AP Dishes Palin

Politics • Views: 1,786

It won’t be officially released until Tuesday, but the Associated Press has an advance look at Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue.” She complains that the McCain campaign deliberately kept her “bottled up,” and coached her to give non-answers. She portrays herself as a down-home simple kinda gal who resented being forced to wear glitzy clothes. A down-home simple gal with a penchant for going rogue.

And she takes a few shots at Katie Couric:

Palin, who received an advance of at least $1.25 million, saves her strongest words for run-ins with McCain staffers and her widely panned interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric.

She describes Couric as condescending, biased and “badgering.” She contends the anchor chose “gotcha” moments while leaving the candidate’s more substantive remarks on the cutting room floor. …

Palin takes another dig at Couric while asserting her expertise on energy matters. She writes that she was shocked Couric had asked her which newspapers and magazines she read; given what she called Couric’s lack of knowledge about energy issues, Palin wondered whether she should have asked the news anchor what she read.

I suspect Couric might have been able to come up with a better answer than, “All of them.”

Jump to bottom

460 comments
1 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:09:47pm

I suspect Couric might have been able to come up with a better answer than, “All of them.”

I also suspect Couric didn’t come up with the question!

2 SpaceJesus  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:10:18pm

Image: Dinosaur-Palin.jpg

3 Skeetghazi  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:10:59pm

Well for humor, Katie should release all the edited film!

4 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:11:05pm
Palin wondered whether she should have asked the news anchor what she read.

My guess is Bircher newsletters wouldn’t be on the list.

5 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:16:32pm

Interesting:

Palin comes across as particularly upset about being stuck with $50,000 in legal bills that she says were directly related to the legal vetting process for the VP slot. She says she was never informed that she would have to personally take care of expenses related to the selection process, and jokes that if she’d known she was going to get stuck with the bill, she would have given shorter responses.

According to the book, Palin asked officials at the Republican National Committee and what was left of the McCain campaign if they would help her financially. She says she was told that if McCain had won, the bills would have been paid, but since he lost, the bills were her responsibility.

Trevor Potter, the McCain campaign’s general counsel, told the AP the campaign never asked Palin to pay a legal bill.

“To my knowledge, the campaign never billed Gov. Palin for any legal expenses related to her vetting and I am not aware of her ever asking the campaign to pay legal expenses that her own lawyers incurred for the vetting process,” Potter said.

This comes across as looking more than a little petty if she never asked for help with these bills, but will use her lack of submitting it as some sort of justification to hold a grudge.

6 bosforus  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:16:32pm

Because taking shots at your interviewer is a whole lot classier than oh, I don’t know, just answering the question.

7 Haole  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:16:50pm

When your taking fire, your over the target.

8 PhillyPretzel  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:17:54pm

re: #7 Haole
so true

9 Skeetghazi  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:19:33pm

This book is going to be a factcheckapalooza.

10 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:19:59pm
Palin shares behind-the-scene moments when the nation learned her teen daughter Bristol was pregnant, how she rewrote the statement prepared for her by the McCain campaign — only to watch in horror as a TV news anchor read the original McCain camp statement, which, in Palin’s view, glamorized and endorsed her daughter’s situation.

I don’t recall getting the impression the McCain campaign was glamorizing young Miss Palin’s situation. I’m really not sure what Sarah’s talking about here.

11 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:20:26pm

re: #9 Stanley Sea

This book is going to be a factcheckapalooza.

That is so true. It is also going to be the sort of book that can only be read in small doses, lest your IQ permanently bleed out of your ears.

12 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:21:06pm

re: #10 Sharmuta

I don’t recall getting the impression the McCain campaign was glamorizing young Miss Palin’s situation. I’m really not sure what Sarah’s talking about here.

Well, she is playing the tough moose hunter, soccer mom, victim card at the moment.

13 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:21:32pm

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

That is so true. It is also going to be the sort of book that can only be read in small doses, lest your IQ permanently bleed out of your ears.

Just scratch off by “Sarah Palin” and write in “Stephen Colbert” and it will all make sense.

14 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:23:30pm

re: #13 recusancy

Just scratch off by “Sarah Palin” and write in “Stephen Colbert” and it will all make sense.

Yeah, as parody, Palin’s pretty great. If she were a performance artist or even a comedienne, she’d be priceless.

15 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:24:55pm

My favorite part about the book is that it comes with dozens of color pictures and no index! Just when we might have started taking Ms. Palin seriously, her ghostwriter and editor deny her that opportunity…what a shame!
/

16 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:26:26pm

I expect the book to at least be as factually accurate as Battlefield Earth.

17 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:26:43pm

re: #15 Surabaya Stew

My favorite part about the book is that it comes with dozens of color pictures and no index!
/

In our current political climate, that’s two of the best features of the thing. It worked (all glossy photos, and no index) for others, why not for her?

18 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:27:09pm

re: #16 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I expect the book to at least be as factually accurate as Battlefield Earth.

Well, they do both appear to be cult literature.

19 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:27:22pm

Didn’t John Ziegler come out with something that attacks the AP report and questions their fact checking?

20 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:28:13pm

Ohhh Sarah…

Sweet Sarah, you are the darling of wingnuts everywhere.

You are a saint to the barely literate,
You are a theocon barbiturate

How you whip them up!
Why we can’t think of you…
without guns and flags in pick up trucks!

Your education stopped in eighth grade,
But pandering to ignorance is your trade.

You shine as wise to the witless
but only bad joke to the rest of us.

The dems all love you and everywhere you delve
You give them jokes and laughter and victory 2012!

21 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:28:32pm

re: #19 lawhawk

Didn’t John Ziegler come out with something that attacks the AP report and questions their fact checking?

Hmmm. Maybe the best thing to do is wait for the damned book?

22 Four More Tears  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:28:34pm

re: #16 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I expect the book to at least be as factually accurate as Battlefield Earth.

Much more entertaining too, I would think.

23 theliel  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:30:20pm

Honestly is there any other larger symptom of what’s wrong with the GOP and the political process than the fact that Sarah Palin is somehow still relevant, and that everyone who bet on palin still has a job at whatever news org they were with?

24 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:30:41pm

re: #21 Guanxi88

Hmmm. Maybe the best thing to do is wait for the damned book?

Indeed; and while I have no interest in reading her book, each person will decide for their own what she has to say and a synopsis of a book is just that - selective in what they choose to highlight and/or focus and/or spin.

25 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:30:46pm

Ohhh sweet Sarah, Saint soccer ball, moosebane!

You are an amazon warrior for old fashioned values!

You fight to keep women in their place!

26 deadletterboy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:31:09pm

I’m interested to see if it really only has five chapters like Time reported.

27 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:31:27pm

re: #21 Guanxi88

Hmmm. Maybe the best thing to do is wait for the damned book?

