Disgusting Behavior By The Bow-bama Administration.

[FirefightnRick]

KSM Hits Manhattan—Again

Coming soon to a civilian courtroom blocks from Ground Zero: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other al Qaeda planners of 9/11. Be sure to get your tickets early, and don't forget to watch out for the truck-bomb barricades and rooftop snipers.

Attorney General Eric Holder, who dropped this legal bomb on New York yesterday, called his decision to move their trial on war crimes from a military courtroom at Guantanamo Bay to American soil "the toughest" he has had to make. Other words come to mind. For starters, intellectually and morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault.

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

???

[KingDL1]

I hope this does not blow up in our faces completely, this is such an incredibly stupid and dangerous decision it is beyond sad.

Edited November 16, 2009 by KingDL1

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Hmmmmm... But you didn't find doubling the National Debt, messing up the internationl rate of exchange of the dollar (which increased prices of imports especially oil and oil products) , having the stock market drop about 6000 points in 2008 , the economy going South in 2008 partially because so many the government controls were taken off the financial community, the beginning of the bail-outs .... plus getting us into a war hunting for WMD that didn't exist and getting many Americans killed and seriously wounded as a result... as disgusting................... I do .....so do many others....

---That is why they were not re-elected to Congress or the White House thus we now have Obama.. [ that.. plus showing bad judgement by chosing a person from the wilderness as a VP candidate that had never set foot in Europe or Asia and also had no understanding of America's big city problems or many other problems facing the lower 48....]

You sure are selective in your disgust. .. They are not being released.... wake up.

Edited November 16, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

???

Not only can I imagine you not even knowing how to restring, or even hit the side of a barn with one of those, I can imagine you physically couldn't.

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

Not only can I imagine you not even knowing how to restring, or even hit the side of a barn with one of those, I can imagine you physically couldn't.

Rick

Why?

[FirefightnRick]

Why?

You don't seem like the hunting type, and those things can be a bear to string and shoot. I know you swim, but so do jelly fish. I'm just saying....

Rick

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

The naivete of this administration is getting to be unbelievable.

[untbowler]

The naivete of this administration is getting to be unbelievable.

Well no worries according to CBL and SilverEagle it is all Bush's fault, ion 2012 and nothing has gotten better, it will still be Bush's fault so get used to it.

Where is the outrage to the major increase in troop deaths in Afghanistan? Where's the media? Oh that is right Bush is no longer in office so it does not matter anymore. Shout out to all my peeps, oh yeah I am sorry for the loss of the those 13 soldiers, but do not rush to judgement, but that policewoman acted stupidly in shooting Hassan more than once.

[CaribbeanGreen]

This thread is AWESOME. On multiple levels.

[Shuke-D]

This thread is AWESOME. On multiple levels.

Agreed. I can't wait to see where it goes.

[Censored by Laurie]

You don't seem like the hunting type, and those things can be a bear to string and shoot. I know you swim, but so do jelly fish. I'm just saying....

Rick

I either have to want things to die or I'm physically weak?

Well no worries according to CBL and SilverEagle it is all Bush's fault, ion 2012 and nothing has gotten better, it will still be Bush's fault so get used to it.

Where is the outrage to the major increase in troop deaths in Afghanistan? Where's the media? Oh that is right Bush is no longer in office so it does not matter anymore. Shout out to all my peeps, oh yeah I am sorry for the loss of the those 13 soldiers, but do not rush to judgement, but that policewoman acted stupidly in shooting Hassan more than once.

Huh?

This thread is AWESOME. On multiple levels.

They always are...

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Well no worries according to CBL and SilverEagle it is all Bush's fault, ion 2012 and nothing has gotten better, it will still be Bush's fault so get used to it.

Where is the outrage to the major increase in troop deaths in Afghanistan? Where's the media? Oh that is right Bush is no longer in office so it does not matter anymore. Shout out to all my peeps, oh yeah I am sorry for the loss of the those 13 soldiers, but do not rush to judgement, but that policewoman acted stupidly in shooting Hassan more than once.

