|
|
| Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing (939170) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (939171) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 6 22:15:44 2012, in response to Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Sun May 6 22:13:33 2012. I wish them luck, such attire is NOT required at a court-marshal. I got a kick out of the demands for the military to not wear uniforms either at trial. I guess this is their strategy to win. :) |
|
|
| (939175) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 6 22:41:50 2012, in response to Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Sun May 6 22:13:33 2012. What a circus.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (939177) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 6 22:43:37 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Fred G on Sun May 6 22:41:50 2012. Our republican friends wanted a military trial ... they got their wish here. :-\ |
|
|
| (939200) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon May 7 03:21:09 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 6 22:15:44 2012. "Court-Martial," not "marshal." |
|
|
| (939201) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 7 03:22:53 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Mon May 7 03:21:09 2012. Spooty spell chequer. I thought it looked wrong too, but no arguing with Firefucks. :) |
|
|
| (939203) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 06:14:21 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 6 22:43:37 2012. The woman is not a military attorney. You think this would be less of a circus in a civilian trial? |
|
|
| (939210) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Mon May 7 07:45:26 2012, in response to Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Sun May 6 22:13:33 2012. Nope, the gutting and stuffing should come first, THEN the rope. Let them feel the fear of those poor people they so gleefully killed. |
|
|
| (939211) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon May 7 07:54:26 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 06:14:21 2012. No but your team thought it would be less of a circus in a military trial.Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (939216) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon May 7 08:38:27 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Fred G on Mon May 7 07:54:26 2012. No, it was because military courts are better suited to protect intelligence that is evidence against KSM and the others. |
|
|
| (939217) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon May 7 08:38:48 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Mitch45 on Mon May 7 07:45:26 2012. I stand corrected! |
|
|
| (939222) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 09:04:54 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Mon May 7 08:38:27 2012. +1 |
|
|
| (939223) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 09:05:23 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Fred G on Mon May 7 07:54:26 2012. No "circus" was not the issue. Appropriate was and is the issue. |
|
|
| (939225) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 09:08:23 2012, in response to Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Sun May 6 22:13:33 2012. This attorney is a trailblazer, potentially making our trials more visually interesting and even more colorful.If a Black Nationalist is on trial, attorneys should all wear dashikis. If it's a White Supremacist, appropriately bleached robes would be the fashion. And don't forget the hoods... |
|
|
| (939226) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 7 09:08:23 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Mon May 7 08:38:27 2012. Proof?There have been plenty of civilian trials at which classified evidence has been protected. |
|
|
| (939227) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 09:09:43 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by AlM on Mon May 7 09:08:23 2012. It's the venue. If the defendants wanted a civilian trial, they shouldn't have committed war crimes. |
|
|
| (939228) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Mon May 7 09:17:28 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 09:05:23 2012. Thats something the leftists dont understand. |
|
|
| (939229) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Mon May 7 09:21:13 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Fred G on Mon May 7 07:54:26 2012. It has nothing to do with circus....it has to do with the fact that they commited war crimes...not civiliam crimes. |
|
|
| (939232) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 7 09:41:18 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 09:09:43 2012. That's a fine opinion but irrelevant to the statement I was questioning. |
|
|
| (939233) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 09:44:58 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by AlM on Mon May 7 09:41:18 2012. OK, I see your point. |
|
|
| (939239) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon May 7 10:03:57 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 09:05:23 2012. Thats not what I said.I didnt say "the whole reason your team thought military courts were more appropriate" anywhere. Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (939242) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 10:05:41 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Fred G on Mon May 7 10:03:57 2012. I didn't say you said that. |
|
|
| (939244) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon May 7 10:06:11 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 7 03:22:53 2012. What 'til the next version...they seem to upgrade every 40 minutes! |
|
|