Lots of people get advanced copies well before “release” date. There will be those that see it one way and those that see it another. I suspect they will fall along the same lines as those that like Ms. Palin and those that don’t

28 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:31:33pm

re: #23 theliel

Honestly is there any other larger symptom of what’s wrong with the GOP and the political process than the fact that Sarah Palin is somehow still relevant, and that everyone who bet on palin still has a job at whatever news org they were with?

Wingnut welfare.

29 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:31:56pm

And to think Cato is missing this.

30 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:31:58pm

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohhh Sarah…

Sweet Sarah, you are the darling of wingnuts everywhere.


Your education stopped in eighth grade,
But pandering to ignorance is your trade.

Not too shabby. She’s got a BA, though, so amend the above line to:

Your education seems eighth grade
And pandering to ignorance is your trade

or something like that. Consult Cato for better guidance.

31 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:32:04pm

re: #25 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohhh sweet Sarah, Saint soccer ball hockey puck, moosebane!

You are an amazon warrior for old fashioned values!

You fight to keep women in their place!

Let’s at least get the sport correct.

32 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:32:13pm

re: #27 sattv4u2

Lots of people get advanced copies well before “release” date. There will be those that see it one way and those that see it another. I suspect they will fall along the same lines as those that like Ms. Palin and those that don’t

I like her. Just not for VP.

33 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:32:26pm

re: #5 Sharmuta

Maybe earlier accounts were misinformed but I thought the number was 500,000.

If it’s 50k it certainly seems more plausible and more boring.

34 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:32:34pm

lmarhett

The problem liberal, pseudo intellectual types have with Palin is that she is not a liberal, pseudo intellectual. In fact she is not intellectual at all, though she is fiercely cerebral (as is a tigress hunting), lean and hungry for a place in the jungle of public life and illumination. She is an exotic, rare find. Beautiful, as she is, she no longer requires elective politics, except as a trap or snare to toy with so as to excite the passions of those who despise her. This pleases her. She doesn’t want your sticky vote. She wants your passion. Feed her ( !), and she will so effortlessly eclipse the small gods of your pathetic liberal luminaries, those so despicably dishonest about their own intentions and illusions. She doesn’t want to be President, you idiots! She doesn’t want to be you! She is becoming a Queen in Exile (perfect, mysterious place to make millions) , and you are laying about in meaningless employment, fiddling Obama’s socialist tunes thinking only a few “ rednecks” like us will pay for her book? My, my: What you must do alone at night, alone with your potted plants, with which you identify more, and more. And she, Palin, is getting closer and she is not coming by the path you think, rather by one or another you can’t think. Water yourselves. Fertilize.

I regret that I cannot give the author proper credit for this masterpiece, having forgotten where I copied it from. Forgive me lmarhett.

35 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:33:06pm

Speaking of new books, just finished the latest Wheel of Time book, written by the new author. I’m going to be meeting him at a book signing this Sunday.

36 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:33:42pm

re: #34 MinisterO

lmarhett

I regret that I cannot give the author proper credit for this masterpiece, having forgotten where I copied it from. Forgive me lmarhett.

That’s brilliant on more levels than I can even comprehend.

37 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:34:18pm

re: #23 theliel

Honestly is there any other larger symptom of what’s wrong with the GOP and the political process than the fact that Sarah Palin is somehow still relevant, and that everyone who bet on palin still has a job at whatever news org they were with?

I see. So anyone that backs a losing candidate should lose their jobs? Lost of people in news orgs backed Hillary, should they be canned? Or does your thesis only apply to those that backed someone you don’t like?

38 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:34:41pm

re: #23 theliel

Honestly is there any other larger symptom of what’s wrong with the GOP and the political process than the fact that Sarah Palin is somehow still relevant, and that everyone who bet on palin still has a job at whatever news org they were with?

I see. So anyone that backs a losing candidate should lose their jobs? Lost of people in news orgs backed Hillary, should they be canned? Or does your thesis only apply to those that backed someone you don’t like?

PIMF

39 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:35:14pm

re: #38 sattv4u2

That’s better. I was thoroughly confused by the indent.
/

40 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:35:42pm

re: #39 CommonCents

That’s better. I was thoroughly confused by the indent.
/

I’m just glad the typos made it through the second cut!

41 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:36:09pm

re: #19 lawhawk

It’s not so much of a fact check…

If you are interested in this most amazing of all modern political stories, I urge you to read the book for yourself and not let those who want Palin destroyed to continue to dictate your perceptions of her. Her book may be the only way for you to know the real Sarah Palin. Don’t let the AP read it for you.

He’s obviously a rabid fan. The Palinites are just as bad as the Paulians when it comes to seething over anything less than glowing praise of their personality cult.

42 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:36:33pm

At the start, I liked Palin better than any of the other three.

And I was aghast at the instant vitriol against her that the far left media outlets. Pacifica Radio especially, could summon up from the morally corrupt and brainless leftists where I live.

But, sic transit many things.

43 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:36:52pm

And last but not least…

Ohhh Sarah you make my heart beat!
Someday you may steal a seat,
in a primary GOP race,
that will cause the disgrace,
of national second place!

Dear Sarah I want you to stay.
Without you and your antics
some might think the GOP sane.
But no need to panic
We’d still have Inhofe and Huckabee
Abusing what it is to be free.

So now that I think f it Sarah,
You really are quite useless.

44 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:37:00pm

re: #41 Killgore Trout

It’s not so much of a fact check…

He’s obviously a rabid fan. The Palinites are just as bad as the Paulians when it comes to seething over anything less than glowing praise of their personality cult.

Yes, this idolizing of political types is really starting to worry the hell out of me. Bad things lie down that road.

45 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:37:01pm

re: #37 sattv4u2

So anyone that backs a losing candidate should lose their jobs?

I believe we decided yesterday that they should be burned at the stake by a Jimmah’s lynch mob. /

46 Irish Rose  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:37:23pm
She complains that the McCain campaign deliberately kept her “bottled up,” and coached her to give non-answers. She portrays herself as a down-home simple kinda gal who resented being forced to wear glitzy clothes.

Ugh, wow.
Any respect that I ever had for Sarah Palin is long gone.

You were a vice Presidential nominee, Ms. Palin, a running mate. And it was your job to help Mr. McCain - the Presidential nominee - win the election. It was a tremendous honor. You accepted the nomination and in doing so you agreed to comply with the job requirements, be a team player and do everything in your power to support the campaign.

These requests were not unreasonable. You’re a whiney, ungracious biotch to complain about everything from your wardrobe to your coaching and stab the man who selected you as a running mate - and the other people who worked tirelessly to advance your political career - in the back after the fact.

Get a clue: without their help, you would never have gotten any farther than Alaska.

And you certainly wouldn’t be pocketing your millions from this book deal.

47 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:37:30pm

re: #4 Sharmuta

My guess is Bircher newsletters wouldn’t be on the list.

“Cougars Weekly”

48 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:38:46pm

re: #44 Guanxi88

At least Ron Paul and Obama have ideas. Palin is just pure personality and platitudes. I just don’t get the appeal.

