his biased comments on KSM.

He can make biased comments as much as he wants. He is not the judge or jury. He can say “when”, “if”, “maybe” or “definitely” and it doesn’t mean squat. Who ever said he is supposed to be impartial?

Again, Bush is no longer in office and has not been for 10 months. This is the Obamateur in action.

The point is that conservatives are crying over Obama saying “when” and Bush found these guys guilty and would have left them in prison without counsel, trial or verdict.

If he would have said “If”, you would be having a canary over that (“His plan is to free KSM”) rather than “when”. .
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 16:04:20

If he blah blah blah blah.. We are not trying to discuss what people’s reaction would be to what he could have said but to what HE DID SAY… Nice avoidence though…

We can always count on BIG to be a doomsayer. Thanks, BIG.

The point is that conservatives are crying over Obama saying “when” and Bush found these guys guilty and would have left them in prison without counsel, trial or verdict.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 16:31:04

The dishonesty and historical distortion of your statements is astounding.

I hearby decree we will have Vega Law. When you cannot support or defend your Messiah you shall invoke the name Bush to use for all evils througout the remainder of human existence.

Why don’t you try to make an actual point, instead of attempting to be clever, Living?

Can you refute what I just said, or are you just killing time until you go home?

He is not the judge or jury. He can say “when”, “if”, “maybe” or “definitely” and it doesn’t mean squat. Who ever said he is supposed to be impartial?
D-Vega

He is the fucking sitting President of the United States stating that a person is guilty BEFORE THE FUCKING TRIAL AND WILL RECEIVE THE DEATH PENALTY. Apparently you are ok with this.

And George Bush is still not POTUS and has been out of office for ten months. 10 MONTHS.

Good to see all you little lemmings on the left march in lock step behind your leader.

Why is it that conservatives run from Bush at every opportunity? He is the one who began this process, so he shares responsibility. I know Bush, and as a whole Republicans, rarely ever accept responsibility for poor performance but those are the facts.

Once again, the cowardly libs run away from their false prophet. Deep down, even they realize that Obama’s in over his head.

OK, Vega, we’ll go to George Bush’s house and demand that he do something about this, which will be very little since Bush’s term expired in January. Will that make you happy?

Like Obama, Vega doesn’t have a spine. Coward, thy name is liberal. Interesting how you avoided my last post.

The point is that conservatives are crying over Obama saying “when” and Bush found these guys guilty and would have left them in prison without counsel, trial or verdict.

Yeah, so what? The 3,000 people who died didn’t get a trial either. It seems that KSM isn’t interested in their rights.

Nice hyperbole, Kingfisher. Care to refute anything, or are you just bitching again?

Can you refute what I just said, or are you just killing time until you go home?
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 16:35:30

Sure one part at a time and I’ll type slow so you can keep up when you read.

1) “The point is that conservatives are crying over Obama saying “when” Really? Crying? Hey Big are you “crying” about Obama saying “When”? No? DV is wrong

2) “Bush found these guys guilty and would have left them in prison without counsel, trial or verdict.” Really? Bush was on tv and declared them guilty? I missed that.. Bush setup Military Tribunals in 2001. They were later deemed unconsitutional by the Supreme Court which ended up being the primer for the Military Commissions Act of 2006. That Obama is leveraging with some minor changes. In fact KSM was in the midst of hearing under Military Tribunal that Obama stopped earlier this year.

So Bush did NOT “find” anyone guilty of anything. Bush tried to setup Military Tribunals using precedent of WWII but that was tied up in the courts for years and the court advised Congress to write and pass law, which they did. So your entire staement about Bush and guilty and w/o counsel trial and verdict is 100% fiction.

“Unconstitutional” above was a poor choice. Not in conformance with UCMJ would be better choice.

Nice hyperbole, Kingfisher. Care to refute anything, or are you just bitching again?
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 16:49:16

Typical. I’m not surprised, considering that you enjoy being Obama’s little bitch.

Keep up the hyperbole. You refuse to refute anything I have stated because you know I’m right.

I win again.

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-11-20 16:49:44

/golf clap
Well played. Nixon compliments you.

Hey Big are you “crying” about Obama saying “When”? No? DV is wrong

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-11-20 16:49:44

I’m not crying about any of this. I think the show trial is a travesty. But I am not crying about what Obama said. THe comment I made when this happened last week was Obama is coward for announcing this on a Friday afternoon while he was half way around the globe. I understand that this is more of a trial against Bush than it is against KSM.

I’m just sad because some follower of the religion of peace is going to self-detonate in NYC during the trial and kill a bunch of innocents. But no need for you to worry, the media will just say he is crazy and that Islamic teaching had nothing to do with his personal jihad.

But I do believe that you are crying. You and Vega just hate it when someone points out the militant Islamics want us dead and will use any reason to kill us. You think that my posting this stuff on a seldom read blog is a bigger crime against humanity than flying planes into skyscrapers.