--Activity had picked up in Afghanistan before Obama took office.... If Bush had concentrated on it and finished that war first instead of going after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11, then Afghanistan would be over.... Besides Saddam (even if he was a bad guy) feared that the same would happen to him that had happened in Iran.. Al Qaeda was his enemy as well and Islamic terrorists in his country were mostly the folks that he was doing in because he feared they would try to overthrow him. Afghanistan has been our war for 7 years... mosly Bush years.... That is longer than WWII lasted ... He did not get the job done.

What has Killeen got to do with Obama..??. Many in the Middle East consider the Bush Iraq invasion as an atttack against Islam... as did the Killeen guy. Bush unfortunately even refered to it as a Crusade for awhile. That unfortunately got their attention.

Never ignor the truth.... even when it is not what you want it to be.

----Ever heard the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". ? Saddam was an enemy of Islamic extremists that wanted control of his country and doing terrorism elsewhere. Reagan had provided Iraq weapons to fight Iran and those guys. ...plus no one in 9-11 had ever lived in Iraq.

Edited November 16, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Mean Green 93-98]

Afghanistan has been our war for 7 years... mosly Bush years.... That is longer than WWII lasted ... He did not get the job done.

And our current commander-in-chief is really taking it to them. What a warrior.

[yyz28]

---Hmmmmm... But you didn't find doubling the National Debt, messing up the internationl rate of exchange of the dollar (which increased prices of imports especially oil and oil products) , having the stock market drop about 6000 points in 2008 , the economy going South in 2008 partially because so many the government controls were taken off the financial community, the beginning of the bail-outs .... plus getting us into a war hunting for WMD that didn't exist and getting many Americans killed and seriously wounded as a result... as disgusting................... I do .....so do many others....

Again with this same old crap.

Let's see, where do I start? Bush's spending and the support he got from the anything but fiscally conservative 2000-2006 Republican congress = Disgusting. I'd like to see the posts where the folks who are against the Obama administration's policies were in here Rah-Rahing out of control government spending and the growth in entitlement programs under Bush and his Republican congress.

The economy went south BECAUSE of government controls, not a lack thereof, i.e. government meddling in housing policy - ...and it should be noted that there was a Democratic congress in place at the time.

The Bail-Outs (i.e. TARP) were pushed for and VOTED for in the positive by Obama and signed into law by Bush. You don't get to put that one off on Bush and pretend it would have been different under Obama. ...and most conservatives I know were against the TARP bail outs AND were vocal about it on this board.

The Iraq argument is over dude. Agree to disagree. WMD or no WMD, the folks who think that war was Just (which includes a majority of men and women who fought said war) think it was just, and the folks who don't... don't. It isn't going to change. You'll find no traction with this wholly stale point anymore. It's over, people have made up their minds, let it go. No, I didn't think the War in Iraq was disgusting.

--That is why they were not re-elected to Congress or the White House thus we now have Obama..

No, but I REALLY hope you and the folks who think like you keep thinking that. The reason they were thrown out of office is because they stopped being conservative and became the democrat lite. Democrats weren't swept into office because a Majority of the country agrees with their over-reaching liberal policies (as is borne out in the polls against the Healthcare reform and Cap and Trade). They were swept into office because the Republicans forgot who they were and started acting like everyone else in Washington. They were swept into office because instead of a true Conservative the party nominated a left of center liberal "Republican" who truly was going to be another 4 years of Bush where it mattered -Spend, Spend, Spend, Spend. ...Iraq was not popular, no doubt. ...but an unpopular war is only going to benefit the other party so long as the war is fresh in mind.

[ that.. plus showing bad judgement by chosing a person from the wilderness as a VP candidate that had never set foot in Europe or Asia and also had no understanding of America's big city problems or many other problems facing the lower 48....]

For someone who was such an irrelevant boob, you guys sure are fixated on her. I wonder why...

You sure are selective in your disgust. .. They are not being released.... wake up.