49 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:38:48pm

re: #41 Killgore Trout

Well, it was an amazing political story; not nearly as amazing as an obscure back bencher in the Illinois legislature climbing from the state house to the White House in such little time. Rabid fan or not, if the AP got it wrong, they got it wrong. Ditto for Ziegler.

But I don’t have the time or patience to try and fact check this sideshow diversion when there are so many more important things to deal with.

50 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:38:52pm

re: #15 Surabaya Stew

My favorite part about the book is that it comes with dozens of color pictures and no index!
/

Sounds like just the sort of document that persuaded the wise to elect the current chap to the White House. Seems we’ve suffered a considerable decline in standards all around.

51 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:39:23pm

re: #41 Killgore Trout

It’s not so much of a fact check…


He’s obviously a rabid fan. The Palinites are just as bad as the Paulians when it comes to seething over anything less than glowing praise of their personality cult.

I’ll start worrying when acolyte’s start having little kids sing songs about someone in grade schools!!

oh ,,, wait !!!
/

52 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:39:29pm

Woo hoo! The book is finally out!

Now I can continue not giving a shit!

53 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:39:44pm

re: #48 Killgore Trout

At least Ron Paul and Obama have ideas. Palin is just pure personality and platitudes. I just don’t get the appeal.

You are apparently not a republican.

54 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:40:06pm

re: #48 Killgore Trout

At least Ron Paul and Obama have ideas. Palin is just pure personality and platitudes. I just don’t get the appeal.

Paul has ideas, but his most rabid supporters don’t know what they are, and would be bored by them.

Obama’s appeal also is not on the basis of any ideas he has on offer.

Palin is the female Obama.

55 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:40:14pm

re: #53 dugmartsch

You are apparently not a republican.

Yeah, that’s what they tell me.

56 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:40:46pm

I always thought that answer was just Palin’s being pissy and combative, and likely was after a stretch of somewhat hostile behavior on Couric’s part. Charlie Gibson was obnoxious in his interview of Gov. Palin as well.

It was a stupid answer, and is a great demonstration of the importance of self control when under rhetorical fire. I’ve never been deposed or put on the stand in a trial, but I’ve heard from those with experience in that arena that you have to be extremely careful to not let the attorneys push you into behaving that way. Palin should have known better and should have just answered “The Wall Street Journal” and left it at that.

57 Irish Rose  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:41:14pm

re: #55 Killgore Trout

Yeah, that’s what they tell me.

RINO!

58 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:41:38pm

re: #54 Guanxi88


Obama’s appeal also is not on the basis of any ideas he has on offer.

Palin is the female Obama.

Ooh, that seems to have hurt some feelings.

59 subsailor68  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:42:05pm

I generally skip autobiographies, with a few exceptions.

Ben Franklin and Mark Twain: both really worth the time!

Sarah Palin and Barack Obama: not so much.

60 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:42:26pm

re: #58 Guanxi88

Ooh, that seems to have hurt some feelings.

:’(

61 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:43:01pm

re: #58 Guanxi88

Palin is the female Obama.

ROFLMAO

62 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:43:02pm

re: #54 Guanxi88

I still find Ron Paul fascinating. I’ve come to the conclusion that his personality cult is completely accidental and unitntional. Even he doesn’t really understand it. Palin’s cult was accidental but she does cultivate it. I think Obama’s cult was carefully engineered from the beginning.

63 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:43:10pm

re: #54 Guanxi88

Paul has ideas, but his most rabid supporters don’t know what they are, and would be bored by them.

Obama’s appeal also is not on the basis of any ideas he has on offer.

Palin is the female Obama.

Huh?

You seriously want to compare a former professor and a Senator to Sarah Palin?

Obama has lots of ideas and something Palin completely lacks: Competence.

64 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:43:16pm

re: #54 Guanxi88

Paul has ideas, but his most rabid supporters don’t know what they are, and would be bored by them.

Obama’s appeal also is not on the basis of any ideas he has on offer.

Palin is the female Obama.

re: #58 Guanxi88

Ooh, that seems to have hurt some feelings.

Let me re-phrase it, then - Palin is seeking to be the female Obama, she seeks to build a successful political career on the basis of a friendly demenaor and a bland but content-less catalog of platitudes that appear to sound exactly like what her voters would want.

65 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:43:20pm

re: #50 Guanxi88

Sounds like just the sort of document that persuaded the wise to elect the current chap to the White House. Seems we’ve suffered a considerable decline in standards all around.

Prove me wrong, but I recall that Obama’s books all came with substantial indexes and fewer than 20 black & white photos each.

66 Skeetghazi  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:43:41pm

re: #58 Guanxi88

In my opinion it’s a ridiculous statement. Whenever it comes to Palin, someone compares what she’s done/said/facebooked with Obama.

67 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:44:13pm

re: #56 funky chicken

I always thought that answer was just Palin’s being pissy and combative, and likely was after a stretch of somewhat hostile behavior on Couric’s part. Charlie Gibson was obnoxious in his interview of Gov. Palin as well.

It was a stupid answer, and is a great demonstration of the importance of self control when under rhetorical fire. I’ve never been deposed or put on the stand in a trial, but I’ve heard from those with experience in that arena that you have to be extremely careful to not let the attorneys push you into behaving that way. Palin should have known better and should have just answered “The Wall Street Journal” and left it at that.

Here’s the obnoxious questions Gibson asked Palin:

GIBSON: The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran?

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

68 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:44:45pm

More important to me is what Pakistan will do following the massive terrorist attack on the ISI HQ in Peshawar yesterday.

A suicide bomber rammed his car into the main gate of the ISI headquarters building and detonated the bomb. The explosion is said to have heavily damaged the ISI headquarters and several other buildings in the surrounding high-security area.

In the nearby district of Bannu, a Taliban suicide bomber killed seven people, including five policemen, and wounded 25 more in an attack on a police station. The police station is reported to have been leveled in the attack. The attack took place in the Baka Khel region, one of two areas known to harbor al Qaeda operatives. The neighboring region of Jani Khel is known to have hosted al Qaeda’s central treasury and has served as the meeting place for al Qaeda’s executive council.

69 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:44:45pm

re: #54 Guanxi88

Paul has ideas, but his most rabid supporters don’t know what they are, and would be bored by them.

Obama’s appeal also is not on the basis of any ideas he has on offer.

Palin is the female Obama.

Oh that is so very wrong.

Look you can agree with Obama on this that or the other thing, but the man is not stupid. The man is well educated. The man has a grasp of politics. The man has made a number of very good decisions. While I do not agree with everything he says or does, he is a competent president. Perhaps he is not stellar, but he is certainly competent.

Obama is also pro science, pro education, and he listens to his military advisors. Obama is cautious and seems to genuinely wiegh his choices. Again, I do not agree with all of them, but he is not a fool.

Sarah could not find her ass with both hands and a road map. Sarah is a throw back to the most coarse images of the “ugly American.”

