Lindsy Grahm destroys Eric Holder
Gunner Asch
<VBG>
Gunner
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
Dan
watched the video, that the Subject: line is in error...
This was posted by Runner, after all.
Dan
Frank
Holder is an Obama sycophant chosen for what he did with Clinton and
the Mark Rich pardon.
If you believe it was his decision to hold the terrorist trial in NYC
in civil court, you'd also probably believe that
the moon was made of green cheese ;)
Buerste
"Frank" <frank....@dol.net> wrote in message
news:4dcd3352-24e9-41e2...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
***********************************
He'll believe whatever the pamphlet tells him to believe.
Hawke
What it should say is Lindsey Graham makes fool of himself. But right
wingers like Goober can watch any debate and see his side winning no
matter how bad they really lose. The simple reason the trial is going to
be held in NYC is because it's a matter of jurisdiction. Everything
about the situation says it was not a military matter. The people killed
were civilians. The planes were civilian. The killers were civilians and
not members of any organized military. It took place in New York. All of
which put it in New York's jurisdiction. The people against having it
there oppose it for one reason. They are against a fair trial. They just
want to string the guy up and they can be sure of that happening in a
military (kangaroo) court. That's what will happen in NY but they are
scared it might not.
Hawke
Buerste
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:he59hi$os4$1...@aioe.org...
Good thing all of the US forces now Mirandize enemy combatants. We wouldn't
want to infringe on their constitutional rights.
RBnDFW
> Dan wrote:
>> I don't watch you-tube videos, but I can almost guarantee, having not
>> watched the video, that the Subject: line is in error...
>>
>> This was posted by Runner, after all.
>>
>> Dan
The killers were civilians and
> not members of any organized military.
They were very organized, training together methodically toward a goal.
The only missing element was a lack of uniforms. According to the UMC,
They should be shot on the concurrence of 3 U.S. military officers.
And what about the Taliban?
They don't use uniforms.
So we are killing civilians in Afghanistan?
ATP*
"RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:he6dva$mhe$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hawke wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> I don't watch you-tube videos, but I can almost guarantee, having not
>>> watched the video, that the Subject: line is in error...
>>>
>>> This was posted by Runner, after all.
>>>
>>> Dan
>
> The killers were civilians and
>> not members of any organized military.
>
> They were very organized, training together methodically toward a goal.
> The only missing element was a lack of uniforms. According to the UMC,
> They should be shot on the concurrence of 3 U.S. military officers.
>
Dan
Considering a lot of the "enemy combatants" are just personal scores
(and possibly political ones), perhaps that would be a Good Thing.
You DO realize that few or none of the folks in Gitmo are POWs, right?
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
I find it highly doubtful that our military is required to adhere to
police and Constitutional requirements in a foreign country on
opponents. Are you making shit up again or can you show a cite?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Carroll
You might be doubtful but this is what Status of Forces Agreements cover.
OTOH, Tom is just full of crap, as usual. "all of the US forces now
Mirandize enemy combatants."
LOL
He's starting to sound just like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
--
John R. Carroll
Buerste
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ReANm.53027$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
Yep, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on each one that is just
a farmer or taxi driver. But, when they get released in NYC, they will vote
Democrat!
Curly Surmudgeon
That is just plain wrong. The Military are not police.
> OTOH, Tom is just full of crap, as usual. "all of the US forces
> now Mirandize enemy combatants."
> LOL
> He's starting to sound just like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
Buerste makes shit up.
Hawke
> They were very organized, training together methodically toward a goal.
> The only missing element was a lack of uniforms.
No that was not all that was missing. They were not part of a military
organization. They were not part of a recognized nation state. They
would be like being part of the Michigan Militia. If someone in the
Michigan Militia killed some people in a foreign country it would be
wrong to blame the United States for what they did. Osama bin Laden is a
private individual and the people working for him are not part of a
military. So the fact is the WTC attackers were civilians, period.
According to the UMC,
> They should be shot on the concurrence of 3 U.S. military officers.
The UMC doesn't take precedence over civilian law. It only applies in
certain specific applications. Civilian law tells the military where it
has or doesn't have jurisdiction. When foreign civilians kill American
civilians in the U.S. the military doesn't have jurisdiction, the
civilian legal system does.
> And what about the Taliban?
> They don't use uniforms.
Having uniforms isn't what determines if people are part of a nation's
military.
> So we are killing civilians in Afghanistan?