Selective disgust goes both ways my friend. What I find disgusting is the inability for people to call out the folks they voted for based on a look at each policy. In this case, I find this action disgusting. Not because it is the Obama administration, but because it is the wrong thing to do and sends the wrong message to would be terrorists and our allies alike. ...I found the TARP bill disgusting. Not because the Bush administration backed it, but because it was the wrong thing to do, and would have (and has had) a negative impact on the economy. I thought the Medicare prescription drug benefit was disgusting because the state and federal governments couldn't (and can't) meet their existing obligations under Medicare and Social Security, yet here was a Republican congress and President pushing for the largest entitlement in history. I don't give a rat's ass WHO is pushing the policy, I care about the policy. Our inability to put the fact that we admire someone and having the balls to look at each of their policies one by one honestly is part of the problem with politics in this country anymore. It's become a cult of personality thing - if MY GUY supports it, it must be good... ...well, not really.

In this case, the fact that someone who devised and executed an act of war upon this country is being tried as a common criminal in the Justice system instead of being treated like a warrior in a military tribunal as is the correct thing to do based on historical precedent, particularly in the place where he committed his act is disgusting. The City and State of New York should not have to use their resources on such a trial. Constitutional protections should not be extended to this Prisoner of War. There is no valid reason to do this and the precedent is dangerous. I don't care if the AG worked for President Obama or President McCain. THIS IS WRONG, and is is wrong on the basis of the facts, not because of the name or the letter (D or R) behind the name of the President.

Edited November 16, 2009 by yyz28

[UNTflyer]

--Activity had picked up in Afghanistan before Obama took office.... If Bush had concentrated on it and finished that war first instead of going after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11, then Afghanistan would be over.... Besides Saddam (even if he was a bad guy) feared that the same would happen to him that had happened in Iran.. Al Qaeda was his enemy as well and Islamic terrorists in his country were mostly the folks that he was doing in because he feared they would try to overthrow him. Afghanistan has been our war for 7 years... mosly Bush years.... That is longer than WWII lasted ... He did not get the job done.

What has Killeen got to do with Obama..??. Many in the Middle East consider the Bush Iraq invasion as an atttack against Islam... as did the Killeen guy. Bush unfortunately even refered to it as a Crusade for awhile. That unfortunately got their attention.

Never ignor the truth.... even when it is not what you want it to be.

----Ever heard the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". ? Saddam was an enemy of Islamic extremists that wanted control of his country and doing terrorism elsewhere. Reagan had provided Iraq weapons to fight Iran and those guys. ...plus no one in 9-11 had ever lived in Iraq.

God, you're like a broken record with your mindless talking points that have been debunked 100 times. And what does ANY of this have to do with the fact that the Obama administration has royally screwed this up?

"Never ignore the truth?" That seems to be your modus operandi.

Edited November 16, 2009 by UNTflyer

[KingDL1]

--Activity had picked up in Afghanistan before Obama took office.... If Bush had concentrated on it and finished that war first instead of going after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11, then Afghanistan would be over.... Besides Saddam (even if he was a bad guy) feared that the same would happen to him that had happened in Iran.. Al Qaeda was his enemy as well and Islamic terrorists in his country were mostly the folks that he was doing in because he feared they would try to overthrow him. Afghanistan has been our war for 7 years... mosly Bush years.... That is longer than WWII lasted ... He did not get the job done.

What has Killeen got to do with Obama..??. Many in the Middle East consider the Bush Iraq invasion as an atttack against Islam... as did the Killeen guy. Bush unfortunately even refered to it as a Crusade for awhile. That unfortunately got their attention.

Never ignor the truth.... even when it is not what you want it to be.

----Ever heard the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". ? Saddam was an enemy of Islamic extremists that wanted control of his country and doing terrorism elsewhere. Reagan had provided Iraq weapons to fight Iran and those guys. ...plus no one in 9-11 had ever lived in Iraq.

You are so in outer space, but you throw Bush in at any and all opportunities regardless if it has anything to do with the topic or not. If you get a chance you may need to check for Senility.

Remember broken records?

But the question remains why in hell would you bring terrorists like this to New York city and invite problems? By the way this is the guy believed to have masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole (Clinton Baby).

EDIT** Sorry flyer I wrote this couple of hours ago then was distracted, I like how you think though**

Edited November 16, 2009 by KingDL1

[untbowler]

You are so in outer space, but you throw Bush in at any and all opportunities regardless if it has anything to do with the topic or not. If you get a chance you may need to check for Senility.

Remember broken records?

But the question remains why in hell would you bring terrorists like this to New York city and invite problems? By the way this is the guy believed to have masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole (Clinton Baby).

