Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter

John Manning

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 12:03:47 PM11/6/09

to

Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim

VIDEO at link:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-about-fort

No sooner was the identity of the Fort Hood shooter released -- a man
with the Arab name Nadal Malik Hasan -- than the wingnuts sprang into
predictable action: Of course he was a jihadi embarking on a murderous
terrorism spree!

Pam "Atlas Barks" Geller immediately proclaimed it "an obvious act
terrorism" and ran big all all caps heads declaring: "IT'S THE JIHAD
STUPID." Elsewhere in the right blogosphere, people like the folks at
HotAir jumped all over the "news" that Hasan was a convert to Islam.

Then Shepard Smith interviewed Hasan's cousin, and we found out that
this was all so much tripe:

-- Hasan was American born and educated, but raised Muslim. He was not a
convert.

-- He had never previously been deployed to Iraq or anywhere overseas,
for that matter. So much for the theories he suffered from Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder.

-- He was regularly abused by his colleagues in the military for being
Muslim -- called a "raghead" and other such terms -- and had been
seeking to get out of the military because the environment had become
so hostile.

Another interview, on just before this one, that Smith had with a former
colleague of Hasan's indicated that Hasan was prone to making outrageous
remarks about Muslims "defending themselves," particularly in reference
to last summer's shooting of two military recruiters in Arkansas by a
Muslim convert.

There are also reports that he had recently been the victim of a hate
crime: His car was vandalized, with the word "Allah" scratched into the
paint, and he was reportedly extremely upset by it.

It's obviously a complicated story. We'd all be well advised to reserve
the speculation to actual hard facts about the case as they emerge. But
it certainly appears this is much a matter of Columbine-like backlash to
bullying as it is anything ideological.

And no, it's not the Jihad, stupid.

Links Here:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-about-fort

Jenny6833A

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 12:22:03 PM11/6/09

to

On Nov 6, 10:03�am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim

Harassment for being other than Christian is pretty common in the
military.

Good post.

<snip>

:-)

Jenny

The Master

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 12:28:21 PM11/6/09

to

> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim

Shooting his fellow soldiers like he did sort of disproves the "good
American" part of it though, doesn't it?

Just James

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 1:02:30 PM11/6/09

to

Seriously though, as soon as they said Hassan, who did not know this
would happen?

--
Just James

"Not everyone requires a rational explanation before they can believe
something. It's called faith." ~ Zootal (ARM 10/20/2009)

Priceless

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 1:05:55 PM11/6/09

to

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:22:03 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A
<Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Nov 6, 10:03?am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
>> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>
>Harassment for being other than Christian is pretty common in the
>military.

Extending to their families too.

Pat Tillman was the pro footballer who gave up a multi-million dollar
contract to fight in Afganistan.

Lt. Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich insulted his family by publicly lying
about their not being satisfied with the lack of proper investigation
because they were atheist for the usual nasy "reasons" Christians
invent about atheists and death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP4h4WwX0NI

The video refers to this article on the ESPN web site

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=tillmanpart1

"But there [have] been numerous unfortunate cases of fratricide, and
the parents have basically said, 'OK, it was an unfortunate
accident.' And they let it go. So this is � I don't know, these
people have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of their
religious beliefs."

In a transcript of his interview with Brig. Gen. Gary Jones during a
November 2004 investigation, Kauzlarich said he'd learned Kevin
Tillman, Pat's brother and fellow Army Ranger who was a part of the
battle the night Pat Tillman died, objected to the presence of a
chaplain and the saying of prayers during a repatriation ceremony in
Germany before his brother's body was returned to the United States.
Kauzlarich, now a battalion commanding officer at Fort Riley in
Kansas, further suggested the Tillman family's unhappiness with the
findings of past investigations might be because of the absence of a
Christian faith in their lives.

In an interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich said: "When you die, I
mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an
atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there
to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for
nothing, and now he is no more � that is pretty hard to get your
head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only
imagine that that would be pretty tough."

Asked by ESPN.com whether the Tillmans' religious beliefs are a
factor in the ongoing investigation, Kauzlarich said, "I think so.
There is not a whole lot of trust in the system or faith in the
system [by the Tillmans]. So that is my personal opinion, knowing
what I know."

I understand no action was taken to discipline him for this sheer,
bigoted nastiness.

Unviable Tissue Mass

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 1:09:26 PM11/6/09

to

Call it what you will, but the Fort Hood bloodbath is the first major
Islam-
inspired suicide attack in the "homeland" since 9/11.

Look for more, of various kinds, planning for which has probably been
underway for months if not years. Can you picture 30 or so people
killed on a New York City street by a suicide bomber?

It's why, for rational security reasons -- every U.S. adult resident
with a Muslim surname, especially those directly involved with the
military, firearms sales and associations, explosive components
inquiries, and those in communication with Islamic groups here and
abroad -- ALL should be under watch and monitoring by our CIA and FBI.

Even though those federal agencies under Bush dismally failed us in
the 9/11 disaster.

Remember, everything changed on 9/11, especially trust in and
tolerance of Muslims of every stripe.

The U.S. is at war all right, and ultimately they're both about
RELIGION.

Who's your enemy, Baby?

Syd M.

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 2:26:42 PM11/6/09

to

On Nov 6, 12:28 pm, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:

No, but your insensitive reply proves just how much work needs to be
done.

PDW

Syd M.

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 2:28:32 PM11/6/09

to

On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, Unviable Tissue Mass <perryneh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Intolerant asshole like you.

PDW

The Master

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 3:30:31 PM11/6/09

to

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Syd M. wrote:

>>> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
>>> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>>
>> Shooting his fellow soldiers like he did sort of disproves the "good
>> American" part of it though, doesn't it?
>
> No, but your insensitive reply proves just how much work needs to be
> done.

Hold on a second... Are you trying to pass off any psychological tourment
he may or may not have had as a result of his religion, as an excuse for
the shooting? Are you seriously trying to pass it off as somehow
justified? I would like to believe that you are not. Therefore, my
comment stands as stated, his shooting his fellow American soldiers like
he did disproves that he was a "good American." Good Americans don't
shoot up their fellow man for shits and giggles.

Jenny6833A

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 7:24:01 PM11/6/09

to

On Nov 6, 11:09�am, Unviable Tissue Mass <perryneh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Call it what you will, but the Fort Hood bloodbath is the first major
> Islam-
> inspired suicide attack in the "homeland" since 9/11.
>
> Look for more, of various kinds, planning for which has probably been
> underway for months if not years. Can you picture 30 or so people
> killed on a New York City street by a suicide bomber?
>
> It's why, for rational security reasons -- every U.S. adult resident
> with a Muslim surname, especially those directly involved with the
> military, firearms sales and associations, explosive components
> inquiries, and those in communication with Islamic groups here and
> abroad -- ALL should be under watch and monitoring by our CIA and FBI.

And all those with Irish surnames too? I mean, how about Timothy
McVeigh?

:-)

Jenny

Tanisha

unread,

Nov 7, 2009, 6:19:04 PM11/7/09

to

FORT HOOD SHOOTINGS - PROPHECY

During a recent Sunday service, Prophet T.B. Joshua, pastor of The
Synagogue, Church Of All Nations in Lagos, Nigeria (www.scoan.org)
spoke forth a prophetic message concerning an event that would take
place in a super nation, at a place bearing the name, ‘Fort’. These
were his words:

“What’s happening here is a blessing to the nation and to the whole
world. Like today, I have some message. This is not even Nigeria but a
super nation. The name, ‘Fort’. We should pray for that name. It may
be the name of a big company in the whole world but it’s a name. Pray
for this name. It’s a parable because I’m seeing a strange person
carrying something. But I said, “No, God, please”. We are praying for
the whole world here and we keep praying for the whole world”.

On Thursday, November 5th 2009, a soldier carrying two handguns opened
fire on fellow soldiers at the Fort Hood Army Base in Fort Hood,
Texas, USA. 13 people were killed and 30 were wounded. Take note of
the name – Fort. This was the name revealed by God Almighty to Prophet
T.B. Joshua and pronounced by the man of God during the Sunday live
service.

“This is not even Nigeria but a super nation.” The Fort Hood Army base
is located in Fort Hood, Texas, USA – indeed a super nation, just as
the man of God said.

“The name ‘Fort’. We should pray for that name. It may be the name of
a big company in the whole world but it’s a name”. Fort Hood is the
largest active duty armored post in the whole world and is the only
post in the United States that is capable of supporting two full
armored divisions.
The base, which officially opened in September 1942, has a proud
history, having provided fighting forces to every major US military
conflict since the Vietnam War.

Today, Fort Hood has nearly 65,000 soldiers and family members and
serves as a home for Headquarters III Corps, First Army Division West,
the 1st Cavalry Division, 4th Infantry Division's Combat Aviation
Brigade, 13th Corps Support Command, 89th Military Police Brigade,
504th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, 21st Cavalry Brigade (Air
Combat), 4th Combat Aviation Brigade and 31st Air Defense Brigade.
Fort Hood also includes Darnall Army Community Hospital and the
Medical And Dental Activities as tenant units.The fort is also home to
the Warrior Combat Stress Reset Program, which helps soldiers
returning from war with combat stress and Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder.

“It’s a parable because I’m seeing a strange person carrying
something.”
Take note of the man of God’s action here while giving the prophecy.
As he spoke these words, he simultaneously demonstrated a man carrying
guns in his hands. The suspected gunman was carrying two handguns –
one a semi-automatic – when he launched the massacre against the
soldiers.