She is ignorant, proud of her ignorance and stupid to boot. She is all swagger and no polish. She is utterly self centered and does not serve anyone but herself, and she even has a narrow and self destructive view of doing that.

70 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:44:53pm

re: #65 Surabaya Stew

Prove me wrong, but I recall that Obama’s books all came with substantial indexes and fewer than 20 black & white photos each.

I’m missing the significance of not having an idex and having too many/ few photos matters?

Also, those are issues you should take up with the publisher, not Palin

71 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:45:12pm

re: #63 dugmartsch

Huh?

You seriously want to compare a former professor and a Senator to Sarah Palin?

Obama has lots of ideas and something Palin completely lacks: Competence.

As demonstrated by his Hamlet-like contemplation of alternatives he himself solicited in order to resolve the war that he himself assured us he would resolve with his cunning plan? As demonstrated by his first round of cabinet picks and advisors, and the raft of tax problems and other hang-ups encountered therein? Competent? Not by a long shot.

72 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:46:17pm

re: #66 Stanley Sea

In my opinion it’s a ridiculous statement. Whenever it comes to Palin, someone compares what she’s done/said/facebooked with Obama.

Of course - they’re both blank screens, empty vessels, for projection by folk desperate for a leader who embodies their hopes and expectations. And both are eminently unqualified to hold an office in the executive branch.

73 Varek Raith  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:46:34pm

re: #16 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I expect the book to at least be as factually accurate as Battlefield Earth.

Yep, 1000 year old working, fully fueled Harriers are way more believable. :)
no sarc.

74 Killgore Trout  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:46:44pm

Sarah Palin’s Greatest Hits

Youtube Video
75 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:47:12pm

re: #68 lawhawk

An ironic attack; as I understand it the Taliban was initially the creation of the ISI.

76 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:47:33pm

re: #5 Sharmuta

Interesting:

This comes across as looking more than a little petty if she never asked for help with these bills, but will use her lack of submitting it as some sort of justification to hold a grudge.

Any bets on whether she’ll produce any paperwork to back this claim up? I mean, it’s supposed to be a bill, right? Let’s see a copy.

The flat-out denial of this claim by the McCain campaign - an almost unheard-of rarity in political circles - makes me think we’ll be waiting a long, long time should anyone make such a request.

77 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:47:40pm

re: #63 dugmartsch


Obama has lots of ideas and something Palin completely lacks: Competence.

Huh? Moving Khalid Shiekh Mohammed to NYC so he can enjoy the rights afforded to him under the Constitiution doesn’t exactly smack of competence.

Neither does the informal ‘shout outs’ to the BIA Tribal Nations conference before delivering his teleprompter boilerplate ‘oh by the way, 12 American GIs were murdered at Fort Hood’ speech last week.

78 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:48:06pm

re: #72 Guanxi88

Of course - they’re both blank screens, empty vessels, for projection by folk desperate for a leader who embodies their hopes and expectations. And both are eminently unqualified to hold an office in the executive branch.

As opposed to a Hollywood actor and a guy who had a recognizable name and who’s daddy they liked.

79 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:48:40pm

re: #63 dugmartsch

Huh?

You seriously want to compare a former professor and a Senator to Sarah Palin?

Obama has lots of ideas and something Palin completely lacks: Competence.


How many times did he vote PRESENT as a senator?
How many peices of legisaltion did he author and get passed?

80 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:49:21pm

re: #67 recusancy

His body language was really overbearing. It created a lousy visual, especially once compared with an earlier interview he did with Obama.

I said that she gave a stupid answer, and I’m not a Palinite. But I’m not a dedicated super-critic either.

It’s weird that so many people view balanced critiques as somehow unacceptable when it comes to political figures. If you don’t HATE somebody, that means you love them, or vice versa.

81 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:49:55pm

re: #65 Surabaya Stew

Prove me wrong, but I recall that Obama’s books all came with substantial indexes and fewer than 20 black & white photos each.

Nobody said Obama was elected on the basis of his books, or that these books lacked indices. It was more of a meta-point about the desire of style and appearances.

82 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:50:37pm

re: #66 Stanley Sea

In my opinion it’s a ridiculous statement. Whenever it comes to Palin, someone compares what she’s done/said/facebooked with Obama.

You are correct. It’s ridiculous. Obama hadn’t done/said/facebooked anything.

83 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:51:02pm

re: #64 Guanxi88

Ding whore.

84 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:51:16pm

re: #15 Surabaya Stew

My favorite part about the book is that it comes with dozens of color pictures and no index! Just when we might have started taking Ms. Palin seriously, her ghostwriter and editor deny her that opportunity…what a shame!
/

It was rammed through production at record speed, months ahead of it’s original publication date of spring 2010, when publishers realized that Palin’s star was fading too fast for them to make a buck if they waited that long. Her fifteen minutes are about up.

85 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:51:24pm

re: #79 sattv4u2

How many times did he vote PRESENT as a senator?
How many peices of legisaltion did he author and get passed?

More than Palin! How many times did he quit on the people who elected him, of fail a test of eighth grade or lower knowledge?

If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

86 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:51:59pm

re: #73 Varek Raith

Yep, 1000 year old working, fully fueled Harriers are way more believable. :)
no sarc.

I’m still trying to figure out why Harriers were on an Army base. Its also lucky that books were able to survive after being left exposed to the elements after 1000 years.

87 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:52:33pm

re: #70 sattv4u2

I’m missing the significance of not having an idex and having too many/ few photos matters?

Also, those are issues you should take up with the publisher, not Palin

The fact is, even if her publisher encouraged or abetted the decision to not have an index or puff the contents up with pictures, the buck stops with the “author” of the book. If she wants to be taken seriously, she should have “written” (cough-cough), a serious book, and that means cutting down on the fluff pics and making sure readers and scholars can perform elementary research on what you have produced/said.

Serious people take charge of what others write in their name. The photos can perhaps be excused if the rest of the book was up to snuff, but the lack of an index betrays an unserious mind at work.

88 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:52:45pm

re: #78 recusancy

As opposed to a Hollywood actor and a guy who had a recognizable name and who’s daddy they liked.

Reagan held the office of Governor of California, and was a heavy-hitter in the Repub party since the Goldwater days. “W“‘s name was recognizable, but I don’t recall that his daddy was all that popular. I really do think W won because Gore was an uncompelling candidate, and not on the basis of any qualifications.

89 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:52:55pm

re: #71 Guanxi88

As demonstrated by his Hamlet-like contemplation of alternatives he himself solicited in order to resolve the war that he himself assured us he would resolve with his cunning plan?

You act as though taking time to thoroughly analyze a dangerous situation, where believe it or not, two months is not of the essence and not particularly more likely to save more American soldier’s lives, is a bad thing. There is one former president who comes to mind, that I wish had taken a bit more time thoroughly thinking about the pros and cons of what we do with American soldiers.