Come on Bush's fault, Senior that is and Junior just instigated while being Governor of TX, just like the first Trade Center Bombings

[KingDL1]

Come on Bush's fault, Senior that is and Junior just instigated while being Governor of TX, just like the first Trade Center Bombings

Well next SE-66 will have you believing the Vietnam war was Junior's fault, he is really getting out of touch.

Edited November 16, 2009 by KingDL1

[DeepGreen]

And when is his highness "Obama" going to make a decision on Afghanistan? He has two options:

1. Send another 40,000 troops like is field commanders say is needed

or

2. Don't send more troops and pull the troops that are over there out before they are wiped out.

Why do politicians try to run wars?

[UNTflyer]

Hell, even Democrats are hopping mad about this.

http://wcbstv.com/politics/911.trial.paterson.2.1316155.html

[Rudy]

---Hmmmmm... But you didn't find doubling the National Debt, messing up the internationl rate of exchange of the dollar (which increased prices of imports especially oil and oil products) , having the stock market drop about 6000 points in 2008 , the economy going South in 2008 partially because so many the government controls were taken off the financial community, the beginning of the bail-outs .... plus getting us into a war hunting for WMD that didn't exist and getting many Americans killed and seriously wounded as a result... as disgusting................... I do .....so do many others....

---That is why they were not re-elected to Congress or the White House thus we now have Obama.. [ that.. plus showing bad judgement by chosing a person from the wilderness as a VP candidate that had never set foot in Europe or Asia and also had no understanding of America's big city problems or many other problems facing the lower 48....]

You sure are selective in your disgust. .. They are not being released.... wake up.

Are you f**king serious? This little rant has NOTHING to do with trying terrorists in New York as civillians. Are you so blinded by your damn rage against Bush that you can't rebuke the topic at hand? No, I do not consider the economy as "disgusting", especially when its being compared MURDERING thousands of innocent Americans!

As to the fact that WMD's did not exist, do you know for a FACT that they didnt? No you dont. Have they been discovered, no, but that doesnt mean they were not there. There have been underground tunnels found, which were large enough to drive a truck through. Bush kept trying to be politically correct and pressure Hussein to let the UN in to search for them. All Saddam had to do is funnel those weapons across the border to Iran or Syria, and as the last truck went through, blow the tunnel leading to another country. Saddam knew he would not be able to defeat the US Military, so to him the next best thing was to discredit the US and to make us look even more like a villian to the Muslim world. Am I saying this happened without a doubt, no. However I have enough of a brain to hypothosize that it COULD have happened, thus curtailing my devote notion that WMD's NEVER existed.

And I love the argument arguing against Palin. You cant attack McCain, who was the actual nominee for President, so what do you do? You attack the VP nominee. Hell, Palin was a govenor. That means she ran a whole state, which is more than Obama. You want to talk shit about VP's, how about that imbicile Joe Biden. Hell, even I'll admit that Hillary is more qualifed that Biden to be President, much less Vice President.

Oh, last time I checked, Obama hadnt really done much for the economy either. But at least with Bush I had a steady paycheck. The nation's unemployment reached double digits for the first time since Carter. But dont let facts cloud your hatred.

--Activity had picked up in Afghanistan before Obama took office.... If Bush had concentrated on it and finished that war first instead of going after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11, then Afghanistan would be over.... Besides Saddam (even if he was a bad guy) feared that the same would happen to him that had happened in Iran.. Al Qaeda was his enemy as well and Islamic terrorists in his country were mostly the folks that he was doing in because he feared they would try to overthrow him. Afghanistan has been our war for 7 years... mosly Bush years.... That is longer than WWII lasted ... He did not get the job done.

What has Killeen got to do with Obama..??. Many in the Middle East consider the Bush Iraq invasion as an atttack against Islam... as did the Killeen guy. Bush unfortunately even refered to it as a Crusade for awhile. That unfortunately got their attention.

Never ignor the truth.... even when it is not what you want it to be.

----Ever heard the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". ? Saddam was an enemy of Islamic extremists that wanted control of his country and doing terrorism elsewhere. Reagan had provided Iraq weapons to fight Iran and those guys. ...plus no one in 9-11 had ever lived in Iraq.