“It’s a parable because I’m seeing a strange person carrying
something.”
The attack on the Fort Hood Army Base was carried out by a strange
person indeed – a fellow soldier. Major Dr. Malik Nadal Hasan, the
suspected gunman, is a psychiatrist. He was promoted to Captain in
2003 and to Major in May 2009. He had just been transferred to Fort
Hood in July 2009.

Dr. Hasan had been awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. It
is strange for a soldier to open fire on a military base. An
occurrence of this kind is almost completely unheard of. Defense
Department spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Butterbaugh stated, “This is an
isolated and tragic case”.

It’s a parable because I’m seeing a strange person carrying something.
But I said, “No, God, please”.
America and indeed the whole world watched in horror and disbelief as
news unfolded of the Fort Hood shootings, reportedly the deadliest
ever on a military base on American soil.

Making a statement on the Fort Hood shooting, President Barack Obama
said: “My immediate thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and with
the families of the fallen and with those who live and serve at Fort
Hood. These are men and women who have made the selfless and
courageous decision to risk and at times give their lives to protect
the rest of us on a daily basis. It’s difficult enough when we lose
these brave Americans in battles overseas. It is horrifying that they
should come under fire at an army base on American soil.”

Comments poured in from around the world, among them, those who were
treated by Dr. Hasan himself: Staff Sgt. Marc Molano was treated by
Dr. Hasan for post-traumatic stress disorder earlier this year at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. "Dr. Hasan provided me
with nothing but the best care," Molano said. "He was a very well-
mannered, polite psychiatrist, and it's just a shock to know that Dr.
Hasan could have done this. It's still kind of hard to believe." He
described Dr. Hasan as "far and away one of the best psychiatrists I
ever dealt with."

A soldier who served two tours in Iraq called Hasan, "a soldier's
soldier who cared about our mental health." "Hasan hears nothing but
these horror stories from soldiers who come back from Iraq and
Afghanistan," the soldier said. "Just hearing it I'm pretty sure would
have a profound effect”.

“It is absolutely shocking because you’d assume that if you were
inside yoru base in your own country, you would be in the safest place
you could possibly be whilst in uniform,” said retired major Jim
Panton.

“It’s kind of scary knowing when I go back home in six months, I’ll
have to watch my back to make sure I don’t get killed,” said US Army
Capt Matt Easter, posted to Afghanistan.

Most soldiers overseas believe they leave the dangers of the job
behind when they go home. But these soldiers were felled instead in
the place they called home.

“We are praying for the whole world here and we keep praying for the
whole world”.
The earth is full of violence. We pray that the Lord Jesus would not
turn His face away from us, that He would have mercy on us and show us
His salvation.

For the video confirmation of this prophecy and others, please visit:
www.emmanuel.tv

dsharavi

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 1:50:02 AM11/8/09

to

> >>> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
> >>> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>
> >> Shooting his fellow soldiers like he did sort of disproves the "good
> >> American" part of it though, doesn't it?
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Syd M. wrote:
> > No, but your insensitive reply proves just how much work needs to be
> > done.
>

On Nov 6, 12:30 pm, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:

> Hold on a second... Are you trying to pass off any psychological tourment
> he may or may not have had as a result of his religion, as an excuse for
> the shooting? Are you seriously trying to pass it off as somehow
> justified? I would like to believe that you are not.

Think of all the blacks and Jews in the military who might have blown
away their fellow soldiers, because they were called names, or
worse.

> Therefore, my
> comment stands as stated, his shooting his fellow American soldiers like
> he did disproves that he was a "good American." Good Americans don't
> shoot up their fellow man for shits and giggles.

His superiors seemed to have known of his virulent interpretations of
the Quran for some time, but never acted on them, for fear of giving
offence to the "Muslim community". Probably for fear of the reaction
we see here.

Deborah

JTEM

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 3:15:56 AM11/8/09

to

"Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>

> wrote:
>
> > Shooting his fellow soldiers like he did sort of disproves
> > the "good American" part of it though, doesn't it?
>
> No,

I seriously hope that was an auto-contradict response, and
you don't actually believe that.

JTEM

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 3:17:12 AM11/8/09

to

Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:

> Harassment for being other than Christian is pretty
> common in the military.

"Insubordination" is not tolerated in the military, and the
man was an officer.

Syd

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 3:22:38 AM11/8/09

to

On Nov 6, 3:30 pm, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Syd M. wrote:
> >>> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
> >>> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>
> >> Shooting his fellow soldiers like he did sort of disproves the "good
> >> American" part of it though, doesn't it?
>
> > No, but your insensitive reply proves just how much work needs to be
> > done.
>
> Hold on a second... Are you trying to pass off any psychological tourment
> he may or may not have had as a result of his religion, as an excuse for
> the shooting? Are you seriously trying to pass it off as somehow
> justified?

No.
Nothing justifies what he did. But we have to understand why.

I would like to believe that you are not. Therefore, my
> comment stands as stated, his shooting his fellow American soldiers like
> he did disproves that he was a "good American." Good Americans don't
> shoot up their fellow man for shits and giggles.

Then you don't really understand.

PDW

Joe Bruno

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 6:09:33 AM11/8/09

to

On Nov 6, 9:03 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>

> VIDEO at link:http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-abo...

> Links Here:http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-abo...

Everybody you don't like is a "wingnut"?

John Manning

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 7:12:05 AM11/8/09

to

The anti-Islam paranoid xenophobic bigots in the above piece ARE
wingnuts like you, Mr Fraudulent military prosecutor.

They are eager to stereotype ALL Muslims as jihadists because this one
man went crazy and killed people.

How about stereotyping ALL anti-abortionists as killers because
anti-abortionist Roeder killed Dr Tiller who performed abortions?

Dumber than a sack of dog shit.

dsharavi

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 11:12:48 AM11/8/09

to

On Nov 6, 9:22 am, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:03 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
> > he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>
> Harassment for being other than Christian is pretty common in the
> military.

Harassment for being Christian was pretty common in the military, if
you happened to be a black American, along with harassment for being
Jewish. I don't seem to recall any black or Jewish American in the
military, from the Revolutionary War to the present, who gunned down
his fellow Americans merely because some of them called him names.

> Good post.

Ya think?

Deborah

> <snip>
> :-)
> Jenny

Syd

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 3:38:04 PM11/8/09

to

<Sigh> I suddenly don't care what you believe.
Look, nothing justifies what he did, but he was bullied. There is a
reason.

PDW

dsharavi

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 3:50:27 PM11/8/09

to

What's the reason all the blacks and Jews in the military, from the
Revolution to the present, didn't grab a gun and blow away the lives
of thirteen people because they, too, were "bullied?

Deborah

Joe Bruno

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 4:17:37 PM11/8/09

to

> Dumber than a sack of dog shit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You just lied about me twice:

1. I made no statement about the case.I know very little about it.
2.You have provided no evidence that I am a "bigot".

You have provided no evidence that my duties as military prosecutor
were not just as I described them.

John Manning

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 4:42:05 PM11/8/09

to

Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:11 am, r...@somis.org (ï¿½R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> In article <SMOdncZaSaQGKGvXnZ2dnUVZ_uadn...@giganews.com>, John Manning

> Well, you just lied about me twice.
>
> (1) I made no statement at all about the case.
> I really know very little about it.
> (2)Let's see you cite one example of me being a bigot.
> (3)You can check my Navy service record to see if I told the truth
> about my legal activities
> Service record no 356343.

First:
Not all wingnuts are bigots. I'm glad that you accept Muslims as equals.

Second:
Being a military lawyer in the Navy [you said you served at sea]
requires a law degree AND a license to practice law, which you did not
indicate you had. If I recall correctly, you said you had a Bachelors
degree in accounting.

From the list of requirements to practice law in the Navy:

"Before you apply to become a Navy lawyer you must have already
graduated from an accredited American Bar Association law school and be
licensed by the highest court of a state or federal court."

You can see the full list of requirements for a military lawyer for the
Navy here: http://www.ehow.com/how_5007510_become-navy-lawyer.html

Third:
There's no way to actually SEE your service record with the information
you provided.

And you still come off as dumber than a sack of dog shit.

John Manning

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 4:44:11 PM11/8/09

to

First:
Not all wingnuts are bigots. I'm glad that you accept Muslims as equals.

Second:
Being a military lawyer in the Navy [you said you served at sea]
requires a law degree AND a license to practice law, which you did not
indicate you had. If I recall correctly, you said you had a Bachelors
degree in accounting.

From the list of requirements to practice law in the Navy:

"Before you apply to become a Navy lawyer you must have already
graduated from an accredited American Bar Association law school and be
licensed by the highest court of a state or federal court."

You can see the full list of requirements for a military lawyer for the
Navy here: http://www.ehow.com/how_5007510_become-navy-lawyer.html

---And you still come off as dumber than a sack of dog shit.

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 4:59:31 PM11/8/09

to

"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:i8qdnehpJqezpmrX...@giganews.com...

[snip]

> Not all wingnuts are bigots. I'm glad that you accept Muslims as equals.

Now THAT'S a "wingnut:" One who accepts the double lies of Islam (reverse
the roles of the accepted and rejected sons of the Old Testament, and
minimize Jesus of the New Testament) as having any validity whatsoever.

> Second:
> Being a military lawyer in the Navy [you said you served at sea] requires

> a law degree AND a license to practice law...

Not necessarily: Staff NCOs and officers are trained to act as lawyers and
investigators in Article 31 investigations and the like when circumstances
prohibit the military from providing full-fledged lawyers, as aboard a ship
at sea, or in combat zones, or in matters so minor as to prohibit the
expense of using full-time lawyers.

When I was in the Marines, I myself worked on a couple of JAG
investigations. I also served TAD as an SP (Shore Patrolmen), which
supplements the MPs (Military Police), an additional duty that is required
of all senior fleet Marines.