Yes, that's right. As of now the "legitimate" government of Afghanistan
is the Karzai regime. It is a recognized nation and it's forces are the
legitimate military of that country. However, prior to the Karzai
government the Taliban were recognized as the legitimate government of
Afghanistan. Our government and businesses dealt with them as the normal
Afghan government at the time. But now they are just civilians or rebels
or whatever you call them. If they win and get control of the government
again then they will be the armed forces of Afghanistan. Pretty
confusing isn't it? But as to the upcoming trial, it should be a
civilian trial. Which, of course, is why Eric Holder is handling it as
such. Those opposing him simply want an assured execution. Any trial
implies an unknown outcome and lots of Americans simply want revenge,
which explains why they want a military tribunal. We all know that won't
be anything but an automatic death sentence.
Hawke
Dan
You don't read too well, do you. No wonder most of your posts are
non-sequiturs or just plain drivel.
> But, when they get released in NYC, they will vote Democrat!
A pathetic attempt at sarcasm. You seem to fail at everything you do,
based on what we can see here, in these newsgroups. Perhaps if you had
only stayed in school instead of joining that street gang...
Dan
Buerste
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:he6kef$n8c$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Didn't you get the memo?
ATP*
Nepotism is a wonderful thing for that not so bright kid....
Buerste
That's the best you can do? A lame personal attack? Laugh-laugh-laugh!
Typical libtard! How's that job search going? Remember, the fuzzy end of
the broom goes down. But then, why bother? You can get your weed and 40s
with your cheese-check.
HH&C
> Dan wrote:
> > I don't watch you-tube videos, but I can almost guarantee, having not
> > watched the video, that the Subject: line is in error...
>
> > This was posted by Runner, after all.
>
> > Dan
>
> What it should say is Lindsey Graham makes fool of himself. But right
> wingers like Goober can watch any debate and see his side winning no
> matter how bad they really lose. The simple reason the trial is going to
> be held in NYC is because it's a matter of jurisdiction. Everything
> about the situation says it was not a military matter. The people killed
> were civilians. The planes were civilian. The killers were civilians and
> not members of any organized military.
Do you promise to bring up a similar argument for Hasan's trial?
> It took place in New York. All of
> which put it in New York's jurisdiction.
We're talking about civil aviation here. I don't think New York has
jurisdiction of civil aviation.
> The people against having it
> there oppose it for one reason. They are against a fair trial.
A change of venue would more likely ensure the possibility of a fair
trial.
> They just
> want to string the guy up and they can be sure of that happening in a
> military (kangaroo) court.
Your disdain of the military is noted. Again.
Buerste
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:22rfg5dbdr3etu6l7...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:48:45 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
> personal attack. That's not very impressive.
Piss on me, I shit on you!
Hawke
>> What it should say is Lindsey Graham makes fool of himself. But right
>> wingers like Goober can watch any debate and see his side winning no
>> matter how bad they really lose. The simple reason the trial is going to
>> be held in NYC is because it's a matter of jurisdiction. Everything
>> about the situation says it was not a military matter. The people killed
>> were civilians. The planes were civilian. The killers were civilians and
>> not members of any organized military.
>
> Do you promise to bring up a similar argument for Hasan's trial?
As far as jurisdiction goes, of course. Hasan was a military officer.
The crime took place on a military base. The victims were members of the
military. Should that be a military matter. Well, yeah. Just as the NYC
case should be a civilian one.
>> It took place in New York. All of
>> which put it in New York's jurisdiction.
>
> We're talking about civil aviation here. I don't think New York has
> jurisdiction of civil aviation.
That depends. Most things to do with civil aviation are federal matters.
So you could argue that the Trade Center case should be a federal
matter. But no way is it a military case.
>> The people against having it
>> there oppose it for one reason. They are against a fair trial.
>
> A change of venue would more likely ensure the possibility of a fair
> trial.
It shouldn't make any difference where the trial of KSM is held as long
as it's in civilian court. The evidence against him is overwhelming and
any jury is going to find him guilty. Which is why having the trial in
NY is no big deal.
>> They just
>> want to string the guy up and they can be sure of that happening in a
>> military (kangaroo) court.
>
> Your disdain of the military is noted. Again.
It should be easy enough to understand. I'm no worshiper of the
military. I've seen way too many cases of injustice dealt out by
militaries all over the world and over many years. You think it's hard
to get a fair trial in a regular court? Try a military one. People in
the military refer to the UCMJ as the uniform code of military injustice
for good reason.
Hawke
ATP*
Al Queda is a military organization killing Americans. 9/11 was as much an
act of war as Pearl Harbor.
John R. Carroll
Fair enough Tom.
Didi you ever suck a dick you didn't like?
LOL
Can you keep your employees once there health insurance doesn't rely on you
or Ohio Buerste?
I doubt it.
--
John R. Carroll
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Ayup..thats the way its supposed to work
Hit me with your hands, Ill use a club on you
Hit me with a club, Ill part your ribs with a blade
Strike at me with a blade, Ill blow your head off.
Thats the way its supposed to work
Gunner
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
HH&C
> RBnDFW wrote:
> > They were very organized, training together methodically toward a goal.