Now you want to bring Iraq into the 9-11 discussion, ok, fine with me. Bin Laden and Saddam didnt like each other, but you can't tell me that Saddam had no knowledge of 9-11 prior to it happening. they both hate America. I would bet EVERYTHING I own that Saddam had something to do with 9-11, even if its simple as donating some money to Al-Queda. Once again, you DONT KNOW that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, you are only assuming.

Hassan is a coward. I hope his death is long and painful. If he was so offended by America's War on Terror, or Bush, or anything, then his bitch ass should have left the service long ago. He enlisted in 1999. 3 years BEFORE 9-11. If he had some moral opposition to the war, then he should have not signed on for more service. Personally, I believe his plan all along was to do damage to our military from inside. When he found out he was going to be deployed, he felt his best option to do damage was to go on a shooting spree. It was no act of sudden passion. I hope the 72 virgins waitng for him are all male compute geeks.

[Rudy]

Hey SE66, Im amazed that you havent blamed the current football season on Bush. I mean, these players WERE recruited while Bush was still in office. It has to be his fault.

[FirefightnRick]

Per Dr. Levin.

The Honorable Frank J. Williams speech on Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties in Wartime.

Military tribunals hold a significant place in American

history, and they have always spawned public

debate. During the American Civil War, Abraham

Lincoln declared martial law and authorized such

forums to try terrorists because military tribunals had

the capacity to act quickly, to gather intelligence

through interrogation, and to prevent confidential

life-saving information from becoming public.

In 1942, the United States Supreme Court decided

Ex parte Quirin,1 a case in which prisoners detained

for trial by military commission appealed a denial of

their motions for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme

Court held that “military tribunals are not courts in

the sense of the Judiciary Article [of the Constitution].”

2 Rather, they are the military’s administrative bodies to determine the guilt of declared enemies,

and pass judgment.

Ex parte Quirin has since become the foundation

of President George W. Bush’s claim that the government

has the right to hold “enemy combatants”—

even Americans—indefinitely, without evidence,

charge or trial. I never thought, as a veteran, lawyer,

and now a judge, that I would be living through a situation

where the issue of homeland security—not to

be confused with that new Cabinet department—

and civil liberties would once again be in conflict as

it was during the Civil War. A Nation at War

As we were during Lincoln’s era, we are once

again a nation at war, and the laws of war are different.

I know that this is a difficult concept to grasp,

because most people today are not used to thinking

in terms of wartime and peacetime. But in reality,

the laws of war are different.

Think about this: We lost 620,000 people over

the four years of the Civil War. We could lose that

many people in one day if we realized a chemical or

biological attack at the hands of terrorists.

The horror of, and after, September 11, 2001,

has again raised tensions between and dialog about

American security and personal liberty. As Lyndon

B. Johnson said on January 20, 1965, while taking

the presidential oath, “We can never again stand

aside, prideful in isolation. Terrific dangers and

troubles that we once called ‘foreign’ now constantly

live among us.”3

Today, I hope to provoke not only thought, but

also comments and questions from you regarding

those issues that President Lincoln confronted in

the area of civil liberties and those facing our current

Commander in Chief.

Abraham Lincoln: The Verdict of History

During Lincoln’s presidency, he was criticized for

taking what were considered “extra-constitutional

measures.” But in the end, the verdict of history is

that Lincoln’s use of power did not constitute abuse

since every survey of historians ranks Lincoln as

number one among the great presidents.4

Far harsher would have been his denunciation if

the whole American experiment of a democratic

Union had failed—as seemed possible given the circumstances.

If such a disaster occurred, what benefit

would have been gained by adhering to a fallen

Constitution? It was a classic example of the ageold

conflict in a democracy: how to balance individual

rights with security for a nation.

In the words of historian James G. Randall: “No

president has carried the power of presidential

edict and executive order (independently of Congress)

so far as [Lincoln] did…. It would not be

easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the

limit of his powers.”5

In the 80 days that elapsed between Abraham

Lincoln’s April 1861 call for troops—the beginning

of the Civil War—and the official convening of

Congress in special session on July 4, 1861, Lincoln

performed a whole series of important acts by sheer

assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without

congressional approval, called forth the militia to

“suppress said combinations,”6 which he ordered

“to disperse and retire peacefully” to their homes.7

He increased the size of the Army and Navy,

expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted

a blockade—an act of war—and suspended

the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional

approval.