Ike

Joe Bruno

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 5:11:52 PM11/8/09

to

> were not just as I described them.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You accused me of "fraud" in my description of my legal service in the
Navy.
Fraud is intentional deception for the purpose of material gain.
You have no proof of intentional deception on my part, nor can you
prove I gained anything material by saying that.

Joe Bruno

unread,

Nov 8, 2009, 5:13:55 PM11/8/09

to

On Nov 6, 9:03 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

Ike

Joe Bruno

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 1:46:02 AM11/9/09

to

On Nov 8, 3:45 pm, "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Joe Bruno" <joebr...@usa.com> wrote in message

No, Legal Officer is a permanent position on every Navy ship.
He investigates the charges against the accused, prepares the formal
charge sheet, gathers evidence against the accused and acts as the
prosecutor at Captain's Mast.

The accused usually represents himself, but he can appoint someone to
represent him.
The Captain acts as the judge and jury.

>
> Manning knows about as much about the military and the UCMJ as he knows
> about the Bible, which is to say, little to nothing at all.
>

And he isn't honest enough to admit it.

Joe Bruno

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 1:50:17 AM11/9/09

to

> ---And you still come off as dumber than a sack of dog shit.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I didn't say I was a lawyer, jackass. I said I was a Legal Officer.
Your problem is you are functionally illiterate. YOu simply cannot
read and comprehend English.

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 2:32:52 AM11/9/09

to

"Joe Bruno" <joeb...@usa.com> wrote in message

news:59220332-782c-44b4...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Yes, I know, ON the ship.

> He investigates the charges against the accused, prepares the formal
> charge sheet, gathers evidence against the accused and acts as the
> prosecutor at Captain's Mast.

Yes, I know, pretty much same thing Staff NCOs are trained to do in the
Marines except to act as prosecutor.

Been there.

Done that.

> The accused usually represents himself, but he can appoint someone to
> represent him. The
> Captain acts as the judge and jury.

I wouldn't know about that--my job was simply to act as an investigator,
take statements and gather evidence, determine if charges were warranted,
write 'em up, then turn the matter over to the JAG representative (which is
what a staff NCO would do in relation to the legal officer(s)).

>> Manning knows about as much about the military and the UCMJ as he knows
>> about the Bible, which is to say, little to nothing at all.

> And he isn't honest enough to admit it.

Precisely.

Ike

JTEM

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 2:34:16 AM11/9/09

to

Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> <Sigh> I suddenly don't care what you believe.
> Look, nothing justifies what he did, but he was bullied.

THAT is utter bullshit.

This guy was a Major in the U.S. Army. Who are you
imagining was "Bullying" him?

The Colonels? How many were there?

This story is transparent.

Joe Bruno

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 2:36:00 AM11/9/09

to

On Nov 8, 11:32 pm, "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>

Yes.

>
> > He investigates the charges against the accused, prepares the formal
> > charge sheet, gathers evidence against the accused and acts as the
> > prosecutor at Captain's Mast.
>
> Yes, I know, pretty much same thing Staff NCOs are trained to do in the
> Marines except to act as prosecutor.
>
> Been there.
>
> Done that.
>
> > The accused usually represents himself, but he can appoint someone to
> > represent him. The
> > Captain acts as the judge and jury.
>
> I wouldn't know about that--my job was simply to act as an investigator,
> take statements and gather evidence, determine if charges were warranted,
> write 'em up, then turn the matter over to the JAG representative (which is
> what a staff NCO would do in relation to the legal officer(s)).
>
> >> Manning knows about as much about the military and the UCMJ as he knows
> >> about the Bible, which is to say, little to nothing at all.
> > And he isn't honest enough to admit it.
>
> Precisely.
>

> Ike- Hide quoted text -

JTEM

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 3:07:51 AM11/9/09

to

John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> The anti-Islam paranoid xenophobic bigots in the

This is alt.atheism. The only people who aren't "Anti-
Islam" here are worthless fucks.

Secondly, everything you've stated is pure bullshit,
and apparently predicated on a pro-Islam agenda.

The shooter was a Major. He wasn't harassed. People
of a lower rank than Major -- the vast majority of people
in the Army -- simply do not have that option, and
there just plain aren't a lot of people above his rank.

The rule is, the higher up you go in rank, the fewer men
of your rank.

Everyone from a Private to a Captain was simply barred
from demonstrating disrespect to this man.

Google "Insubordination," you babbling shit.

JTEM

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 3:09:48 AM11/9/09

to

John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> I'm glad that you accept Muslims as equals.

If this guy is your equal then you're a sick, dangerous
piece of filth who is much better off dead than alive.

Why are you defending him, you worthless twat?

John Manning

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 6:35:17 AM11/9/09

to

All I had to do was look up the REQUIREMENTS for someone to be a lawyer
in the military. You don't fit those requirements wingnut boy. Very simple.

"Before you apply to become a Navy lawyer
you must have already graduated from an
accredited American Bar Association law school
and be licensed by the highest court of a
state or federal court."

=== Navy lawyers serve as members of the Judge Advocate General (JAG)
Corps. The military attorneys work with criminal, national,
international, environmental and maritime law. Upon completion of
focused training, as a Navy attorney you will work out of a Naval Legal
Service Office or a Trial Service Office. The competition to be accepted
into the JAG Corps is fierce. In fact, only about 20 percent of the
people who apply to become a Navy lawyer are accepted into the program.

Instructions

1.
Step 1

Insure that you meet eligibility requirements. Provide
documentation such as a valid driver's license, birth certificate or
passport to prove that you are a citizen of the United States.
Throughout your Naval career, make sure that you exhibit good moral
character. Apply to be commissioned as a Naval attorney at least one
year prior to your 42nd birthday.
2.
Step 2

Enroll in an accredited four-year college or university that has
a solid law department such as Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown,
Notre Dame, Duke or Emory. In order to increase your chances of being
accepted into the Navy JAG Corps, focus on your coursework, earn high
scores on exams and maintain a strong grade point average.
3.
Step 3

Register to attend one of the approximately 195 American Bar
Association (ABA) accredited law schools. Complete the three-year
curriculum. Consider attending law school part-time or during the night
if you work during the daytime. After you finish law school, contact the
Law School Admission Council at 215-968-1001 to schedule to take the Law
School Admission Test (LSAT).
4.
Step 4

Contact the state bar in the jurisdiction where you want to
become licensed. Inquire about the specific licensing requirements. Most
states require lawyers to pass a written bar examination as well as a
written ethics examination before a license is granted. Check with your
state bar to confirm whether you will need to complete the 6-hour
Multi-State Bar Exam (MBE) or the 3-hour Multi-State Essay (MEE) Exam.

Before you apply to become a Navy lawyer you must have already graduated
from an accredited American Bar Association law school and be licensed
by the highest court of a state or federal court.

5.
Step 5

Complete the JAG Corps Preliminary Employment Application (see
Resources). Supply your name, mailing and email addresses and telephone
number. Provide your military service dates and duty station locations.
Also include your educational history, including postsecondary training,
civilian employment history, positions held and the reason that you left
each company.
6.
Step 6

Contact the JAG Corps at 1322 Patterson Avenue, Washington, DC
20374-5066 to get a list of current active duty senior appraisers. You
must complete a face-to-face interview with a senior JAG Corps
appraiser. Bring a copy of your JAG Corps employment application with
you to the interview.
7.
Step 7

Participate in physical fitness tests (see Resources), including
performing aerobic exercises, sit-ups and push-ups. Medical conditions
such as having missing limbs, a single kidney, diabetes or experiencing
seizures will disqualify you from becoming a Navy lawyer. You must have
less than 24 percent of body fat if you are a man and less than 35
percent of body fat if you are a woman. After you pass your interviews
and examinations and have your application reviewed by a JAG review
board, a member of the board will contact you to notify you as to
whether you were accepted into the corps. This process can take as much
as eight weeks.
8.
Step 8

Attend the six-week Officer Development School indoctrination
course located at 291 Kollmeyer Street in Newport, Rhode Island, after
you are accepted into the program by the JAG Corps review board. While
at the development school, complete the academic curriculum and physical
fitness regime, and study Navy rank, leadership standards and
branch-wide policies and procedures.
9.
Step 9

Accept orders and travel to one of the three official Navy
Justice schools located in Newport, Rhode Island; San Diego, California;
or Norfolk, Virginia. Complete intensive courses that focus on military
justice, getting evidence, preparing legal documents, administrative law
and application and disciplinary programs over the course of the
nine-week training program.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5007510_become-navy-lawyer.html

John Manning

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 6:43:33 AM11/9/09

to

And you're BOTH still dumber than a sack of dog shit.

John Manning

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 6:49:03 AM11/9/09

to

No. You said:

"I'm a CPA with a Bachelor's degree in 2 majors-Economics and
Accounting.

I attended law school and served as a *prosecutor* under military law.I
was an officer there-served 4 years at sea.

I grew up in Chicago and graduated from the Univ of Illinois with
Honors."

REQUIREMENTS to practice military law:

[snip]

> And you're BOTH still dumber than a sack of dog shit.

LOL

That's right--the two guys that have BEEN THERE don't know what they're
talking about, while the "sea lawyer" thinks that a discussion of TRIAL
LAWYERS supplants the legal provisions of the UCMJ and the functions of
APPOINTED senior NCOs and legal officers to serve legal functions at the
company and battalion levels (or, in the case of the Navy, shipboard and
subordinate command levels).

Hey, moron: Ever seen "A Few Good Men?"

