havnt seen a remark that stupid from a president since Nixon

Post #317,474 by boxley 11/18/09 4:55:01 PM Reply	havnt seen a remark that stupid from a president since Nixon http://www.breitbart...O0&show_article=1 Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Muhammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." stupid fucker, angling delibrately for a mistrial?
Post #317,475 by crazy 11/18/09 5:22:39 PM Reply	It's pretty straight forward Obama needs to kill him. He's outlived any possible intelligence value, and it will be a major win for him politically if he can have a trial and kill him in a public fashion. But he can't via military tribunal, he just can't. It'll cause too many problems. So he asks Holder: Can we try this guy without too much damage?
Post #317,477 by beepster 11/18/09 5:57:42 PM Reply	Just wait till the show starts... ..then tell me how little damage can be done. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #317,478 by boxley 11/18/09 6:20:17 PM Reply	Re: It's pretty straight forward http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id155.html What is extraordinary about the case is that Manson was not present during any of the murders. The district attorney, 35-year-old Vincent T. Bugliosi, argued that Manson had created a religious cult and was controlling the minds of the family members around him. Bugliosi charged that Manson ordered the killings because he wanted to start a race war. It was a wild story and totally based on circumstantial evidence. There never has been any proof that Manson's little hippie colony in the desert was involved in any kind religious practice. They were merely a group of social misfits and dropouts. Because of his dynamic personality, Manson played the role of the leader, but no one has ever proven the others worshipped him. Before the trial began, the Manson case became a political issue. President Richard M. Nixon condemned Manson on public television, calling him a dangerous cult leader. The case by this time was drawing national attention and there was the usual media frenzy. By the time the trial started, nearly everyone in the country knew the story and heard Nixon's public allegations. The chances of a fair trial were almost nil. circus time, the defence lawyers will have a field day, I would suspect that gerry spence might come out of retirement for this one.
Post #317,479 by Another Scott 11/18/09 6:42:24 PM Reply	Eh? http://tpmdc.talking...ty-is-applied.php "What I said was, people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not prejudging it, I'm not going to be in that courtroom. That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury," Obama said. Also, given that KSM has already talked in detail about his guilt of the charges against him, bragged about it, and welcomed "martyrdom", Obama's statements to Todd were hardly controversial and will have zero impact on a jury. http://www.timesonli...rticle4076206.ece HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #317,480 by boxley 11/18/09 6:53:27 PM Reply	so will sheik hold up a headline "Obama sez Im guilty" then motion for a mistrial and a tainted jury pool? Like Nixon he should have kept his mouth shut.
Post #317,484 by Another Scott 11/18/09 7:16:27 PM Reply	I guess we'll see. I'm not worried that he'll be acquitted.
Post #317,488 by beepster 11/18/09 8:24:49 PM Reply	What you should be worried about... ...is the fact that there will be news crews from every news outlet on the globe, all in one spot, all focussed on one thing, all back in NYC. Wonder if they'll paint a bullseye on the building? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #317,491 by Another Scott 11/18/09 9:14:52 PM Reply	I was down the street from the Moussaoui trial... http://www.vaed.usco...ssaoui/index.html When did conservatives become such fraidy cats? :-/ Cheers, Scott. (Who thinks that this is all just stuff to get the Republican "base" more riled up at Obama.)
Post #317,500 by beepster 11/18/09 10:16:33 PM Reply	Huh? When did taking unnecessary risk become so flippant a gesture. 1) KSM is a different beast, if any of what has been said is true. 2) The fact that Lindsay Graham could "stump the band" about how this precedent would work in the future re: enemies caught in field of batter etc....lets see how that slope slides... I don't really care if you give him a microphone and a 50000 watt tower of power to talk until we don't have to apply the death penalty...(seems to be the popular talking point...giving him a forum)... There is no need to bring them here. None. Take the court to them. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #317,502 by Another Scott 11/18/09 10:47:34 PM Reply	Fundamental disagreement. KSM isn't so scary that the federal courts can't handle him. There is no reason why he cannot be tried here. If you look through what was done with the Moussaoui trial, you'll see that it wasn't a circus. Moussaoui was tried in federal court here. McVeigh was tried here. Four of the US Embassy bombers were tried here - http://edition.cnn.c...embassy.bombings/ etc. The best protection we have against terrorism is living up to our ideals and following our laws, not being afraid to put people on trial because they're "too dangerous". Following the law is not "taking unnecessary risk". For someone who worries about the "slippery slope" in other contexts, you seem to be willing to ride the Slip&Slide regarding the "field of battle". IMO, if the term applies to Rawalpindi, then it applies to Orlando... Cheers, Scott.