Lincoln termed these actions not the declaration of

“civil war,” but rather the suppression of rebellion

How terrorists were dealt with by FDR from Roosevelt's Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage, Joseph E. Persico, 2001.

FDR essentially took charge of the case. He told Biddle that he wanted the eight agents tried, not in a civilian court, but by a military tribunal, which he himself would appoint. They had forfeited any right to a civilian trial, as Roosevelt put it, because "[t]hese men had penetrated battlelines strung on land along our two coasts and guarded on the sea by our destroyers, and were waging battle within our country." They fell under the Law of War. A military tribunal would be quick, not subject to the protracted appeals procedures of civilian courts. It would not be hog-tied by the criminal courts' exacting rules of evidence. It could impose the death sentence, not as the civil courts required, by a unanimous verdict, but by a two-thirds vote. A military tribunal offered the advantages and the assured outcome that the President wanted. A civilian court was out of the question. FDR told Biddle, "I want one thing clearly understood, Francis: I won't give them up . . . I won't hand them over to any United States Marshall armed with a writ of habeas corpus. Understand!" Averell Harriman, FDR's special envoy to Moscow, had once described Roosevelt's "Dutch jaw -- and when that Dutch jaw was set you couldn't move him." Biddle practically felt the jaw's thrust, and dutifully followed the President's instructions. Conviction should be simple, Biddle promised FDR, since "[t]he major violation of the Law of War is crossing behind the lines of a belligerent to commit hostile acts without being in uniform." ...

On July 2 the President announced that the eight accused would stand trial before a military commission composed of seven generals, and they would be charged with violating the eighty-first and eighty-second Articles of War dealing with espionage, sabotage, and conspiracy. Court-appointed lawyers for the defendants made a game effort to move the trial to a civilian court, taking the constitutional issue all the way to the Supreme Court, but the justices backed the legality of a military tribunal. Biddle himself was to prosecute, an unusual move, having a civilian serve as prosecutor in a military proceeding. But FDR was taking no chances. The Army's Judge Advocate General was rusty and had not tried a case for over twenty years. FDR wanted his own man before the bar.

On June 8 the prisoners, held in the District of Columbia jail, were shaved by prison barbers, lest they put the razor to their own wrists or throats, and hustled into two armored vans guarded by gun-toting military police. Nine Washington motorcycle patrolmen roared alongside, escorting the vans to the Department of Justice. Enterprising vendors soon were doing a thriving business selling ice cream and hot dogs to the crowds that gathered outside the department's iron gate every day to gawk at the enemy. The trial was held in Assembly Hall # 1 on the fifth floor of the Justice Department, the windows shrouded by black curtains. As the trial opened, Hoover, sitting next to Biddle, fed pages of evidence to the attorney general. During a recess, one of the defendants asked the presiding general for a cigarette. The general responded stuffily that Army regulations made no provision for such a request. A disgusted Hoover took out a pack of cigarettes and handed it to the German.

In twenty-six days it was over. All eight were sentenced to death. The generals sent their verdict to the President. Roosevelt, acting, in effect, as the court of last resort, confirmed six of the death sentences, but commuted Burger's sentence to life and Dasch's to thirty years for their willingness to betray their comrades. August 8 was set for the executions, which would take place in the electric chair on the third floor of the District of Columbia jail. Eight weeks had elapsed from the night the first saboteurs had landed on Long Island.

Al Qeada and other terrorist organizations are not organized military that recognize or abide by the laws of war. In regards to the Geneva Convention, there was an attempt to ratify it in '87. President Reagan liked the first part and recommended, but not the second. He knew the importance of denying any legitimacy to terrorist organizations.