The INVESTIGATION and DETERMINATION OF CHARGES had ALREADY BEEN MADE at the
COMMAND LEVEL, but the charges were of such a nature that they were
FORWARDED to the JAG OFFICE. (Of course, in the movie, the end result was
that the personnel assigned the legal duties WERE THE CRIMINALS, but that's
their story.)

Ike

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 2:57:31 PM11/9/09

to

"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rKYJm.4660$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...

> John Manning wrote:
> >>
>>> I didn't say I was a lawyer, jackass. I said I was a Legal Officer.
>>> Your problem is you are functionally illiterate. YOu simply cannot
>>> read and comprehend English.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No. You said:
>>
>> "I'm a CPA with a Bachelor's degree in 2 majors-Economics and
>> Accounting.
>>
>> I attended law school and served as a *prosecutor* under military
>> law.I was an officer there-served 4 years at sea.
>>
> Bruno is being clever. (I'm to polite to say he is telling a lie.)
>
> "In the Navy and Marine Corps, nonjudicial punishment may be imposed by an
> "Officer in Charge." The Term "Officer in Charge" does not mean an "OIC,"
> as
> a "job title," but rather a specific officer where the flag officer
> holding
> general court-martial authority designates the office as the "officer in
> charge."

No, that's NOT what either he nor I are talking about, either.

ANY NCO or officer "in charge" of any unit at any given time could bring
Article 15 charges under the UCMJ.

What WE'RE talking about are senior NCOs and Officers APPOINTED--either on a
case-by-case basis (as in my case) or on a permanent ongoing basis, as
aboard a ship at sea (as Bruno references)--to act as a representative of
the JAG in legal matters above and beyond "company punishment" (i.e. article
15 violations).

What WE'RE talking about is the INTERMEDIATE step BETWEEN company punishment
(which any NCO or Officer could dish out, pretty much at will) and a full
blown somebody-is-going-to-jail court martial, and it's their job to
determine at what level it will be handled (if not their own level).

You "sea lawyers" really need to give it a rest.

I know what Bruno was talking about.

BRUNO knows what Bruno was talking about.

You civies haven't a clue as to how different the UCMJ system is from the
civilian court systems.

(For one thing, under the UCMJ, NO ONE has "the right to remain silent," nor
the "right to free speech." As the old saying goes "We're not here to
practice democracy; we're here to protect it." Why, I'm not so sure
anymore.)

Ike

Logan Sacket

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 7:31:25 PM11/9/09

to

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:34:16 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

A source told National Public Radio that Hasan had been put on
probation during his postgraduate work for proselytizing about his
Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, which has authorities
investigating whether Hasan may have tried to convert any Muslim
soldiers that he may have counseled about extremist Islamist ideology.

Hasan was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War
on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon

http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/10976/149/

Bert Hyman

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 7:52:40 PM11/9/09

to

In news:4af8b3d8...@news.eternal-september.org
logan....@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:

> Hasan was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War
> on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon

The NDSM was handed out to us in basic training back in the '60s; I
suspect that the others are similarly awarded just for showing up.

Logan Sacket

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 10:01:11 PM11/9/09

to

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:03:47 -0200, John Manning
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:

>
>
>Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
>he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>
>
>VIDEO at link:

>http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-about-fort

>http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-about-fort
>
>
>
.....given the long chain of other stories about Hasan, there had to
be paperwork. There had to be knowledge. And if nothing else, nothing
else, questions as to why a formal investigation was not opened up on
him after the FBI tracked Internet postings about suicide bombings by
someone with his name remain. Questions as to why he would cite his
nationality as Palestinian when he was born in Virginia remain.
Questions as to why colleagues stated they were uncomfortable
referring patients to him remain. Questions as to how you can have a
member of the U.S. military�s fellow doctors recount that they were
repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly
claimed to be a �Muslim first and American second� remain. Questions
as to how a member of the U.S. military can speak of infidels
deserving to have their throats cut and have boiling oil poured down
their throats and can stay in the military remain. Questions as to why
all this can at once remain true and he can be quoted as saying he
wanted a discharge from the military and nothing was done remain.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzVmNDc4N2MxNjdkZDkxMjI0YjEyYjcxYTE3NjgwMDk=

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 10:08:44 PM11/9/09

to

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4af8d73e...@news.eternal-september.org...

[snip]

> .....given the long chain of other stories about Hasan, there had to
> be paperwork. There had to be knowledge. And if nothing else, nothing
> else, questions as to why a formal investigation was not opened up on
> him after the FBI tracked Internet postings about suicide bombings by
> someone with his name remain. Questions as to why he would cite his
> nationality as Palestinian when he was born in Virginia remain.
> Questions as to why colleagues stated they were uncomfortable
> referring patients to him remain. Questions as to how you can have a
> member of the U.S. military's fellow doctors recount that they were
> repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly
> claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second" remain. Questions
> as to how a member of the U.S. military can speak of infidels
> deserving to have their throats cut and have boiling oil poured down
> their throats and can stay in the military remain. Questions as to why
> all this can at once remain true and he can be quoted as saying he
> wanted a discharge from the military and nothing was done remain.

Answer: Barack Obama and political correctness continued to the point of
absurdity.

To ever be safe, first, we need to run all of the Muslims out of the
military; then, we need to run all of the Muslims out of the country;
finally, we need to run all of the Muslims out of the world, as Islam is to
religion what the Nazis were to politics.

Ike

American Eagle

unread,

Nov 9, 2009, 11:05:44 PM11/9/09

to

Maybe the whole family needs to go.. Meaning the damned Jewish half
brothers that stirred all of this up and have for 4 thousand years.
>
>

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 2:32:54 AM11/10/09

to

"American Eagle" <A...@USA.com> wrote in message
news:7ls74iF...@mid.individual.net...

The Jews didn't do this, and they didn't stir up the trouble, either.

The REJECTS did.

The Jews have lived here peaceably since the founding of the country.

Christians have lived here peaceably (mostly) since BEFORE the founding of
the country.

Every other person of every other religion in the WORLD has lived here
peaceably since they got here.

But NOT those damn Muslims: They can't live peaceably with anyone. Wherever
they go, they have to impose Islamic tyranny on every to make their DAMNABLE
LIES stand up, or kill and maim until they can.

They have hearts of violence, just as was prophesied of them..."and they
shall live by the sword."

(But it is telling that you choose to rise up in anti-Semitism when the Jews
didn't do anything to you--the MUSLIMS did.)

Ike

American Eagle

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 4:54:55 AM11/10/09

to

This is just one.. Want to rephrase that bullshit, Ike?

http://www.ussliberty.com

John Manning

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 7:16:08 AM11/10/09

to

Ike reveals that his Christianity is just like Hitler's Nazi ideology
where Hitler thought the Jews should be exterminated, Ike thinks he's
superior as a human human being and that Muslims should be exterminated
like vermin.

Ike is a classic example of the ugliness and depravity of fundamentalist
right wing Christianity.

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 10:35:42 AM11/10/09

to

"American Eagle" <A...@USA.com> wrote in message

news:7lsrjaF...@mid.individual.net...

Oh, and who were those guys on 9/11? And the two times they tried to bomb
the World Trade Center before that? And the nutcase who opened fire on our
own troops on the eve of the invasion? Pat Boone clones?

Ike

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 10:39:31 AM11/10/09

to

"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message

news:If-dnbPtV5kUxGTX...@giganews.com...

[snip]

> Ike reveals that his Christianity is just like Hitler's Nazi ideology
> where Hitler thought the Jews should be exterminated, Ike thinks he's
> superior as a human human being and that Muslims should be exterminated
> like vermin.

Liar. Where did "Ike" say "exterminate?"

Actually, Jesus has another plan for terminating Islam--He's just going to
show up. That'll pretty much put an end to the arguments.

In the MEANTIME...

And insofar as the "Hitler" comment is concerned, it demonstrates your
depravity and hatred toward the Word of Truth, where you'll tell any lie
simply 'cause Jesus doesn't intend to do it YOUR WAY.

Ike

Jim Austin

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 11:53:32 AM11/10/09

to

On Nov 6, 9:03 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim

Sounds like Manning believes U.S. soldiers deserved to be shot for
harassing a Moslem.

> VIDEO at link:http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-abo...
>

> No sooner was the identity of the Fort Hood shooter released -- a man
> with the Arab name Nadal Malik Hasan -- than the wingnuts sprang into
> predictable action: Of course he was a jihadi embarking on a murderous
> terrorism spree!

Certain aspects of the Moslem religion serve to legitimate and
validate terrorism. That makes each Moslem a potential terrorist.

> Pam "Atlas Barks" Geller immediately proclaimed it "an obvious act
> terrorism" and ran big all all caps heads declaring: "IT'S THE JIHAD
> STUPID." Elsewhere in the right blogosphere, people like the folks at
> HotAir jumped all over the "news" that Hasan was a convert to Islam.

Hasan acted like a consistent Moslem, however politically incorrect it
may be to notice it.

> Then Shepard Smith interviewed Hasan's cousin, and we found out that
> this was all so much tripe:
>
> -- Hasan was American born and educated, but raised Muslim. He was not a
> convert.

He was a Moslem from the very beginning.

> -- He had never previously been deployed to Iraq or anywhere overseas,
> for that matter. So much for the theories he suffered from Post
> Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Religious fervor was sufficient motivation.

> -- He was regularly abused by his colleagues in the military for being
> Muslim -- called a "raghead" and other such terms -- and had been
> seeking to get out of the military because the environment had become
> so hostile.

Manning believes Hasan acted justly.

> Another interview, on just before this one, that Smith had with a former
> colleague of Hasan's indicated that Hasan was prone to making outrageous
> remarks about Muslims "defending themselves," particularly in reference
> to last summer's shooting of two military recruiters in Arkansas by a
> Muslim convert.