Post #317,512 by boxley 11/19/09 9:29:22 AM Reply	with nother on this one the only caveat I have is that the law must be applied well, which may lead to an aquital unless the feds have some untainted evidence up their sleeve. We should never have taken these people into US custody to begin with, should have killed them in the field after having friends debrief them first
Post #317,497 by folkert 11/18/09 10:10:41 PM Reply	A Military trial... for multiple murders, ending in... acquittal? Never happen. If they don't get him on the first murder, they will on the second or third... or which ever and then look at them overall and give him the absolute minimum of Hard Labor for the rest of his life.
Post #317,499 by Another Scott 11/18/09 10:15:45 PM Reply	KSM's trial will be in federal court - not under UCMJ.
Post #317,507 by folkert 11/19/09 6:34:28 AM Reply	Ah fudge... Guess I need to re-read things...
Post #317,496 by folkert 11/18/09 10:08:04 PM Reply	The UCMJ pretty much ensures he... is a dead duck. the UCMJ is not Civilian law at all. Things that would clear you in the Civilian Law, doesn't typically do squat for you in a Military trial. Military trials are pretty much a script that is a bunch of questions with Yes or No answers and then a decision is made. There really is only on outcome. At the VERY least, he will be in prison doing hard labor for the rest of his life.
Post #317,501 by beepster 11/18/09 10:17:21 PM Reply	He's not getting a military trial. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #317,508 by folkert 11/19/09 6:35:20 AM Reply	Crud. He needs to get one. There is no reason he should be excused from it.
Post #317,515 by jake123 11/19/09 9:58:19 AM Reply	I can think of one He committed a crime, not an act of war. Only states can commit acts of war, and Al-Qaeda is not a state.
Post #317,536 by folkert 11/19/09 5:39:13 PM Reply	UCMJ covers... Military personnel. Its nothing to do with War or anything else. The only thing that WAR does is make the penalties much more harsh.
Post #317,574 by jake123 11/20/09 10:36:54 AM Reply	I dunno if you noticed or not but he's not in any country's military either.
Post #317,582 by folkert 11/20/09 4:57:01 PM Reply	Oh FSCK me... I read the article that I thought was the root article on this one. That particular article was on the Ft. Hood shootings. I ran with it on this particular thread. SHEESH. This article on the ROOT posting is about the 9/11 "Mastermind"... Oh fsck me!
Post #317,583 by beepster 11/20/09 5:21:22 PM Reply	Oopsie I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #317,624 by mhuber 11/21/09 9:11:29 PM Reply	Exactly. The message is: This guy is not a holy warrior. This guy is a crook.
Post #317,666 by jake123 11/23/09 9:45:03 AM Reply	Bingo. I argued for a criminal enforcement approach right after 9/11 right here for just that reason. One is that it's a lot easier to get cooperation from places like Pakistan when you come to them and say "we want to arrest the guy that just murdered 3000 people" than saying "we're going to blow shit up in your borderlands and kill a lot of your citizens who've had nothing to do with it in the hopes of getting some guys we don't like because they helped someone who committed an act of war against the US. What's that you say? Individuals can't commit acts of war? Too bad... we're going to blow shit up anyway... take it or, well, take it." The message that the Rest of the World sees those people as nothing more than common murderers who've managed to cloak their sociopathic ways in the thin vestments of religious devotion also goes a long way to helping one's cause. They should either put people on trial or let them go... the whole deal where they split people based on the likelihood of conviction (cf my fellow citizen Omar Khadr) is a non-starter and destroys the efficacy of the message... for example, knowing that they still intend to attempt to convict Khadr in the kangaroo court tells me that the pretty convictions are a matter of convenience and optics, not actual belief.
Post #318,283 by mmoffitt 12/8/09 9:21:59 AM Reply	Kudos. In a nutshell whenever I encounter anyone hand-wringing over the wisdom of trying these murdering bastards in our court system, I always point out that Ramsey Yosef is in prison and Osama Bin Laden isn't. Seems treating the perps like the criminals they are and putting them on trial has better outcomes. Moreover, the American goal of war is peace. Do the supporters of a "War on Terror/Al Qaeda" really want to make peace with these criminals?
Post #318,284 by pwhysall 12/8/09 9:27:46 AM Reply	Yep. I've been banging that particular drum for years.

Welcome to IWETHEY!