90 CommonCents  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:53:09pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

More than Palin! How many times did he quit on the people who elected him, of fail a test of eighth grade or lower knowledge?

If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

He may be more book smart but the jury’s still out on that “many”.

91 funky chicken  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:53:09pm

re: #78 recusancy

As opposed to a Hollywood actor and a guy who had a recognizable name and who’s daddy they liked.

Ronald Reagan had a pretty impressive list of political accomplishments under his belt before he was elected president. Your second point is valid, however.

I’ve said several times that Obama is like GW Bush II more than anything else. I hope Obama grows in office better than Bush did, but I think the jury’s still out.

92 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:53:26pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

partisan scales

All scales tell me I’m fat. Where can I get some scales that are on my side?

93 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:53:30pm

re: #79 sattv4u2

How many times did he vote PRESENT as a senator?
How many peices of legisaltion did he author and get passed?

I don’t know about legislation, but he authored two books about himself. That seems to be a topic he specializes in and is very apssionate about.

94 Varek Raith  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:53:38pm

re: #86 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I’m still trying to figure out why Harriers were on an Army base. Its also lucky that books were able to survive after being left exposed to the elements after 1000 years.

That whole plot was ‘WTH?’. Still don’t know why I watched it.

95 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:53:49pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote


If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

Amazing! In less than a year, he’s already established himself as vastly better than many other presidents we’ve had! All hail the Great One!

96 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:53:54pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

More than Palin! How many times did he quit on the people who elected him, of fail a test of eighth grade or lower knowledge?

If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

he quit his Senate seat after 2 years and any 8th grader could tell you that we don’t have 57 states. You don’t like Palin, fine, but take the scales off of your eyes and admit that Obama was treated far more favorably by the press than Palin.

97 Jack Burton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:54:06pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

ROFLcopter…

If you could drop the partisan scales from your eyes you would see that, he’s been President less than a year, hasn’t really done much of anything good or bad, and it’s far too early to make a statement like that.

98 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:54:30pm

re: #77 Fenway_Nation

Huh? Moving Khalid Shiekh Mohammed to NYC so he can enjoy the rights afforded to him under the Constitiution doesn’t exactly smack of competence.

Neither does the informal ‘shout outs’ to the BIA Tribal Nations conference before delivering his teleprompter boilerplate ‘oh by the way, 12 American GIs were murdered at Fort Hood’ speech last week.

That is so wrong on so many counts.

First off, if we are a proud republic of laws, we bloody well try people under the fullest extent of our law. That is what we should stand for. Anyone who is opposed to giving anyone a fair trial when it is possible to do so, is not thinking about American ideas of the law at all. They are thinking more on the Russian model.

As to the speech, when he first delivered the news, you have got to be kidding me.

He is up there, people are settling down and that was where he was. Sorry if he took one whole minute to be courteous to his hosts.

99 Irish Rose  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:54:55pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

Perhaps, but the CIC sure as hell wasn’t there for the families and victims of the Fort Hood shooting in the aftermath.

100 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:55:02pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

More than Palin! How many times did he quit on the people who elected him, of fail a test of eighth grade or lower knowledge?

If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

And you know this after a scant 10 months in office

(((talk about “partisan scales!!))

101 Varek Raith  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:55:12pm

Note to self; Hitting ‘Post this comment’ while the Auto refresh is refreshing appears to cause a double post.

102 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:55:23pm

re: #89 Sam N

You act as though taking time to thoroughly analyze a dangerous situation, where believe it or not, two months is not of the essence and not particularly more likely to save more American soldier’s lives, is a bad thing. There is one former president who comes to mind, that I wish had taken a bit more time thoroughly thinking about the pros and cons of what we do with American soldiers.

Well, while Barry’s staring at his navel and considering scheduling future meetings to decide how to implement the plan he assured us he had before he was elected, I’m sure we can just call a time-out in Afghanistan.

W took over a year before we got into Iraq. Remember?

103 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:55:46pm

re: #79 sattv4u2

How many times did he vote PRESENT as a senator?

Zero

How many peices of legisaltion did he author and get passed?

[Link: factcheck.barackobama.com…]

104 erraticsphinx  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:55:47pm

Comparing Sarah Palin to Obama is a losing exercise for both sides.re: #98 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t quite understand why people are soiling themselves over bringing them to trial in NYC?

Really, what is the big problem with this? Other than “Run! Terrorists!”?

105 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:55:56pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

More than Palin! How many times did he quit on the people who elected him, of fail a test of eighth grade or lower knowledge?

If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

1. Obama did very little while in elected office in Illinois. He even lost races that he should have won.
2. How many pieces of legislation did he author? He did as little as he could. It’s almost as bad as quitting, IMHO.
3. Yes, Obama did quit working as Senator, albeit without resigning. He basically made his job “running for President” the minute he walked through the Capitol doors.
4. He’s a mediocre President thus far. Not as bad as Carter, but definitely not even remotely close to a Lincoln or a Roosevelt (pick one).

Drop your own partisan scales and take note of that.

106 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:56:18pm

al-qaeda leadership is worthy of a military court, not our federal courts. If military courts are good enough for some terrorists, then they’re good enough for all of them.

107 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:56:19pm

re: #81 Guanxi88

Nobody said Obama was elected on the basis of his books, or that these books lacked indices. It was more of a meta-point about the desire of style and appearances.

Actually, you bring up a good point. I’ll come out and state that Obama would never have become president had he not written books.

108 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:56:26pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote


If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

After less than a year in office!? Awesome! We’ve gone from ‘Give the man the benefit of the doubt, we’re only a few months into his term’ to ‘ZOMG! BEST PREZIDENT EVAR!!!1111oneoneone’

109 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:56:41pm

re: #67 recusancy

Yeah. I’m sorry, but if you’re gonna take Dick Cheney’s job, you ogtta know what the Bush Doctrine is. Important, that.

110 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:56:50pm

re: #94 Varek Raith

That whole plot was ‘WTH?’. Still don’t know why I watched it.

I watched it precisely because it was so bad. Epic Fail FTW!

Youtube Video
111 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:57:32pm

re: #107 Surabaya Stew

Actually, you bring up a good point. I’ll come out and state that Obama would never have become president had he not written books.

Yeah, the books didn’t hurt, but it was the speeches that clinched it. The man is great at the podium, no getting around it.

112 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:57:48pm

re: #88 Guanxi88

Reagan held the office of Governor of California, and was a heavy-hitter in the Repub party since the Goldwater days. “W“‘s name was recognizable, but I don’t recall that his daddy was all that popular. I really do think W won because Gore was an uncompelling candidate, and not on the basis of any qualifications.

Well… W won because of the electoral college. But that’s a whole other issue.

113 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:58:03pm

re: #95 Guanxi88

Amazing! In less than a year, he’s already established himself as vastly better than many other presidents we’ve had! All hail the Great One!