Hasan had indicated his sympathies with terrorists.

> There are also reports that he had recently been the victim of a hate
> crime: His car was vandalized, with the word "Allah" scratched into the
> paint, and he was reportedly extremely upset by it.

Again, Manning believes Hasan acted justly.

> It's obviously a complicated story. We'd all be well advised to reserve
> the speculation to actual hard facts about the case as they emerge. But
> it certainly appears this is much a matter of Columbine-like backlash to
> bullying as it is anything ideological.

Liberals are always ready to rationalize, minimize, sanitize
terrorists. This is more of the same.

> And no, it's not the Jihad, stupid.

Evidence indicates it is.

<Snip> URL.

John Manning

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 12:14:13 PM11/10/09

to

Jim Austin wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:03 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
>> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>
> Sounds like Manning believes U.S. soldiers deserved to be shot for
> harassing a Moslem.
>
>> VIDEO at link:http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-abo...
>>
>> No sooner was the identity of the Fort Hood shooter released -- a man
>> with the Arab name Nadal Malik Hasan -- than the wingnuts sprang into
>> predictable action: Of course he was a jihadi embarking on a murderous
>> terrorism spree!
>
> Certain aspects of the Moslem religion serve to legitimate and
> validate terrorism. That makes each Moslem a potential terrorist.
>

Certain aspects of Judaism and Christianity serve to legitimate and
validate genocide and sexual slavery which would make each Jew and
Christian war criminals and terrorists:

Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the
Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and
children captive.

When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you
saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and
kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive
for yourselves."

So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
virgins -- Wow!

It takes a dumb fuck like you to fail to recognize that there are
radicals, extremists and terrorists in practically ANY huge group of people.

The fact remains that the vast majority of Jews, Muslims and Christians
are peaceful, law abiding human beings who just want to get along with
their lives.

It's fuckwit fear-mongers and hate-mongers like you who perpetuate the
hatred, fear and conflicts.

[snip remaining horse shit written by the paranoid wingnut freak]

John Manning

unread,

Nov 10, 2009, 12:23:21 PM11/10/09

to

John Manning wrote:
> Jim Austin wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 9:03 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>> Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter -- but cousin says
>>> he was 'good American' harassed for being Muslim
>>
>> Sounds like Manning believes U.S. soldiers deserved to be shot for
>> harassing a Moslem.
>>
>>> VIDEO at
>>> link:http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wingnuts-rush-conclusions-abo...
>>>
>>>
>>> No sooner was the identity of the Fort Hood shooter released -- a man
>>> with the Arab name Nadal Malik Hasan -- than the wingnuts sprang into
>>> predictable action: Of course he was a jihadi embarking on a murderous
>>> terrorism spree!
>>
>> Certain aspects of the Moslem religion serve to legitimate and
>> validate terrorism. That makes each Moslem a potential terrorist.
>>
>
>

CORRECTION Below should read with the word "potential":

Certain aspects of Judaism and Christianity serve to legitimate and
validate genocide and sexual slavery which would make each Jew and

Christian a *POTENTIAL* war criminal and terrorist:

unread,

Nov 11, 2009, 2:36:49 AM11/11/09

to

On Nov 10, 7:09 pm, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:

Only in the mind of a thuggish republican.

PDW

JTEM

unread,

Nov 11, 2009, 2:57:24 AM11/11/09

to

"Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Answer: Barack Obama and political correctness continued
> to the point of absurdity.

As someone who dislikes Barack Obumhole, I can tell you
that you're a complete imbecile.

This shooter was a U.S. Army Major. ObumHole was been
Bush II for all of 10 months. As it's not obvious to you, allow
me to point it out: The problem pre-dated Obama by a very
long time.

John Manning

unread,

Nov 11, 2009, 8:34:47 AM11/11/09

to

Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Nov 8, 1:59 pm, "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>>
>> news:i8qdnehpJqezpmrX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Not all wingnuts are bigots. I'm glad that you accept Muslims as equals.
>> Now THAT'S a "wingnut:" One who accepts the double lies of Islam (reverse
>> the roles of the accepted and rejected sons of the Old Testament, and
>> minimize Jesus of the New Testament) as having any validity whatsoever.
>>
>>> Second:
>>> Being a military lawyer in the Navy [you said you served at sea] requires
>>> a law degree AND a license to practice law...
>> Not necessarily: Staff NCOs and officers are trained to act as lawyers and
>> investigators in Article 31 investigations and the like when circumstances
>> prohibit the military from providing full-fledged lawyers, as aboard a ship
>> at sea, or in combat zones, or in matters so minor as to prohibit the
>> expense of using full-time lawyers.
>>
>> When I was in the Marines, I myself worked on a couple of JAG
>> investigations. I also served TAD as an SP (Shore Patrolmen), which
>> supplements the MPs (Military Police), an additional duty that is required
>> of all senior fleet Marines.
>>
>> Ike
>
> I didn't say I was a lawyer. I was a Legal Officer, who acts as the
> prosecutor in Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment. I had one year of
> law school. Manning, as usual, jumps to wild conclusions and doesn't
> know what he is talking about.
>

Here's exactly what you said:

"I'm a CPA with a Bachelor's degree in 2 majors-Economics and

Accounting. I attended law school and served as a prosecutor under
military law."

At best, what you said is misleading.

In any case you are STILL a dumb fuck who hasn't a clue about what's
going on in the world around him other than what he hears from his
fellow backwoods hicks and wingnut media you get from obscenely
over-paid performing clowns like Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage and Fox
Wingnut Noise.

JTEM

unread,

Nov 11, 2009, 2:12:00 PM11/11/09

to

Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Your attempt at

No attempt is necessary. The story is a pro-whack job
whitewashing of the case, and this fact is clear to
anyone whose head isn't shoved firmly up their ass.

JTEM

unread,

Nov 11, 2009, 2:15:40 PM11/11/09

to

The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

> Evidence of the continued Pussyification of America?
> Major Pussy is picked on by other members of the
> Army, so it's "ok" for him to flip out and shoot up the
> place.

That's the 'Spin' that the powers behind Bush II want you
to swallow.

It's a bullshit story, brought to you be the same people
owned & operated by Saudi Arabia.

JTEM

unread,

Nov 11, 2009, 2:23:40 PM11/11/09

to

Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Only in the mind of a thuggish republican.

A dozen people killed, 30 wounded, and all you see is
an opportunity for partisan attacks...

I'll tell you what, you worthless piece of shit: If you
can see to it that it's you next time, you're the victim
in the next terrorist attack, I'll harvest your suffering
for my own personal political benefit in a manner which
would make you proud. But if it's not you being blown
to bits, or waiting your turn to be shot, then you have
to agree to stop being such a vile parasite.

Is it a deal, you worthless cunt?

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 12:19:14 AM11/12/09

to

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3534d8b0-bcba-4049...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Oh, I'm aware that the Islamic butt-kissing by the US revealed itself during
the Bush Administration when W kept saying "Islam is a religion of peace,"
which is horseshit--Islam was born out of jealousy, and the only way it can
survive is by TERRORIZING populations.

But the Army wasn't ABOUT to kick this guy out without SEROUS evidence with
the Islamic sympathizer in the White House.

This illustrates how stupid "political correctness" can be: Sometimes we
HAVE to suspend constitutional procedure under circumstances that require
it, as during WWII, when we interred the Japanese. People now say it was a
mistake, but there wasn't ONE INSTANCE of Japanese sabotage in the US after
the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which was set up in part by Japanese spies
posing as tourists doing the advance reconnaissance).

Likewise, after 9/11 we should have suspended all visas from citizens of
nations on the terrorist watch list, and separated all persons with Muslim
backgrounds into their OWN units (as we did with the Japanese in WWII). All
the others who weren't bona fide citizens of at least the second generation
should have been interred.

Ike

RetroProphet

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 1:31:14 AM11/12/09

to

In article <hdg5sk$hhc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Ike E 11/05/09 says...

Arguably, resources and manpower toward homeland security
were more effective as deployed than if a massive internment
effort had been mounted after 9/11. The success in keeping
New York safe speaks for itself and was not predicted by
those clamoring for internment eight years ago.

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 2:06:19 AM11/12/09

to

"RetroProphet" <RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hdga3...@drn.newsguy.com...

No, it simply means that the Muslims will move their point-of-attack
elsewhere, which they have done, and are doing.

And interring Muslims would be a LOT easier than it was interring the
Japanese. You can get a rid of a large part of those that are here simply by
revoking visas.

Of course, a lot of this goes back to W not putting the country on a war
footing, but now you have a sympathizer in the White House which will make
things WORSE, 'cause he'll defend any Muslim prosecuted the way he defended
the Harvard professor against the cop doing his job without malice or
reservation.

Not shutting down Islam, and not identifying Islam as the enemy of religious
freedom EVERYWHERE is the reason we haven't, and won't, get anywhere with
these two Middle East wars.

Ike

Alan Ford

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 2:47:38 AM11/12/09

to

Ike E 11/05/09 wrote:

> Not shutting down Islam, and not identifying Islam as the enemy of religious
> freedom EVERYWHERE is the reason we haven't, and won't, get anywhere with
> these two Middle East wars.

Funny, I would blame the total lack of reasons for the Iraq war, the
total lack of commitment and the strategy failure in the Afghanistan
war, as well as the fact that this empire is in the beginning of its
decline, although very few recognize it. There is no more money - it was
all gobbled up by the few and the rest was wasted on propping up the
garbage can that is the Middle East, from Israel to Pakistan.

--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?