| (939248) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon May 7 10:11:43 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 10:05:41 2012. I meant my response to Dave.Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (939249) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon May 7 10:14:10 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by AlM on Mon May 7 09:08:23 2012. Federal courts bar evidence obtained by coercion. The law regarding military commissions that Obama signed in 2009 forbids evidence derived from torture and other harsh interrogation techniques, but the commissions still have rules that allow greater use of hearsay testimony and, in some instances, could permit the introduction of coerced testimony.Civilian cases are required to have full disclosure of court documents, court proceedings, search warrants, and evidence. The prosecutors are permitted to speak openly with the press about civilian cases. In military cases, restrictions to the public are placed on all types of documents and evidence pertaining to the case. Judges are given the power to deny the public's access to military cases if it protects the rights of the accused. Prosecutors must gain permission from the judge to speak to the press. The 911 attack is a classic war crime the mass murder of civilians for which military tribunals have traditionally been used. |
|
|
| (939254) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 7 11:00:31 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Mon May 7 10:14:10 2012. Civilian cases are required to have full disclosure of court documents, court proceedings, search warrants, and evidence.False, if classified evidence is involved. |
|
|
| (939271) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 12:36:38 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Mon May 7 10:14:10 2012. Federal courts bar evidence obtained by coercion.So has every military judge. the UCMJ is much more lenient towards defendants than the civilian system. This guy would have been executed by now had he been tried in civilian courts. Every terrorist captured after a certain time has been tried and convicted in civilian courts and all got life sentences including some guy tried last week in Manhattan. ----- NYC man convicted in thwarted subway bomb plot Published May 01, 2012 Associated Press NEW YORK In what authorities called the most serious terror threat since the Sept. 11 attacks, a New York City man was convicted Tuesday of plotting with two of his former classmates at a Queens high school to attack the subways as suicide bombers. A jury deliberated less than two days before finding Adis Medunjanin guilty of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, attempting to commit an act of terrorism and other terrorism charges. At trial, the jurors had heard the first-time testimony from admitted homegrown terrorists about al-Qaida's determination to strike America on its home turf. The former classmates, Najibullah Zazi and Zarein Ahmedzay, testified that the three men sought terror training after falling under the influence of inflammatory recordings of U.S.-born extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki that they downloaded and listened to on their iPods. Medunjanin's "journey of radicalization led him from Flushing, Queens to Peshawar, Pakistan, to the brink of a terrorist attack in New York City," U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch said in a statement. "As this case has proved, working against sophisticated terrorist organizations and against the clock, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies can detect, disrupt and destroy terrorist cells before they strike, saving countless innocent lives." Medunjanin, 27, showed no emotion as the jury foreman announced the verdict in federal court in Brooklyn. Afterward, the former security guard asked defense attorney Robert Gottlieb to "tell his family to be strong," the lawyer said. Gottlieb said there would be an appeal. His client faces a possible life term at sentencing on Sept. 7. The government's case was built on the testimony of Zazi, Ahmedzay and two other men: a British would-be shoe bomber and a man originally from Long Island who gave al-Qaida pointers on how best to attack a Walmart store. Zazi and Ahmedzay, who testified as part of plea deal, told jurors that the scheme unfolded after the trio traveled to Pakistan in 2008 to avenge the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. While receiving terror training at outposts in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan, al-Qaida operatives encouraged the American recruits to return home for a suicide-bombing mission intended to spread panic and cripple the economy. Among the targets considered were New York Stock Exchange, Times Square and Grand Central Terminal, the men testified. In a later meeting in New York, the plotters decided to strap on bombs and blow themselves up at rush hour on Manhattan subway lines because the transit system is "the heart of everything in New York City," Zazi said. Zazi told jurors how he learned to extract explosives ingredients from nail polish remover, hydrogen peroxide and other products sold at beauty supply stores. When leaving Pakistan, he relocated to Colorado, where he perfected a homemade detonator in a hotel room and set out for New York City by car around the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The plot financed in part by $50,000 in credit card charges was abandoned after Zazi noticed that everywhere he drove in New York, a car followed. "I think law enforcement is on us," he recalled telling Ahmedzay. Later, he said he told Medunjanin in a text message, "We are done." Defense attorneys had admitted that the Bosnian-born Medunjanin wanted to fight for the Taliban, but they insisted he never agreed to spread death and destruction in the city where his family put down roots. Medunjanin went overseas to fulfill a "romantic version of jihad. ... His plan and intent was to join the Taliban and stand up for what he believes in," Gottlieb said in his closing. "That was his