Lefties....please defend the decision to try KSM in NYC..... (Page 3 of 4)

Trying to debate an Anarchist.......I should know better......

Summary execution? You might as well.

Using the "rule of law"......the accused is released upon aquittal.

This administration has said that won't happen.....making this a show trial while making a mockery of the court system.

Probably the stupidest argument ever. TV and movies have led the wingnuts to believe Miranda must be read before arrest. False. You can question anybody all you want BEFORE arrest. Once you decide to take them into custody, you still need read no Mirandas. It only comes into play before you interrogate. Watch COPS, see how many Mirandas are read. So they can be chained to the floor in Gitmo as long as you like, and until the iterrogation begins, no Mirandas need be read.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandari … andaqa.htm

Now, more BS exposed. http://www.hulu.com/watch/101088/al-qaeda-family . Here's a guy trapped in Afghanistan when he finally rejected his Al Qaeda family after years of not getting with their program. He was arrested and they convinced him to go to Gitmo as a regular prisoner as a spy. He was there for months. Got nothing because of the way they isolated the prisoners. Once, he was secretly taken out into daylight. He said officers, whose names the documentarians withheld, told him it was a huge mistake to offer a reward in Afghanistan for turning in members of Al Qaeda because 90% of those sent to Gitmo were just innocent guys in one village or another turned in for the money. Guys who spent years there with no trial or access to a lawyer of any kind, chained to the floor. Now you've created uncountable numbers of potential terrorists because they are just pissed.

So what do you do? It's a mess, but that is what happens when you give up the rule of law. Rule of law, fair hearing, is the only thing that makes our society worth fighting for. So you have to have fair trials. And if one gets away and does shit, that's the way it is. You screw up, you pay the price, but you stick to your principles, otherwise throw the whole thing in the garbage.

There are countries, including America, that have centuries of experience fighting terrorism and it is always handled as a matter of law. Why? Because terrorists love giant lumbering armies. Day to day, on the street, they are the most visible symbol of of the invader that extremists once had to convince everybody that they even existed. And they are an easy target. Fighting terrorism needs intelligence-gathering, surveillance and sudden arrest. Nothing else works.

But in any event, if you give up the rule of law, you might as well stop fighting, because you have lost already.

He is only polarizing to radical extremists like you. Most of those who disapprove of his performance don't hate him. Anyway, what isn't going to fly?

Last edited by cybert (2010-02-01 17:10:42)

Well then he is not polarizing, as I said. Polarizing is swaggering around telling everybody you are either with me or against me. You know, like Bush.

Oh, so he's re-considering the state he is to be tried in? BFD. He's only doing it because extremists like you create a giant media storm out of everything he does because you are radical nutcases. Of course, There have been 102 terror trials in New York including the 1993 WTC bombers, who were financed by none other than KSM. And when "20th Hijacker" Moussaui was tried in Virginia, a grand total of nothing important happened...and he was convicted.

But you people are irrational Obama-haters who have no other ideology but get Obama, so just to take another fake issue from you, he is considering moving the trial. I think it would be great if he were tried here. He hit New York, let New York try him. But you are to warped by right-wing radicalism to see reason.

Show me the link.

Your radical hysterical friends are responsible for the wild-eyes lies deseminated throught the media by the right-wing looney machine. It is hilarious to talk about "failures" a year into a presidency that inherited the perfect storm of disasters. Staved off a great depression, ended the year with "5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009". Most economists agree hthe stimulus was responsible for keeping the economy afloat. Not bad. Could be improved.

It's interesting you swallow the media spin when convenient:

"Brown, however, maintained in an interview Wednesday morning that claiming the election was a referendum on Obama would be oversimplifying what had happened there. Nor, he said, was it merely a matter of voters rejecting Coakley."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/2 … 29409.html

Voters are strained by an economy that is getting better, but employment always lags behind improvement in other areas. In times like these, "The other party" always wins. But you tell yourself what you need to, but be careful, if voters get the impression Republicans are running things, "the other guy" will be the Dems by Nov.

Seems you know how to spin incompetence not prove it.

I didn't know you needed your hand held to find such an easy search.

January 25, 2010
Obama's Approval Most Polarized for First-Year President Shows much greater party differences than approval for any prior first-year president

PRINCETON, NJ -- The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125345/obama … ident.aspx

Just like I said "I didn't make up the fact he's the most polarizing President....that came from Gallup"

Good nuff?

How did I spin this?

BOSTON — In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

Addressing an exuberant victory celebration Tuesday night, Brown declared he was "ready to go to Washington without delay" as the crowd chanted, "Seat him now." Democrats indicated they would, deflating a budding controversy over whether they would try to block Brown long enough to complete congressional passage of the health care plan he has promised to oppose.

"The people of Massachusetts have spoken. We welcome Scott Brown to the Senate and will move to seat him as soon as the proper paperwork has been received," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he would notify the Senate on Wednesday that Brown had been elected.

The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat on Tuesday signaled big political problems for the president's party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

Brown's victory was the third major loss for Democrats in statewide elections since Obama became president. Republicans won governors' seats in Virginia and New Jersey in November.

"I have no interest in sugarcoating what happened in Massachusetts," said Sen. Robert Menendez, the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee. "There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient."

Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president's health care legislation. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters. The trouble may go deeper: Democratic lawmakers could read the results as a vote against Obama's broader agenda, weakening their support for the president. And the results could scare some Democrats from seeking office this fall.

The Republican will finish Kennedy's unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/1 … 29033.html

I didn't say a word.

No spin from me.

Using your source not proof?

Seems you know how to spin proof as an incompetent.

Looks to me like IamMe held his/her own very well against an effort to be pigeon-holed by nonsense.

I find it interesting that the poster was only 11 at the time of Sept. 11, because it doesn't feel like that long ago.

As for Obama being polarizing, that's nonsense too. He's hated by the wingnuts and disappointing to progressives. Whomever suggested it above (Cybert?), it is kind of funny how the wingnut Bush-ites hate Obama even though he's done nearly exactly what Bush did. Just like Bush followed Clinton, who followed Bush, etc. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - only the wingnuts can't claim Obama as their own.

What's wrong with being polarizing?

It seems to me that bipartisanship is just an intellectual justification for the two parties enacting the same policies (usually the same failed centre-right policies they always have).

Last edited by IamMe (2010-02-07 03:14:09)

I don't refute that argument... but it doesn't apply here. Who in their right mind seriously thinks this guy can get a fair trial? So why feign a noble cause if we're only going to sabotage this nation's integrity?

This is one point Stephen Colbert makes abundantly clear to people (and himself).

On the unrelated topic of Obama's "polarization" - I'd say this is less of a personal quality and more a result of how polarized our entire society has become. I feel this is the result of how disinterested the American public has become with politics and how inundated we are with "news". Of course, this "news" is always biased and few people have the time or inclination to look at a variety of sources for information. They may not believe everything they hear, but they make little effort to hear other people.

... just my opinion.