Alan Ford

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 2:50:28 AM11/12/09

to

Ike E 11/05/09 wrote:

> Likewise, after 9/11 we should have suspended all visas from citizens of
> nations on the terrorist watch list, and separated all persons with Muslim
> backgrounds into their OWN units (as we did with the Japanese in WWII). All
> the others who weren't bona fide citizens of at least the second generation
> should have been interred.

Me, I'm for executing all the idiots. Unfortunately, that would
devastate the world forests, 'cause there ain't no enough wood in the
fucking Universe for all the coffins.
You'd be shot, too, in case you're wondering.

JTEM

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 4:27:51 PM11/12/09

to

"Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But the Army wasn't ABOUT to kick this guy out without
> SEROUS evidence with the Islamic sympathizer in the
> White House.

You're talking about Bush Dubya, right? Certainly not
ObumHole (Bush Dubya II), as he's been crowned for
only 10 months now.

You did know that it takes more than ten months to finish
basic, and then rise up to the rank of Major.... right?

> This illustrates how stupid "political correctness" can be:

Right wing, "conservative" political correctness...

So it's no coincidence that Bush holds hands with the
Saudi king pins & ObumHole "Dressed the part"...

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l176/musiclover1992/BushSaudiKing.jpg

http://kassandraproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/bush_hand_holding.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/BaracKOsamaAP_468x789.jpg

> Sometimes we HAVE to suspend constitutional procedure under
> circumstances that require it,

No we don't.

There aren't too many people outside of a looney bin who would
argue that the promotion of terrorist acts -- especially terrorists
attacks against Americans and/or America's allies -- constitutes
"Conduct unbecoming an Officer."

> as during WWII, when we interred the Japanese. People now
> say it was a mistake, but there wasn't ONE INSTANCE of
> Japanese sabotage in the US after the bombing of Pearl Harbor

I can demonstrate how wrong you are with just two letters. And
they are "U.K."

The British had enslaved a quarter of the globe. The resulting
hatred that they earned spawned willing anti-British (often
confused for "Pro-German") fighters/spies/saboteurs in every
country from Ireland to Egypt, from South Africa through India
and on to Singapore -- countless millions hated the British
and would, if they could, take action against them.

But we didn't lock these people up.

> Likewise, after 9/11 we should have suspended all visas from
> citizens of nations on the terrorist watch list,

None of the 9/11 hijackers qualified to be here. If the rules and
regulations had been followed to the letter, none of them would
have entered the U.S.

The problem was that the rules weren't enforced, yet Bush
Dubya and the GOP controlled congress pretended that the
problem was that there aren't enough rules, and so created
more for the hacks to ignore.

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 4:54:28 PM11/12/09

to

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ab8bb02c-1435-48b9...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

>
> "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But the Army wasn't ABOUT to kick this guy out without
>> SEROUS evidence with the Islamic sympathizer in the
>> White House.
>
> You're talking about Bush Dubya, right? Certainly not
> ObumHole (Bush Dubya II), as he's been crowned for
> only 10 months now.

The problems this guy just SHOWED UP in the last 10 months.

[snip]

>> Sometimes we HAVE to suspend constitutional procedure under
>> circumstances that require it,
>
> No we don't.

Yes, we DO. It's even written INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

[snip]

>> as during WWII, when we interred the Japanese. People now
>> say it was a mistake, but there wasn't ONE INSTANCE of
>> Japanese sabotage in the US after the bombing of Pearl Harbor
>
> I can demonstrate how wrong you are with just two letters. And
> they are "U.K."
>
> The British had enslaved a quarter of the globe. The resulting
> hatred that they earned spawned willing anti-British (often
> confused for "Pro-German") fighters/spies/saboteurs in every
> country from Ireland to Egypt, from South Africa through India
> and on to Singapore -- countless millions hated the British
> and would, if they could, take action against them.

> But we didn't lock these people up.

Irrelevant to the point.

First, we're talking about HERE, not OVERSEAS.

Second, IT WORKED--not a single act of Japanese sabotage occurred after the
bombing of Pearl Harbor.

And here's MORE food for thought: When the US began accepting
Japanese-Americans into the armed forces, the Nisei companies were created,
which were sent to the European theater, NOT the Pacific theater, so they
wouldn't have to face the dilemma of firing on their own countrymen.

So WHY THE HELL weren't we assigning known Muslims to THEIR OWN COMPANIES,
and NOT sending them to the Middle East (which is precisely what caused the
Ft. Hood incident)?

In fact, why were we accepting them AT ALL when we couldn't use them (apart
from those willing to serve in intelligence capacities)?

Answer: RIDICULOUS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

>> Likewise, after 9/11 we should have suspended all visas from
>> citizens of nations on the terrorist watch list,
>
> None of the 9/11 hijackers qualified to be here.
> If the rules and
> regulations had been followed to the letter, none of them would
> have entered the U.S.
>
> The problem was that the rules weren't enforced, yet Bush
> Dubya and the GOP controlled congress pretended that the
> problem was that there aren't enough rules, and so created
> more for the hacks to ignore.

No, you mean Bill Clinton...the World Trade Center was the subject of attack
by Islamic terrorists TWICE before 9/11, on HIS watch, and he didn't do
anything substantial about it. W had only been in office EIGHT MONTHS, and
Congress was HOLDING UP HIS CABINET APPOINTMENTS on 9/11 (which is why Obama
took the unconstitutional approach of appointing unvetted "CZARS" instead,
and now the American people have no control over who is running the
Executive branch beyond the President).

Ike

JTEM

unread,

Nov 12, 2009, 8:05:34 PM11/12/09

to

"Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>

> > You're talking about Bush Dubya, right? Certainly not
> > ObumHole (Bush Dubya II), as he's been crowned for
> > only 10 months now.
>
> The problems this guy just SHOWED UP in the last 10 months.

Prove it. And I don't mean "Cite some Reich Wing talking
head who merely repeats the claims," either.

> >> Sometimes we HAVE to suspend constitutional procedure under
> >> circumstances that require it,
>
> > No we don't.
>
> Yes, we DO. It's even written INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

Let's make this easy: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

You cut & paste the specific words you're speaking of, and
tell us where you found them.

> >> as during WWII, when we interred the Japanese. People now
> >> say it was a mistake, but there wasn't ONE INSTANCE of
> >> Japanese sabotage in the US after the bombing of Pearl Harbor
>
> > I can demonstrate how wrong you are with just two letters. And
> > they are "U.K."
>
> > The British had enslaved a quarter of the globe. The resulting
> > hatred that they earned spawned willing anti-British (often
> > confused for "Pro-German") fighters/spies/saboteurs in every
> > country from Ireland to Egypt, from South Africa through India
> > and on to Singapore -- countless millions hated the British
> > and would, if they could, take action against them.
> > But we didn't lock these people up.
>
> Irrelevant to the point.

Wrong.

> First, we're talking about HERE, not OVERSEAS.

And so am I. Here, not overseas, we did not inter the victims
of British imperialism, despite the fact that they offered a
very real threat.

During WWII, for example, starting before the U.S. entered
the war, it's claimed that dock workers (particularly Irish
dock workers) sank more British ships than German U-boats.
The bitter hatred that the British had earned was an invitation
for sabotage by the dock workers.

> Second, IT WORKED--not a single act of Japanese
> sabotage occurred after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

According to the powers that be, not a single terrorist attack
has occurred inside the United States since 9/11... yet we
both know that this Fort Hood shooter qualifies under any &
every definition for "Terrorist."

> And here's MORE food for thought: When the US began
> accepting Japanese-Americans into the armed forces, the
> Nisei companies were created, which were sent to the
> European theater, NOT the Pacific theater, so they wouldn't
> have to face the dilemma of firing on their own countrymen.

Odd that we didn't do that with Americans of German descent.

> So WHY THE HELL weren't we assigning known Muslims to
> THEIR OWN COMPANIES, and NOT sending them to the
> Middle East (which is precisely what caused the Ft. Hood
> incident)?

Wait a minute. Are you saying that a guy would have to be a
Muslim before advocating terrorism was a bad thing?

> In fact, why were we accepting them AT ALL when we couldn't
> use them (apart from those willing to serve in intelligence capacities)?
>
> Answer: RIDICULOUS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

Again, Reich wing GOP political correctness. ObumHole may not
have changed policy, but it is the policy that Bush Dubya left him.

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 13, 2009, 1:38:19 AM11/13/09

to

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:6fe9dea8-c7bb-4a9b...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...

> "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> You're talking about Bush Dubya, right? Certainly not
>>> ObumHole (Bush Dubya II), as he's been crowned for
>>> only 10 months now.
>
>> The problems this guy just SHOWED UP in the last 10 months.

> Prove it. And I don't mean "Cite some Reich Wing talking
> head who merely repeats the claims," either.

>>>> Sometimes we HAVE to suspend constitutional procedure under
>>>> circumstances that require it,
>
>>> No we don't.
>
>> Yes, we DO. It's even written INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

> Let's make this easy: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

> You cut & paste the specific words you're speaking of, and
> tell us where you found them.

Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a
person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being
held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government
agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the
agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court
that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus
allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas
corpus is often equated with martial law.

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only
Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the
power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of
the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon
himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to
act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may
agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the
declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law,
which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive
that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.

In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in
the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared.
The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared
martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the
rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise.

Examples of Martial Law

Through out United States history are several examples of the imposition of
martial law, aside from that during the Civil War.