Well let’s see now, he is already for certain better than:

W. Bush,
Carter,
Ford,
Nixon,
Hoover,
Coolidge

and about half of the guys from the nineteenth century, that gave us such stellar presidents as:

Grant, Tyler and Buchanan.

114 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:58:12pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

The ODS crowd bit hard on that one.

115 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:58:34pm

IMHO someone who can say “punished with a baby” is not qualified to have power over other people.

116 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:58:59pm

re: #104 erraticsphinx


Albany? Syracuse? Rome? Any town in America with a Federal Courthouse?


Not scene of the crime for me, more about, can we do this without further grid-locking a place that frankly does not need even one more barrier put up in the streets.

Maybe that’s just me, and I don’t live there.

117 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:59:02pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

Did any of those presidents allow enemy combatants into our court system?

118 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:59:03pm

re: #98 LudwigVanQuixote

Or, he could have started off his speech by saying, While I want to thank my courteous hosts, events in Fort Hood Texas require me to take some time to update everyone the current situation…

Shout outs or not.

119 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:59:27pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

He is better than Buchanan.

120 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:59:53pm

re: #99 Irish Rose

Perhaps, but the CIC sure as hell wasn’t there for the families and victims of the Fort Hood shooting in the aftermath.

What? His speech about the dead was positively perfect. It focused entirely on who was lost.

Or are you saying that he should have hopped the first plane down there and been accused of seeking a photo op?

121 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:59:55pm

re: #117 Sharmuta

Did any of those presidents allow enemy combatants into our court system?

Quit letting criminals into our court system!

122 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:00:27pm

re: #104 erraticsphinx

I would go read the thread Charles posted earlier. A lot of good concerns were raised on that thread, and I recommend lawhawk’s comments in particular.

123 erraticsphinx  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:00:28pm

re: #116 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I live there, and nobody seems to be too worried about it. It’s about time for justice.

124 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:00:31pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

Better than half the presidents? 10 months in and you’re giving him that much? How about waiting for the end of the term before going to the record books.

In fact, how about waiting a few years after that to see just what kind of a record he has.

History will prove to be far kinder/harsher than you can possibly recognize.

125 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:00:33pm

re: #115 Ojoe

IMHO someone who can say “punished with a baby” is not qualified to have power over other people.

When he sells arms to Iran to fund contras then I’ll be with you.

126 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:00:39pm

re: #102 Guanxi88

Well, while Barry’s staring at his navel and considering scheduling future meetings to decide how to implement the plan he assured us he had before he was elected, I’m sure we can just call a time-out in Afghanistan.

Yes, it’s much better to steadfastly go through with a plan despite any changes that have occurred on the ground. It seems to me Obama is actually responding to new information rather than dogmatically following his preconceived notions.

127 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:00:57pm

re: #121 recusancy

Quit letting criminals into our court system!

You think al-qaeda leadership are simply “criminals”?

128 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:01:09pm

Couric vs Palin : When asshats collide.

129 erraticsphinx  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:01:14pm

re: #122 Sharmuta

I will, thanks.

130 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:01:26pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

Well let’s see now, he is already for certain better than:

W. Bush,
Carter,
Ford,
Nixon,
Hoover,
Coolidge

and about half of the guys from the nineteenth century, that gave us such stellar presidents as:

Grant, Tyler and Buchanan.

It’s not a question of him being bad…it’s that he’s not really anything yet.

131 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:01:29pm

re: #119 Ojoe

He is better than Buchanan.

IIRC, Barbara Bush is a direct descendant of President Buchanan.

132 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:01:32pm

re: #125 recusancy

Reagan was no saint.

133 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:01:35pm

re: #124 lawhawk

Better than half the presidents? 10 months in and you’re giving him that much? How about waiting for the end of the term before going to the record books.

In fact, how about waiting a few years after that to see just what kind of a record he has.

History will prove to be far kinder/harsher than you can possibly recognize.

Good advice. I do hope you take it as well.

134 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:01:51pm

re: #131 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Evolution!

135 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:02:06pm

re: #134 Ojoe

Ha!

136 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:02:17pm

re: #111 Guanxi88

Telegenic and the ability to read from a teleprompter are key in modern politics. The rest of it, about the actual politics and the ability to get things done, to say nothing of making the decisions that everyone else defers to because the buck stops at the Oval Office, is an open question.

137 bunnymud  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:02:20pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

That gave me a good laugh.

138 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:02:23pm

re: #108 Fenway_Nation

After less than a year in office!? Awesome! We’ve gone from ‘Give the man the benefit of the doubt, we’re only a few months into his term’ to ‘ZOMG! BEST PREZIDENT EVAR!!!1111oneoneone’

No, we have gone to, that after almost a year in office, he has proved himself to be intelligent, cautious and humble enough to listen to experts while capable of making tough choices.

Shall we compare that honestly to other presidents? Both parties have their doozies…

139 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:02:48pm

re: #127 Sharmuta

You think al-qaeda leadership are simply “criminals”?

I know I’m not wetting myself at the thought of an incarcerated al-quaeda member going through the system.

140 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:03:25pm

re: #87 Surabaya Stew

re: #103 recusancy

[Link: factcheck.barackobama.com…]

OMG ,, you link to Barack Obama DOT COM for a list of his accomplishments

Thats would be like calling my mother for a recommendation for me!!

BWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!

141 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:03:26pm

re: #124 lawhawk

Better than half the presidents? 10 months in and you’re giving him that much? How about waiting for the end of the term before going to the record books.

In fact, how about waiting a few years after that to see just what kind of a record he has.

History will prove to be far kinder/harsher than you can possibly recognize.

NO I said better than half the presidents of the nineteenth century.

You know, that Andrew Johnson was a real winner, along with Tyler, Grant, Van Buren etc…

142 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:03:28pm

re: #139 recusancy

You didn’t answer my question, I noticed.

143 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:04:21pm

re: #140 sattv4u2

re: #103 recusancy

OMG ,, you link to Barack Obama DOT COM for a list of his accomplishments

Thats would be like calling my mother for a recommendation for me!!

BWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!

Did he lie about his accomplishments?

144 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:04:49pm

re: #138 LudwigVanQuixote

No, we have gone to, that after almost a year in office, he has proved himself to be intelligent, cautious and humble enough to listen to experts while capable of making tough choices.

While I agree with this statement to all appearances, I simply can not tell whether or not he is actually making good choices yet. I will have a much better idea in a few more years. I am willing to lend him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I am by no means willing to make an assertion that he is better than presidents that can be historically analyzed.

145 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:04:56pm

re: #124 lawhawk

Better than half the presidents? 10 months in and you’re giving him that much? How about waiting for the end of the term before going to the record books.

In fact, how about waiting a few years after that to see just what kind of a record he has.

History will prove to be far kinder/harsher than you can possibly recognize.

Scientists, who occasionally brush up against objectivity and absolute truths, are extremely prone to granting the same absolutism to every pronouncement they make about their own experience and personal opinions, moving them from the realm of opinion into the realm of Indisputable Laws of the Universe.