Good points about this endangering civilians. The guy wants to be executed, what better way (in his mind) than to have his fellow jihadists take him out with civilians, in the city of the original crime. Talk about handing the enemy a grand slam.

Posted by BIG
2009-11-20 17:07:28

I think you may want to re-read my postings. Putting me on the same team as DV is not an accurate assessment. I was refuting DV as he requested. I knew that “we” as conservatives were not “crying” about Obama using the word “when” in his declaration of KSM’s guilt and the verdict coming to him.

Sorry for the confusion…

Sure one part at a time and I’ll type slow so you can keep up when you read.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Hopefully it improves, though I doubt it.

1) “The point is that conservatives are crying over Obama saying “when” Really? Crying? Hey Big are you “crying” about Obama saying “When”? No? DV is wrong

Not literally crying. Are you attempting to disprove a figure of speech? Crying, as in bitching, whining, fake anger, being a pussy, etc.

2) “Bush found these guys guilty and would have left them in prison without counsel, trial or verdict.” Really? Bush was on tv and declared them guilty? I missed that..

Uh, yeah. He said they were too dangerous to be free, or be tried, or be spoken to, or even transported, and should be held as long as it took to keep them in prison. Sounds like something the Soviets or Chinese would say. Going on TV and saying these men committed horrible acts and would so again is declaring them guilty.

Bush setup Military Tribunals in 2001. They were later deemed unconsitutional by the Supreme Court which ended up being the primer for the Military Commissions Act of 2006. That Obama is leveraging with some minor changes. In fact KSM was in the midst of hearing under Military Tribunal that Obama stopped earlier this year.

You gloss over the fact that BUSH DIDNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to set up military tribunals. He resisted processing these guys under criminal courts or regular military court for 5 years, which is what he legally was obliged to do. Congress put into effect the MCA. Bush didn’t have the authority to set-up any kind of tribunal, it was one of his “executive power” trips that he got smacked down so often for, but that’s a different thread.

AND, “military tribunals” are NOT the same as the “military commisions” under the MCA. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you are dealing with an amateur.

Thanks, Living. Your tripe is improving, but isn’t quite there yet.

BIG, your paranoia is becoming tiresome. I took a lot of flak for suggesting conservatives were rooting for a terrorist attack in order to score political points. You are becoming dangerously close to being an example.

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-11-20 17:14:43

I saw my mistake. I didn’t read it through. Sorry about that.

OT. I saw 2012 last night. And to quote SCTV, the “world blew up real good!” It was a bit sappy, but the special effects were great.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking you are dealing with an amateur.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 17:19:26

I would not give you that much credit.

“Not literally crying. Are you attempting to disprove a figure of speech? Crying, as in bitching, whining, fake anger, being a pussy, etc. ”

Thank you for proving my point further. And being called a pussy? You are what you eat, Dick!

“Uh, yeah. He said they were too dangerous to be free, or be tried, or be spoken to, or even transported, and should be held as long as it took to keep them in prison.”

Guess I have to take your word for it… Not..

“You gloss over the fact that BUSH DIDNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to set up military tribunals. He resisted processing these guys under criminal courts or regular military court for 5 years, which is what he legally was obliged to do. Congress put into effect the MCA. Bush didn’t have the authority to set-up any kind of tribunal, it was one of his “executive power” trips that he got smacked down so often for, but that’s a different thread. ”

Corrct another thread, but even if I were to concede he was wrong in his approach that still counters your assertion he wanted to leave them in jail forever without trial.

As a pre-amateur dick once said “Thanks for playing”

Posted by BIG
2009-11-20 17:29:38

No worries. I have the same type of thought on Avatar. Probably awesome scenes but the story line looks to be sappy.

Ah well another day and another total smackdown of a pathetic DV jacking another thread into a re-re-re-re-re-hash of Bush, because his Messiah said something stupid, again.

I, on behalf of the conservatives declare victory. We are the Harlem Globe Trotters and DV and whats_up are the Washington Generals.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 17:27:44

Vega, I am not rooting for anything other that taking the fight to our enemies. But it is crap like this that brings it to our shores. I hope that I am wrong, but by placing this show trial in the middle of NYC is like flashing a “kick me” sign to the jihadis. I know you don’t believe they want to kill infidels and never have in the past 1400 years, but your ignorance doesn’t mean I should be stupid too. NYC is a prime target of theirs. They’ve already hit it a couple of times. Giving them another reason to hit it again is moronic in my opinion. The last thing I want is to see more jihadi action anywhere in America. I just wish Obama and Holder also felt this way.

Nice try, Living. But if you really won, you wouldn’t have to make the attempt to convince yourself.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 17:39:05

Nice comeback, wow you are good.

Another reason to hit us, BIG?

You sound like an anti-war protestor.

What ever happened to “Bring it on”?

What ever happened to exposing this nonsense for what it is?

Now we cower in the face of speculative threats.

Now we cower in the face of speculative threats.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 17:44:21

No. Your messiah pronounces judgement on a defendant from his “throne” you lemmings placed him on. Big difference.