During the war of 1812, General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law within
his encampment at New Orleans, which he had recently liberated. Martial law
was also imposed in a four mile radius around the camp. When word came of
the end of the war, Jackson maintained martial law, contending that he had
not gotten official word of the peace. A judge demanded habeas corpus for a
man arrested for sedition. Rather than comply with the writ, Jackson had the
judge arrested. After the civil authority was restored, the judge fined
Jackson $1000, which he paid, and for which the Congress later reimbursed
Jackson.

In 1892, at Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, rebellious mine workers blew up a mill and
shot at strike-breaking workers. The explosion leveled a four-story building
and killed one person. Mine owners asked the governor to declare martial
law, which he did. At the same time, a request was made for federal troops
to back guardsmen. Over 600 people were arrested. The list was whittled down
to two dozen ring leaders who were tried in civil court. While in prison,
the mine workers formed a new union, the Western Federation of Miners.

In 1914, imposition of martial law climaxed the so-called Coal Field Wars in
Colorado. Dating back decades, the conflicts came to a head in Ludlow in
1913. The Colorado National Guard was called in to quell the strikers. For a
time, the peace was kept, but it is reported that the make-up of the Guard
stationed at the mines began to shift from impartial normal troops to
companies of loyal mine guards. Clashes increased and the proclamation of
martial law was made by the governor. President Wilson sent in federal
troops, eventually ending the violence.

In 1934, California Governor Frank Merriam placed the docks of San Francisco
under martial law, citing "riots and tumult" resulting from a dock worker's
strike. The Governor threatened to place the entire city under martial law.
The National Guard was called in to open the docks, and a city-wide
institution of martial law was averted when goods began to flow. The
guardsmen were empowered to make arrests and to then try detainees or turn
them over to the civil courts.

Martial law and San Francisco were no strangers - following the earthquake
of 1906, the troops stationed in the Presidio were pressed into service.
Guards were posted throughout the city, and all dynamite was confiscated.
The dynamite was used to destroy buildings in the path of fires, to prevent
the fires from spreading. Troops were ordered to shoot looters. Though there
was never an official declaration of martial law, the event is often cited
as such. However, at all times it appears the troops took their orders
indirectly from the civil authority.

Though not a state at the time, Hawaii was placed under martial law in 1941,
following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Many of the residents of
Hawaii were, and are, of Asian descent, and the loyalty of these people was
called into question. After the war, the federal judge for the islands
condemned the conduct of martial law, saying, "Gov. Poindexter declared
lawfully martial law but the Army went beyond the governor and set up that
which was lawful only in conquered enemy territory namely, military
government which is not bound by the Constitution. And they ... threw the
Constitution into the discard and set up a military dictatorship."

[President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the [Japanese] internment
with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which allowed local military
commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which
"any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that
all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast,
including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for
those in internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the exclusion orders, while noting that the provisions
that singled out people of Japanese ancestry were a separate issue outside
the scope of the proceedings.]

On 8/26/2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was placed under
martial law after widespread flooding rendered civil authority ineffective.
The state of Louisiana does not have an actual legal construct called
"martial law," but instead something quite like it: a state of public health
emergency. The state of emergency allowed the governor can suspend laws,
order evacuations, and limit the sales of items such as alcohol and
firearms. The governor's order limited the state of emergency, to end on
9/25/2005, "unless terminated sooner."

There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders
of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South
during the civil rights crises, but these acts are not tantamount to a
declaration of martial law. The distinction must be made as clear as that
between martial law and military justice: deployment of troops does not
necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, and that is one of
the keys, as the Supreme Court noted, to martial law.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

>>>> as during WWII, when we interred the Japanese. People now
>>>> say it was a mistake, but there wasn't ONE INSTANCE of
>>>> Japanese sabotage in the US after the bombing of Pearl Harbor
>
>>> I can demonstrate how wrong you are with just two letters. And
>>> they are "U.K."
>
>>> The British had enslaved a quarter of the globe. The resulting
>>> hatred that they earned spawned willing anti-British (often
>>> confused for "Pro-German") fighters/spies/saboteurs in every
>>> country from Ireland to Egypt, from South Africa through India
>>> and on to Singapore -- countless millions hated the British
>>> and would, if they could, take action against them.
>>> But we didn't lock these people up.
>
>> Irrelevant to the point.

> Wrong.

Nope.

>> First, we're talking about HERE, not OVERSEAS.

> And so am I. Here, not overseas, we did not inter the victims
> of British imperialism, despite the fact that they offered a
> very real threat.

To Britain, not us.

> During WWII, for example, starting before the U.S. entered
> the war, it's claimed that dock workers (particularly Irish
> dock workers) sank more British ships than German U-boats.
> The bitter hatred that the British had earned was an invitation
> for sabotage by the dock workers.

To Britain, not us.

>> Second, IT WORKED--not a single act of Japanese
>> sabotage occurred after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

> According to the powers that be, not a single terrorist attack
> has occurred inside the United States since 9/11... yet we
> both know that this Fort Hood shooter qualifies under any &
> every definition for "Terrorist."

Who said "terrorist attack?"

I'm talking about eliminating the possibility of ANY manner of attack,
including the attacks on our own troops BY our own troops, which has
happened TWICE now because of idiotic "political correctness."

>> And here's MORE food for thought: When the US began
>> accepting Japanese-Americans into the armed forces, the
>> Nisei companies were created, which were sent to the
>> European theater, NOT the Pacific theater, so they wouldn't
>> have to face the dilemma of firing on their own countrymen.

> Odd that we didn't do that with Americans of German descent.

Germans had been here for nigh on two centuries, and were fully
"Americanized." And those who recently immigrated were carefully watched
both within and outside their respective communities.

>> So WHY THE HELL weren't we assigning known Muslims to
>> THEIR OWN COMPANIES, and NOT sending them to the
>> Middle East (which is precisely what caused the Ft. Hood
>> incident)?

> Wait a minute. Are you saying that a guy would have to be a
> Muslim before advocating terrorism was a bad thing?

No, I'M saying that if he hadn't been forced into a situation where he would
have to serve against other Muslims HE WOULDN'T HAVE ACTED IN THE FIRST
PLACE, which was what he was PISSED about.

We DIDN'T force the Japanese to do it against fellow Japanese, so WHY would
we be doing it TO MUSLIMS?

>> In fact, why were we accepting them AT ALL when we couldn't
>> use them (apart from those willing to serve in intelligence capacities)?

Notice no response: Why are we even TAKING Muslims into the US military
(except on a distinctly volunteer basis, as in WWII) when WE CAN'T USE THEM
ANYWHERE?

>> Answer: RIDICULOUS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

> Again, Reich wing GOP political correctness.

Bullshit: Political correctness is political correctness, and it's
frequently carried to the LUDICROUS extreme.

> ObumHole may not have changed policy, but it is the policy that Bush
> Dubya left him.

That's true: W should have put this country on a WAR FOOTING, including
SUSPENDING THE RIGHTS of Muslims within our borders, as FDR did after Pearl
Harbor, and Lincoln did during the Civil War. And now with the Muslim
sympathizer in the White House, we'll NEVER get the problem solved.

Ike

JTEM

unread,

Nov 13, 2009, 2:29:50 AM11/13/09

to

"Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of
> Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
> in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety
> may require it."

This neither a case of rebellion nor invasion.

> Several times in the course of our history, martial law
> of varying degrees has been declared. The most
> obvious and often-cited example was when President
> Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War.

This is an unambiguous example of rebellion.

> During the war of 1812, General Andrew Jackson imposed
> martial law within his encampment at New Orleans, which
> he had recently liberated.

Invasion. Unless you want to claim the British capturing
Washington is not an invasion...

> In 1892, at Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, rebellious mine workers

Okay, a localized example of "Rebellion." It's hardly the
first though... as wouldn't the "Whiskey Rebellion" qualify
as that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Oops, no, the first was "Shays Rebellion"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

> In 1914, imposition of martial law climaxed the so-called
> Coal Field Wars in Colorado.

Yet another example.

None of these apply here.

> [President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the [Japanese]
> internment with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942,

Yes. And it has since been decided that such a move went
beyond his powers, and violated the rights of those sent to the
camps.... hence the "compensation" paid to the victims.

> There have been many instances of the use of the military
> within the borders of the United States,

Which ones, specifically, if any, bear any relevance to the
subject at hand?

> >> First, we're talking about HERE, not OVERSEAS.
> > And so am I. Here, not overseas, we did not inter the victims
> > of British imperialism, despite the fact that they offered a
> > very real threat.
>
> To Britain, not us.

TO THE WAR EFFORT. That's the point.

> > During WWII, for example, starting before the U.S. entered
> > the war, it's claimed that dock workers (particularly Irish
> > dock workers) sank more British ships than German U-boats.
> > The bitter hatred that the British had earned was an invitation
> > for sabotage by the dock workers.

My mistake. That should be the first world war WWI.

> To Britain, not us.

TO THE WAR EFFORT.

> >> Second, IT WORKED--not a single act of Japanese
> >> sabotage occurred after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> > According to the powers that be, not a single terrorist attack
> > has occurred inside the United States since 9/11... yet we
> > both know that this Fort Hood shooter qualifies under any &
> > every definition for "Terrorist."
>
> Who said "terrorist attack?"

Look to this thread's subject line.

> I'm talking about eliminating the possibility of ANY manner
> of attack,

No you're not. You're talking about turning the U.S. into a
police state.

As a wise man once said: Nobody ever put on a uniform and
gave his life for the "Right" to be told what to think.

> including the attacks on our own troops BY our own troops,
> which has happened TWICE now because of idiotic

It's happened because of idiots. So the obvious solution is to
get rid of the idiots.

Well, that's what's obvious to everyone else. You, on the other
hand, want to grant those idiots dictatorial powers.

THINK ABOUT IT!