They also tend to get huffy when it’s pointed out that they’re doing this.

146 erraticsphinx  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:04:59pm

Off topic:

Tom Tancredo is running for Governor of Colorado.

Yeah.

147 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:05:03pm

re: #143 recusancy

Did he lie about his accomplishments?

I dunno ,, I can’t get the laughter tears out of my eyes yet to look!

148 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:05:14pm

re: #98 LudwigVanQuixote

That is so wrong on so many counts.

First off, if we are a proud republic of laws, we bloody well try people under the fullest extent of our law. That is what we should stand for. Anyone who is opposed to giving anyone a fair trial when it is possible to do so, is not thinking about American ideas of the law at all. They are thinking more on the Russian model.

Affording the masterminds of mass-casualty terrorist attacks the same rights and due process as a motorist pulled over for a broken tail light is asking for trouble further down the road. Civilian criminal trials where information is made public serves as a de-facto after-action review for the terrorist organizations when investigators and prosecuters are more or less obliged to make public how they were able to follow the money trail or communications between the perpetrators and their handlers.

As to the speech, when he first delivered the news, you have got to be kidding me.

He is up there, people are settling down and that was where he was. Sorry if he took one whole minute to be courteous to his hosts.

I’m not fucking kidding you. The fact that he took more like two minutes to get to the topic at hand and adressed it with stammering teleprompter-read platitudes doesn’t sit well with me. 0bama seemed more inconvenienced that anything else.

149 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:05:15pm

re: #133 recusancy

I’m not the one who’s racing to place Obama in the ranks of presidents.

I’m the one who is finding Obama’s current policies seriously wanting. I found many of Bush’s policies wanting as well. I think history will judge Bush far better than the current pundits and prognosticators do.

After all, Truman was roundly denounced in the media at that time, and yet he’s now considered a great/near great president.

150 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:06:04pm

re: #142 Sharmuta

You didn’t answer my question, I noticed.

He’s a criminal and enemy combatant. This will go on for at least a generation. Treating this like a 20th century state vs state war is not applicable.

151 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:06:13pm

re: #145 SixDegrees

Scientists, who occasionally brush up against objectivity and absolute truths, are extremely prone to granting the same absolutism to every pronouncement they make about their own experience and personal opinions, moving them from the realm of opinion into the realm of Indisputable Laws of the Universe.

They also tend to get huffy when it’s pointed out that they’re doing this.

…so…only 50 states then?…

152 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:06:28pm

re: #140 sattv4u2

re: #103 recusancy

OMG ,, you link to Barack Obama DOT COM for a list of his accomplishments

Thats would be like calling my mother for a recommendation for me!!

BWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!

Errr…say you what? No linking to the prez over here…

153 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:06:29pm

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Speaking of new books, just finished the latest Wheel of Time book, written by the new author. I’m going to be meeting him at a book signing this Sunday.

I didn’t know it had been released. Was it as good as the the last one?

154 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:06:37pm

re: #144 Sam N

While I agree with this statement to all appearances, I simply can not tell whether or not he is actually making good choices yet. I will have a much better idea in a few more years. I am willing to lend him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I am by no means willing to make an assertion that he is better than presidents that can be historically analyzed.

That is certainly fair. However,

Off the bat I think we can be certain he is at least better than, Andrew Johnson, Grant and W. Bush and Carter.

155 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:06:38pm

re: #147 sattv4u2

I dunno ,, I can’t get the laughter tears out of my eyes yet to look!

Well… Get some kleenex and let me know what you find.

156 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:06:53pm

re: #138 LudwigVanQuixote

listen to experts while capable of making tough choices.

He’s been listening to experts re: Afghanastan since early summer. This, regarding the war he called JUST

Where’s the “tough choice”?

157 erraticsphinx  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:07:15pm

re: #149 lawhawk

I’m not ready to judge Obama a good or bad president yet.

I have to disagree on Bush though, I think history will judge him a terrible president in every way.

158 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:07:19pm

re: #150 recusancy

Is there something wrong with a military tribunal for enemy combatants?

159 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:07:35pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

Well let’s see now, he is already for certain better than:

W. Bush,
Carter,
Ford,
Nixon,
Hoover,
Coolidge

and about half of the guys from the nineteenth century, that gave us such stellar presidents as:

Grant, Tyler and Buchanan.

Let’s go down your list:

W - yep, W didn’t do a damned thing while in office. not a bit. Didn’t end Hussein’s reign of terror, didn’t oust the Taliban and install a new gov’t in Afghanistan, didn’t do more than any other Pres to save lives in Africa, didn’t prevent a second round of attacks post 9/11/01. No, man did nothing in office.

Carter - Obama’s not even worthy of comparing to Carter. Not at this point. I’ll wait for him to do to Karzai what Jimmy did to the Shah before sinking him to Carter levels. Obama’s not as bad in his first year as Carter was in his term is not exactly high praise of the man, but if you think it’s a compliment, I won’t deny you the privilege.

Ford - No, Ford did nothing. Nothing at all. Didn’t get stabbed in the back by the Congress when trying to secure support for the RVN against the reds, didn’t exorcise the ghosts of Watergate.

Nixon - No, Nixon didn’t open relations with Red China, didn’t save Israel in the Yom Kippur War, didn’t sign a treaty (subsequently broken by the Reds) ending offensive operations by the US in Vietnam

I could go on an on. Your list is pointless. You like the guy, that’s fine, but don’t pretend there’s anything substantive behind your preference.

160 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:07:45pm

re: #152 Surabaya Stew

Errr…say you what? No linking to the prez over here…

Sorry ,, had you cued up when I noticed what recusancy linked up

161 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:08:25pm

re: #148 Fenway_Nation

I really dislike trivializing what we do with our court system. If you are going to make the comparison, say that we are affording purported terrorist masterminds the same rights as purported murderers.

162 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:08:54pm

re: #160 sattv4u2

Sorry ,, had you cued up when I noticed what recusancy linked up

Ah, no worries then…glad not to get stuck in the crossfire!
:-D

163 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:08:58pm

re: #158 Sharmuta

Is there something wrong with a military tribunal for enemy combatants?

They’re not enemy combatants by the Geneva definition, though. They’re almost impossible to classify. They’re as much criminals as they are anything else.

164 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:09:03pm

re: #124 lawhawk

Better than half the presidents? 10 months in and you’re giving him that much? How about waiting for the end of the term before going to the record books.

In fact, how about waiting a few years after that to see just what kind of a record he has.

History will prove to be far kinder/harsher than you can possibly recognize.

Good point. Even Nixon is slowly being rehabilitated by historians, who point out his normalization of relations with China as a significant event of the 20th century, not to mention his ending of the Vietnam War and creation of the EPA.

It’s not the sort of thing folks like myself, who came of political age during Nixon’s downfall, are ever going to be comfortable acknowledging. But distance tends to reduce things to their proper relative sizes.