OT. I saw 2012 last night. And to quote SCTV, the “world blew up real good!” It was a bit sappy, but the special effects were great.
Posted by BIG

We went to 2012 on Tuesday and while I knew the effects I was watching were spectacular I was left unimpressed. I think I’m tiring of “blew up real good” movies.

I enjoyed Where the Wild Things Are.

Goodnight and have a good weekend everyone.

Now we cower in the face of speculative threats.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 17:44:21

Its called risk avoidence. Can they be tried somewhere other than NYC? Yes. Could that alternate location be more secure and pose less risk? Yes. However, this would not allow you to make statements based on surface analysis of an issue.

Goodnight and have a good weekend everyone.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 17:49:41

Yeah you too. Enjoy “Going Rogue” don’t stay up too late reading it…

Now we cower in the face of speculative threats.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 17:44:21

No, now we dither while we wait to make a decision. Then we give our enemies our secrets through discovery and another reason for them to fight us on our shores instead of in their sandbox.

There was no reason to wave this flag under their noses. They hate us because we are infidels. So now we give them an open stage in our media capital and you think everything is going to be honky dory? There are so many easy targets in NYC and by bringing this show trial there, we are daring them to detonate and I happen to believe it is a stupid move. We have to be right 100% of the time to protect all Americans. They just have to get lucky once. And with the political correctness we have, I don’t have faith in our 100% now.

From 9/11/01 to 1/25/09, there were zero militant Islamic attacks in America. Since 1/25/09, there have been two militant Islamic attacks on our shores. What has changed recently to make this so Vega? Do you have a clue?

From 9/11/01 to 1/25/09, there were zero militant Islamic attacks in America. Since 1/25/09, there have been two militant Islamic attacks on our shores. What has changed recently to make this so Vega? Do you have a clue?
Posted by BIG
2009-11-20 18:01:31

Ouch! That is gonna leave a mark…

Posted by BIG
2009-11-20 18:01:31

8.6 on the Nixon scale of abuse. Well played.

I’m not expecting a reply. Maybe after the thread has gone dead, Vega will come back with some snotty remark about how I simply hate for no reason. So I will just reply now as if Vega did reply to me.

Vega, the reason the jihadis can now attack is because they do not fear a response from America. It is no longer a war, but a criminal action. They flew some planes into our building and killed a few thousand Americans and what happens? George Walker Bush goes all cowboy on them and brings the fight to their sandbox. He kills tens of thousands of them. Disrupts their training. Steals their money. Makes it harder for them to operate.

But now they have to deal with Barack Hussein Obama. If they conduct terror in America, he isn’t going to blow up an Islamic country. No, he is going to arrest them and bring them to justice. He is going to apoligize for offending them. All this is going to do is invite more attacks. The jihadis know they have a three year window to operate and they are going to use this opportunity to strike because they know the cost is not going to be as great. They never figured that GWB was going to fight back. But they know for certain that BHO is not.

Enjoy “Going Rogue” don’t stay up too late reading it…
Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-11-20 17:53:59

That book is above Vega’s pay grade, lria.

Yeah, so what? The 3,000 people who died didn’t get a trial either. It seems that KSM isn’t interested in their rights.
Posted by Kingfisher
2009-11-20 16:48:13

King,

Sure glad that you and KSM are on the same page. The United States is a bastian of light for the world because we are a nation of laws. That is what makes us better than the terrorists. In spite of your incessant whinning, Obama has made the right call. Let us not forget that the previous administration had no problem trying terrorists in federal court, you didnt seem to mind then. Fuckin hypocrite, crawl back under your hole, let the adults handle the situation.

The United States is a bastian of light for the world because we are a nation of laws. That is what makes us better than the terrorists.

Really? Then why are we putting terrorists through illegal show-trials instead of, y’know, following the laws?

There’s more about the US than being a nation of laws which makes it better than terrorists. The US is (less as time goes on) a beacon of liberty and free trade as well. That, combined with the Judeo-Christian ethic of over 100 years built it from a few small colonies on the Atlantic coast to the world’s biggest economy and most powerful nation. The terrorists hate all that.

Incidentally, I think an argument can be made legally for either a criminal or a military trial. The advantage of the military trial is you can keep secrets such as intelligence gathering operations, names of people that need to be protected, etc. I realize that you on the left hate intelligence and the military, but you ought to be smart enough to realize why that’s a good thing.

Really? Then why are we putting terrorists through illegal show-trials instead of, y’know, following the laws?
Posted by mightysamurai
2009-11-21 08:48:27

Hmmm, you sound alot like AQ.

Hmmm, you sound alot like AQ.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-22 13:29:24

You are retarded. KSM and other terrorists are not CRIMINALS they are SOLDIERS fighting a war, ergo they are NOT afforded rights to a trial, they are not subject to US criminal/civil law, they are covered under the Geneva Conventions as non-uniformed combatants and have almost no rights. Get over it. They don’t deserve a fair trial in a US court but rather at best a military trial and unless found innocent a summary execution.