"Martial Law" means the very same people who fucked up so
badly with this Fort Hood shooter would have the power of life
& death over you and everybody you know.

Maybe you find comfort in proven imbeciles deciding your fate,
by I'll take a pass on that one, thank you.

Ike E 11/05/09

unread,

Nov 13, 2009, 2:46:16 AM11/13/09

to

"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c756a01b-630f-4a84...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Who decided?

Cite the court case that established that precedence.

By the way, "nolo contendere" is not an admission of guilt, nor an
abdication of power for future use.

(You really are quite the dickhead.)

>> There have been many instances of the use of the military
>> within the borders of the United States,
>
> Which ones, specifically, if any, bear any relevance to the
> subject at hand?
>
>
>> >> First, we're talking about HERE, not OVERSEAS.
>> > And so am I. Here, not overseas, we did not inter the victims
>> > of British imperialism, despite the fact that they offered a
>> > very real threat.
>>
>> To Britain, not us.
>
> TO THE WAR EFFORT. That's the point.

Not ours.

>> > During WWII, for example, starting before the U.S. entered
>> > the war, it's claimed that dock workers (particularly Irish
>> > dock workers) sank more British ships than German U-boats.
>> > The bitter hatred that the British had earned was an invitation
>> > for sabotage by the dock workers.
>
> My mistake. That should be the first world war WWI.
>
>> To Britain, not us.
>
> TO THE WAR EFFORT.

Not ours.

>> >> Second, IT WORKED--not a single act of Japanese
>> >> sabotage occurred after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
>> > According to the powers that be, not a single terrorist attack
>> > has occurred inside the United States since 9/11... yet we
>> > both know that this Fort Hood shooter qualifies under any &
>> > every definition for "Terrorist."
>>
>> Who said "terrorist attack?"
>
> Look to this thread's subject line.

"Wingnuts rush to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter."

Don't see "terrorist attack" there, either.

>> I'm talking about eliminating the possibility of ANY manner
>> of attack,
>
> No you're not. You're talking about turning the U.S. into a
> police state.

Rhetorical bullshit.

> As a wise man once said: Nobody ever put on a uniform and
> gave his life for the "Right" to be told what to think.
>
>> including the attacks on our own troops BY our own troops,
>> which has happened TWICE now because of idiotic
>
> It's happened because of idiots. So the obvious solution is to
> get rid of the idiots.

Yes, the Muslims.

> Well, that's what's obvious to everyone else. You, on the other
> hand, want to grant those idiots dictatorial powers.

Only on the necessary limited basis, just like before.

> THINK ABOUT IT!

No, YOU think about it for a change: Democracy is NOT the end all, be all of
all things.

> "Martial Law" means the very same people who fucked up so
> badly with this Fort Hood shooter would have the power of life
> & death over you and everybody you know.
>
> Maybe you find comfort in proven imbeciles deciding your fate,
> by I'll take a pass on that one, thank you.

LOL

As opposed to the current crop of imbeciles who want to impose national
healthcare?

Talk about "abuse of power:" The fools DON'T want to assume power over the
Muslims, who have proven themselves to be enemies of the state; but they DO
want the incompetents to have power to micromanage folk's personal affairs
via socialized medicine.

Go figure.

Ike

Logan Sacket

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 9:01:31 PM11/18/09

to

Special Inspector General for TARP (aka "SIG TARP") Neil Barofsky said
something we've all known for a while: the government gave away the
farm when AIG failed.

If you recall, AIG's failure meant that the companies on the other
side of all of its contracts (counterparties) were going to be left
holding the bag. Under normal cases of bankruptcy, the court would
impose haircuts to the amount of money due to counterparties, but
because AIG didn't actually declare bankruptcy, the counterparties
claimed that they were owed 100 cents of every dollar. The only bank
that even considered taking a haircut was UBS - the Swiss, for
goodness sakes - hard to imagine that a Swiss bank could make US banks
look bad, but here's a case in point.

OK, so let's get this straight: the financial world is melting down,
Uncle Sam had just saved the bankers' butts and now Tim Geithner the
President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) was going to
wimp-out? Yes, the Great Gazoo strikes again! (My friend pointed out
that our current Treasury Secretary and former tax cheat bears a
striking resemblance to this esoteric character from "The Flintstones"
? Geithner has been the Great Gazoo since!)

When Geithner/Gazoo says, "Hello Dumb Dumb," he's talking to us! The
Great Gazoo shafted the US taxpayer in the AIG debacle and in the
process, enriched the counterparties who dragged us into this mess.
The SIG TARP report noted that "structure and effect of the FRBNY's
assistance to AIG ... effectively transferred tens of billions of
dollars of cash from the government to AIG's counterparties."

Oh, and remember all of those claims by Goldman Sachs brass that the
firm had "perfectly hedged" its exposure to AIG? Not so fast, boys.
According to the New York Times, "among its notable findings, the
report challenged Goldman's position that it should not have been
forced to bear losses on its dealings with A.I.G. because it had
successfully hedged away any exposure. Mr. Barofsky said that
Goldman's hedges were unlikely to have held up amid the market
turbulence of late last year."

Barofsky seems to be one of the few officials that has to tell us what
we already know: TARP is "almost certainly going to be a loss" for
taxpayers and Geithner rolled over for Wall Street in the AIG
negotiations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/business/econwatch/entry5683193.shtml

Logan Sacket

unread,

Nov 29, 2009, 12:54:31 PM11/29/09

to

I've been poring over one of many leaked computer files from the
"climategate" scandal.

It's worse than those e-mails revealing leading climate scientists did
a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures and privately
called it a "travesty" they couldn't explain recent cooling.

This document has the innocuous header "HARRY_READ_Me.txt."

I'm indebted to Kate McMillan, the remarkable Canadian blogger who
runs smalldeadanimals.com, for calling it to my attention.

You can easily find it online. I used
www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_Me.txt.

The file -- 274 pages long -- describes the efforts of a
climatologist/programmer at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia to update a huge statistical database
(11,000 files) of important climate data between 2006 and 2009.

The computer coding, along with the programmer's apparently
unsuccessful efforts to complete the project, involve data that are
the foundation of the study of climate change -- recordings from
hundreds of weather stations around the world of temperature and
precipitation measurements from 1901 to 2006, sun/cloud computer
simulations, and the like.

PRESUMABLY PRECISE

These presumably precise data are the backbone of climate science.

Reading "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" it's clear the CRU's files were a mess.
The programmer laments huge gaps in data, bug-filled programs and
worries about all the guesswork he's doing. His comments suggest the
problems go back years.

The CRU at East Anglia University is considered by many as the world's
leading climate research agency. Here's how CBSNews.com's Declan
McCullagh describes its enormous impact on policymakers:

"In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: It
claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and
mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. The report
... is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it
'relies on most heavily' when concluding carbon dioxide emissions
endanger public health and should be regulated."

As you read the programmer's comments below, remember, this is only a
fraction of what he says.

- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED.
Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are
other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)

- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to
the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I
hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the
worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)

- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the
case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)

- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!"
(45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in
working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts
totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot
start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no
'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)

- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the
operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization)
codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when
dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to
match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In
other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass
unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)

- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and
just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem
that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).

- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)

And based on stuff like this, politicians are going to blow up our
economy and lower our standard of living to "fix" the climate?

Are they insane?

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html

Larry

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 4:51:19 PM12/4/09

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:41:19 AM12/5/09

to

Unbelievable

SwordoZ

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 12:03:48 PM12/5/09

to

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:06jjh5pcc1e8ocj3m...@4ax.com...

Using the old clinton clique ... it all depends on what "is" "is".

That is merely the spin of the reactionaries who don't
> give a damn about anyone's children.

SoZ
Or is it the alarmists and "money"?

SwordoZ

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 12:20:06 PM12/5/09

to

"Brian E. Clark" <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.25839ffb1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article <4b19c7db...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> logan....@gmail.com says...
>> Even after the facts have come out on the largest fraud in history,

> Really? Has anyone yet produced a scintilla of evidence
> that data were forged or altered?
> (Hint: No.)

(Hint: Their own words convict them)

>> you still ignore them.
> Overreactions on conservative blogs do not a fraud
> establish.

You are of the opinion that liberal blogs would go about uncovering their
own doings? Brilliant liberal reasoning?

>> Not unpredictible, but non-the-less telling.
> Do you even care what actually happened, Logan, or are you
> satisfied that the Fox News spin is consistent with your
> existing prejudices regarding global warming?

Liberal blame bashing.

It seems
> excessive of you to label this "the biggest fraud in
> history" when the investigations are barely underway.
> -----------

> Brian E. Clark

Truth of the day for liberals:

The tip of the iceberg wasn't what sunk the Titanic ... what was underneath
the water sank it.

Day Brown

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 10:41:24 PM12/7/09

to

John Manning wrote:
> Another mentally challenged paranoid right wing freak with another
> lunatic conspiracy theory.

Not that there have not been conspiracies. JFK, RFK, 911... come to mind.
Either the left wing conspiracies never worked, which according to Right
wing characterizations of Left wing mental power is what we'd expect, or
the Left, for whatever reason, never tried or got organized enuf.

> Bill Maher is right: "The Democrats have moved to the right, and the
> Republicans have moved to a mental hospital."

Not that there are not Left wing whackos as well; but the count, to
judge by the postings shows more ad hominem from the Right.

Evaluating policy, from either fringe, at this point, that is a global
market, produces ambiguous results since nobody knows what the power
elites we do not vote for, or even know exist, will decide to do that
will make or break any given plan.

Its not like the 1930's when the US ran much more independently on its
own resources, and Keynes, or whoever, could make a good case.