purpose." Before trial, the defense had failed to get a judge to bar incriminating post-arrest statements by Medunjanin that his lawyers said were coerced. According to FBI reports, Medunjanin recounted telling his al-Qaida handlers that "he had prayed but still wasn't sure he was ready to be a martyr," the reports said. He later was sent home on his own, the reports said, to "provide financial support" for the terror network. He told the agents who interviewed him that they "were like enemy combatants to him," the reports added. Aside from Zazi and Ahmedzay, two other convicted terrorists were called as witnesses to give a rare glimpse into al-Qaida's training methods and the mindset of its leadership. In a videotaped deposition made public for the first time during the trial, Saajid Badat recounted a clandestine meeting where Osama bin Laden explained the rationale behind the failed plot for Badat and Richard Reid to attack trans-Atlantic flights with bombs hidden in shoes. Bin Laden "said the American economy is like a chain," the British man said. "If you break one one link of the chain the whole economy will be brought down. So after Sept. 11 attacks, this operation will ruin the aviation industry and in turn the whole economy will come down." Bryant Neal Vinas, of Patchogue on Long Island, testified that he went to Pakistan in 2007 and later joined al-Qaida forces in an attack against American soldiers. Vinas described how he suggested to others in al-Qaida in the summer of 2008 that they could plant explosives in suitcase aboard a Long Island Rail Road train or hide them inside a television that was being returned to a Walmart. An attack on the popular retail outlet "would cause a very big economy hit," he said. |
|
|
| (939272) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 12:39:42 2012, in response to Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Sun May 6 22:13:33 2012. You wanted a military trial.Now you got one. Applause!!!! This garbage even has a JAG defense lawyer assisting her free of charge to the defendant. |
|
|
| (939288) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 13:30:57 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 12:36:38 2012. This guy would have been executed by now had he been tried in civilian courts.Why do I doubt that? The civilian jury in the first WTC bombing rejected the death penalty because the defendant's lawyers gave them a son story about how the evildoers should NOT get the death penalty, but should have to live so that they would wake up each day with the evil that they had done. And it worked. Then there was the civilian jury that let Meyer Kehane's killer go on a defense that was such BS that the judge explicity told the jury that they were NOT leaving with the court's thanks. And the very public trial of the first WTC bombers was attended by Al Queda's operatives and sympathizers who learned a hell of a lot. But all this is irrelevant. War Crimes shouldn't go to civilian court. Period. |
|
|
| (939289) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 13:32:11 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 12:39:42 2012. Yes, I wanted a military trial, and still do. I would have liked it with a different commander-in-chief, but I can't have everything. |
|
|
| (939292) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon May 7 13:42:46 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by AlM on Mon May 7 11:00:31 2012. You're wrong. Classified information is sealed but it is fully disclosed to the judge. |
|
|
| (939294) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 13:48:37 2012, in response to Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Sun May 6 22:13:33 2012. A waste of perfectly good chitterlings. |
|
|
| (939296) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 7 13:49:33 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Fred G on Mon May 7 07:54:26 2012. Remember that the right wingers around here tried to claim Obama should have had the SEALs bring Osama in to stand trial. Imagine what a disaster that would have been. I guess the right really does want to make America look bad, so long as it's in any way beneficial to their cause. |
|
|
| (939298) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 7 13:53:56 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Dave on Mon May 7 13:42:46 2012. You didn't restrict your statement that way in the first place.The prosecution can insist on a judge who is eligible to view classified information if it wishes. |
|
|
| (939301) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 7 13:58:54 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by WillD on Mon May 7 13:49:33 2012. Who said that? |
|
|
| (939302) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 14:00:58 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by WillD on Mon May 7 13:49:33 2012. Heh. Shooting first and asking questions later is what the left had been calling "cowboy foreign policy." Except when Obama does it. |
|
|
| (939305) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 14:07:10 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 13:30:57 2012. War Crimes shouldn't go to civilian court. Period.you need to be a warrior in order to commit war crimes. Goehring was a warrior. Hitler was a warrior. Generals Tojo, Pinochet and Mladic were warriors whether we like them or not. KSM or Ramzi-whatever-his-name-is are common murderers of the lowest form. Only conservative dickheads would give these cockroaches the status of "warrior" that they so desperately seek. Only conservative fuckheads would channels these scum to face lenient courts-martial presided by lenient judges and juries instead of civilian ones. Only conservative shitheads would saddle military prosecutors with complex terrorism trials that they are unfamiliar with against top notch defense attorneys instead of the expert civilian prosecutrs with dozens of terrorism convictions on their belt. |