In a letter to the senate he wrote:

Reagan Rejected Terrorist Geneva Conventions

While I recommend that the Senate grant advice and consent to this agreement, I have at the same time concluded that the United States cannot ratify a second agreement on the law of armed conflict negotiated during the same period. I am referring to Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which would revise the rules applicable to international armed conflicts. Like all other efforts associated with the International Committee of the Red Cross, this agreement has certain meritorious elements. But Protocol I is fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed. It contains provisions that would undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war. One of its provisions, for example, would automatically treat as an international conflict any so-called “war of national liberation.” Whether such wars are international or non-international should turn exclusively on objective reality, not on one’s view of the moral qualities of each conflict. To rest on such subjective distinctions based on a war’s alleged purposes would politicize humanitarian law and eliminate the distinction between international and non-international conflicts. It would give special status to “wars of national liberation,” an ill-defined concept expressed in vague, subjective, politicized terminology. Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves. These problems are so fundamental in character that they cannot be remedied through reservations, and I therefore have decided not to submit the Protocol to the Senate in any form, and I would invite an expression of the sense of the Senate that it shares this view. Finally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have also concluded that a number of the provisions of the Protocol are militarily unacceptable.

....In fact, we must not, and need not, give recognition and protection to terrorist groups as a price for progress in humanitarian law.

....I believe that these actions are a significant step in defense of traditional humanitarian law and in opposition to the intense efforts of terrorist organizations and their supporters to promote the legitimacy of their aims and practices. The repudiation of Protocol I is one additional step, at the ideological level so important to terrorist organizations, to deny these groups legitimacy as international actors.

And what of the dispicable AG, Eric Holder?

Michelle Malkin has kept up with him fairly well and gives a good background to what he's been all about.

Eric Holder's Law Firm

[A]s nearly 100 of the remaining detainees are Yemenis, reflecting that country’s refusal to assure security for repatriated Yemenis, note that AG nominee Eric Holder is a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo. From the C & B website:

The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.

Covington & Burling’s Gitmo bar roster has included some of the most radical detainee advocates; see David Remes, who peeled down to his underwear at a press conference in Yemen to draw attention to his clients’ plight and Marc Falkoff, who published a book of detainee poetry and who, in the book’s intro, compared their heroic struggle to the Jews held in concentration camps and Japanese Americans held in internment camps during WWII. [One of Falkoff's "gentle, thoughtful" young poets--a Kuwaiti "cleared for release" and repatriated in 2005--blew himself up in a truck bomb in Mosul last March, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.]

The fact that Mr. Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed by them, suggests that he was perfectly willing to put politics before the national security interests of the country. He is not suited for the job of attorney general, which is central to the issues surrounding the disposition of war on terror detainees.

Quoting Levin:

"So now Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States, carrying out the wishes of William Ayers' favorite president has thrown away nearly 150 years of tradition and the rule of law, set forth in the constitution, underscored by the Supreme Court, practice by Lincoln, FDR, Reagan plus George Bush, respecting military commisions and the treatment of terrorists".

I agree, and it's a disgrace!

Rick

Edited November 17, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[UNTflyer]

As to the fact that WMD's did not exist, do you know for a FACT that they didnt? No you dont. Have they been discovered, no, but that doesnt mean they were not there.

Actually, we did find WMDs, and a nuclear weapons program (pathetic as it was), nuclear material (including the yellowcake they claim Bush lied about), and tons of other evidence that supports the WMD justification.

Nobody in the administration claimed Iraq was behind 9/11, but that doesn't keep these nutjobs from repeating the "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" mantra in attempt to reinforce in the public consciousness that somewhere and somehow Bush DID claim Saddam was the mastermind. It never happened. In fact, on March 24, 2002, Cheney said: "With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it's since been public, the allegation that ONE OF THE LEAD HIJACKERS, MOHAMED ATTA, HAD, IN FACT, MET WITH IRAQI INTELLIGENCE IN PRAGUE, but we've not been able yet from our perspective to nail down a close tie between the al-Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein. We'll continue to look for it."

And again on September 8, 2002, VP Cheney specifically denied a link: "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

But even if they did, the Hero of the Democrats, Bill Clinton, also claimed Iraq had ties with al-Qaeda and claimed Saddam was trying to get WMDs into the hands of bin Laden. I guess he was lying, along with all the other Democrats who through the years made emphatic claims about Saddam and WMDs.

But SE-66 ignores these facts, just like the media did.

Edited November 17, 2009 by UNTflyer