> > The only missing element was a lack of uniforms.
>
> No that was not all that was missing. They were not part of a military
> organization. They were not part of a recognized nation state. They
> would be like being part of the Michigan Militia. If someone in the
> Michigan Militia killed some people in a foreign country it would be
> wrong to blame the United States for what they did. Osama bin Laden is a
> private individual and the people working for him are not part of a
> military. So the fact is the WTC attackers were civilians, period.
>
> According to the UMC,
>
> > They should be shot on the concurrence of 3 U.S. military officers.
>
> The UMC doesn't take precedence over civilian law.
It does if you're in the military. The UCMJ is with you 24 hrs a day,
and in every time zone. The specific articles are more severe than
anything a civilian will face.
> It only applies in
> certain specific applications. Civilian law tells the military where it
> has or doesn't have jurisdiction. When foreign civilians kill American
> civilians in the U.S. the military doesn't have jurisdiction, the
> civilian legal system does.
>
> > And what about the Taliban?
> > They don't use uniforms.
>
> Having uniforms isn't what determines if people are part of a nation's
> military.
Yikes. Have you been stupid since infancy or were you dropped on your
head as an adult?
> > So we are killing civilians in Afghanistan?
>
> Yes, that's right. As of now the "legitimate" government of Afghanistan
> is the Karzai regime. It is a recognized nation and it's forces are the
> legitimate military of that country. However, prior to the Karzai
> government the Taliban were recognized as the legitimate government of
> Afghanistan. Our government and businesses dealt with them as the normal
> Afghan government at the time. But now they are just civilians or rebels
> or whatever you call them. If they win and get control of the government
> again then they will be the armed forces of Afghanistan. Pretty
> confusing isn't it? But as to the upcoming trial, it should be a
> civilian trial. Which, of course, is why Eric Holder is handling it as
> such. Those opposing him simply want an assured execution. Any trial
> implies an unknown outcome and lots of Americans simply want revenge,
Americans want justice.
HH&C
If they get that far. The case will likely be dismissed on some
technical infraction that is irrelevant to guilt.
> Which is why having the trial in
> NY is no big deal.
>
> >> They just
> >> want to string the guy up and they can be sure of that happening in a
> >> military (kangaroo) court.
>
> > Your disdain of the military is noted. Again.
>
> It should be easy enough to understand.
Not by your explanations.
> I'm no worshiper of the military.
That is plain to see.
> I've seen way too many cases of injustice dealt out by
> militaries all over the world and over many years.
You have? Where did you serve? where did you live?
> You think it's hard
> to get a fair trial in a regular court? Try a military one. People in
> the military refer to the UCMJ as the uniform code of military injustice
> for good reason.
>
> Hawke
Welp, the Obama administration can get rid of the UCMJ at any time.
Make everything a civilian matter.
Buerste
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:n5ednYCrdfOjEZXW...@giganews.com...
Speaking of dicks, imagine my surprise when your wife pulled off her panties
and proudly displayed the only dick in your family! I don't suck dick,
that's your forte. And knowing where THAT one has been....EWEUUU! She told
me you don't have kids because the anal baby thing isn't working...like it
worked for your parents. She also said that make funny noises when you fart,
a kind of "whooshing" sound. Maybe Obammy's healthcare bill will pay to
have you rebushed. Until then, you have to keep the plug in. And
DUDE...she says you need some breath mints! ...and not those urinal cakes
that you like to chew.
Wes
>Al Queda is a military organization killing Americans. 9/11 was as much an
>act of war as Pearl Harbor.
The problem for many is this is a case of a non-nation state conducting war. Instead of
being a country, it is a multi-national group of people that have perverted Islam into
their personal holy war against the US and other countries.
I consider it an act of war but others may differ. Even if this turns into a circus, I
doubt that many walk free. As an example, retroactive laws against those convicted of sex
crimes seems to get a pass in the courts currently.
I *hope* Holder doesn't blow this. I'm not a fan of the guy for those that think I'm
getting wobbly.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
ATP*
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:hukOm.232468$Xw3....@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
> "ATP*" <waxwin...@azurepane.com> wrote:
>
>>Al Queda is a military organization killing Americans. 9/11 was as much an
>>act of war as Pearl Harbor.
>
> The problem for many is this is a case of a non-nation state conducting
> war. Instead of
> being a country, it is a multi-national group of people that have
> perverted Islam into
> their personal holy war against the US and other countries.
>
>
> I consider it an act of war but others may differ. Even if this turns
> into a circus, I
> doubt that many walk free. As an example, retroactive laws against those
> convicted of sex
> crimes seems to get a pass in the courts currently.
>
> I *hope* Holder doesn't blow this. I'm not a fan of the guy for those
> that think I'm
> getting wobbly.
>
>
>
> Wes
> --