|
|
| (939306) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 14:08:41 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 13:32:11 2012. Yes, I wanted a military trial, and still do.get ready for acquittals or "time served"-type sentences then. That's these courts' history. |
|
|
| (939311) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 14:15:25 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 14:07:10 2012. Oh, please. When a liberal begins to use the terms of nobility for "warrior" to try to say that the terrorists should be tried in civilian court, it becomes embarrassing.A war crime is a crime committed in contravention of the Laws of War. What are we looking for, bringing Conan the Sumarian to trial? The Geneva and Hague Conventions deal with "combatants." You can be a privileged combatant, and have certain protections, such as for the fact that you can kill other combatants and not be a murderer, or you can be a non-privileged combatant. Either way, you can commit war crimes. And they did. And where the hell do you get the idea that Courts-Martial are more lenient than civilian courts? |
|
|
| (939313) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 14:16:15 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 14:08:41 2012. Under Obama, who has been trying to empty Guantanamo as fast as he can. |
|
|
| (939319) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 7 14:24:39 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 14:00:58 2012. Or it's war. That's what has been wrong with the PNAC's approach to the War on Terror. Either you're fighting enemy combatants and work within the Geneva Convention, or it's a legal issue and you stay within your own penal system. The right squandered eight years dithering about trying to have it both ways while avoiding the oversight either approach brings. If we're going to make it a criminal matter then we need to keep our hands so lily white that the crap about extraordinary rendition and torture only serves to demolish what little case for the matter in the first place. But we tied one arm behind the back of every American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan in forcing them to stand by those abortive nation-building attempts.If it is indeed a War on Terror then lets go at it full force. Lets get the special forces involved and scare the everloving shit out of the people who are next in line for these leadership positions. The increased number of drone attacks under the Obama administration are an excellent way to go about this. |
|
|
| (939320) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 14:26:18 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 14:15:25 2012. Oh, please. When a liberal begins to use the terms of nobility for "warrior" to try to say that the terrorists should be tried in civilian court, it becomes embarrassing.It's YOU people that are giving lice a term of nobility, not me. And where the hell do you get the idea that Courts-Martial are more lenient than civilian courts? Look at the sentences they mete out (when they actually convict somebody). Sentences are not determined by federal guidelines. They are determined by the jury up to the statutory maximum by averaging out what a juror imposes. That means that sentences will ALWAYS be less than the maximum unless they unanimously rule to give the maximum. On top of that, the military even has parole. The civilian system does not. Johnny Walker Lindh got 20 years without parole from a civilian jury for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. David Hicks got time served from a military one after 3-4 years in custody and is sitting on the beach for the same exact situation . Osama's driver also got time served. He'd gotten 30 to life had a civilian court tried him. Educate yourself. |
|
|
| (939344) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon May 7 15:40:00 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 14:07:10 2012. Then why do morons like you start talking about the Geneva Conventions when worrying about these criminal's rights? |
|
|
| (939345) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon May 7 15:41:57 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 14:26:18 2012.  So says the psychopathic ass hole that said this |
|
|
| (939453) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 20:31:26 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Train Dude on Mon May 7 15:40:00 2012. Then why do morons like you start talking about the Geneva Conventions when worrying about these criminal's rights?Whenever conservative mental defects like you give them the status of combatants and warriors instead of the common murderers that they are. |
|
|
| (939456) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 20:36:27 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Train Dude on Mon May 7 15:41:57 2012.  So says the cheap ho who said this
|
|
|
| (939458) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 20:37:41 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SLRT on Mon May 7 14:16:15 2012. There have been no trials under Obama.Those time served sentences or acquittals all came under Bush. |
|
|
| (939487) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Mon May 7 21:20:57 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by SMAZ on Mon May 7 20:36:27 2012. Nah! He isnt cheap! |
|
|
| (939491) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon May 7 21:35:04 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by JohnL on Mon May 7 21:20:57 2012. Neither are you from what I hear, johnny. |
|
|
| (939539) | |
Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Mon May 7 23:43:21 2012, in response to Re: Attorney in hijab defends call for other women at 9/11 hearing to wear 'appropriate' clothing, posted by Mitch45 on Mon May 7 07:45:26 2012. I say draw and quarter 'em - alive.-w- |
|
|