165 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:09:19pm

re: #153 filetandrelease

I didn’t know it had been released. Was it as good as the the last one?

Not bad. You can tell it was a different author due to style differences, but overall, it fit well. There are supposed to be 2 more books after this one to conclude the series.

166 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:09:21pm

re: #158 Sharmuta

Is there something wrong with a military tribunal for enemy combatants?

Yes, if those tribunals never happen. I’m happy things are moving forward and we’ll get justice as a modern, non-barbaric 21st century nation.

167 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:09:39pm

re: #126 Sam N

Yes, it’s much better to steadfastly go through with a plan despite any changes that have occurred on the ground. It seems to me Obama is actually responding to new information rather than dogmatically following his preconceived notions.

The problem is that while he’s sitting there doing his “deep thinking” about the new facts on the ground, new facts on the ground are taking shape in reaction to his failure to respond earlier. These new facts change the situation, and this will require further analysis and reflection, I’m sure.

168 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:09:48pm

Fools elect fools.

BBL.

169 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:10:08pm

re: #112 recusancy

Well… W won because of the electoral college. But that’s a whole other issue.

Huh? This is a bad thing? The Founders had a good reason for the Electoral College.

re: #121 recusancy

Quit letting criminals into our court system!

They’re not criminals. They’re bloody terrorists at worst, illegal-combatants at best.

re: #132 Ojoe

Reagan was no saint.

No president should be.

170 Claire  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:10:18pm

re: #46 Irish Rose

Oh, so you’ve read the book already?

171 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:10:18pm

re: #163 SanFranciscoZionist

They’re not enemy combatants by the Geneva definition, though. They’re almost impossible to classify. They’re as much criminals as they are anything else.

Indeed- so we’re already being more than accommodating in granting them military trials. They’re certainly not civilians worthy of those protections.

172 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:10:46pm

re: #143 recusancy

Did he lie about his accomplishments?

I’m sure he brushes his teeth daily.

173 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:10:51pm

re: #166 recusancy

What, exactly, is wrong with the military courts trying these?

174 Ojoe  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:10:55pm

re: #169 Gang of One

Lincoln was a saint.

Times required it.

BBL

175 erraticsphinx  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:11:06pm

re: #159 Guanxi88

I think Nixon will be judged a better president in hindsight too, he was still a douchebag, but not as bad policywise as thought.

176 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:11:19pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

Well let’s see now, he is already for certain better than:

W. Bush,

Jury’s still out on this one, but right now, he’s been a bit better than Obama IMHO.

Carter,

I’ll grant you that. Carter was easily the worst President of the 20th Century.

Ford,

Gets a bad rap because he pardoned the next one on your list. He neither earned it nor deserved it. People voting for Carter in 1976 were not voting against Ford, but against Nixon.

Nixon,

Not a bad President, not a good one, but tripped himself up on his own paranoia. He did fix some problems left by LBJ (who is oddly missing from your list) and created some with his Southern Strategy.

Hoover,

Helped make the Depression what it was by making the wrong decisions at the beginning. FDR did not make it any better and did many of the same things after being elected.

Coolidge

Oversaw the Roaring Twenties. Kept government’s nose out of business and managed to get taxes to the lowest amount they ever had been. Hoover fucked up Coolidge’s success and gave Coolidge a black eye.

and about half of the guys from the nineteenth century, that gave us such stellar presidents as:

Grant, Tyler and Buchanan.

Grant was in over his head (oddly it is something threatening BHO and I thought might happen to GWB pre-9/11).

Tyler was an idiot. Instead of following Harrison’s ideas, he did his own and pissed off the people who elected him.

Buchanan was easily the worst President ever.

Then there’s such stellar examples as,

Andrew Jackson - Brought about the Panic of 1937 by getting into a fight with the Bank of the United States (and revoking its charter).

Andrew Johnson - Failed to follow through on Lincoln’s ideas for the end of the Civil War, got himself impeached.

Then there’s the forgettable Millard Fillmore.

177 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:12:08pm

re: #140 sattv4u2

My mother thinks I’m an idiot.

178 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:12:12pm

re: #162 Surabaya Stew

Ah, no worries then…glad not to get stuck in the crossfire!
:-D

Sorry bout that. I was about to take a minor issue with something you posted. I think it was your beleif that the author of a book has lots of control over what a publisher does with it.

Unless you’re one of THE great authors with a track record or VERY powerful either politically or financially and it’s in the contract that you have with the publisher for control the authors themselves have little say

179 Irish Rose  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:12:17pm

re: #120 LudwigVanQuixote

What? His speech about the dead was positively perfect. It focused entirely on who was lost.

Or are you saying that he should have hopped the first plane down there and been accused of seeking a photo op?


Yes, I am saying that he should have hopped the first plane down there.

Thirteen soldiers of our soldiers were murdered in cold blood in a terror attack right here on US soil… he’s the Commander-in-chief or our Armed Forces and comforting the families of the wounded and bereaved is his job.

God bless George and Laura Bush, who quietly went there on their own time and their own dime to do the job that he couldn’t be bothered to do.

180 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:12:28pm

re: #148 Fenway_Nation

Ohhh… drop the teleprompter meme…

What he said was quite appropriate then and I was not from a teleprompter.

As to teleprompters, shall I run a W. gag reel for you? The reason I bring that is the insane hypocrisy of certain GOP people when it comes to this. You whole heartedly support people like Bush and Palin, who honestly make normal people think of special needs children when they speak, and then go on to piss and moan about Obama at any chance.

It is just silly.

As to the deeper point of American rights an liberties… THEY ARE RIGHTS that as American, we consider to be self evident. Did you forget that? What exactly do we stand for, if when we deal with enemies of the Republic, we can not act as a republic? They are not privileges. If our nation can not properly try someone accused of a crime, then we have no business shouting about the liberties we claim to hold so dear.

181 Jack Burton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:12:44pm

re: #173 Sharmuta

What, exactly, is wrong with the military courts trying these?

Because the military is teh bad and wont take into account that these are misunderstood troubled individuals forced into a life of terror by the imperialist oppressors!!!111!11

/

182 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:13:36pm

re: #177 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

My mother thinks I’m an idiot.

I know. She told me
AND erected a billboard outside of Atlanta with that on it

183 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:13:40pm

re: #161 Sam N

I really dislike trivializing what we do with our court system. If you are going to make the comparison, say that we are affording purported terrorist masterminds the same rights as purported murderers.


Where am I wrong about the information on their funding, methods and logistics being made public and the savvier organizations shifting their tactits so they won’t show up on and investigator or intelligence ageny’s radar?

And no…as far as I’m concerned, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abdul as-Nashiri are being afforded the same legal protection under the constitution as a jaywalker or somebody who went 37 MPH in a school zone. Again, where am I factually incorrect?

184 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:13:44pm

re: #156 sattv4u2

listen to experts while capable of making tough choices.

He’s been listening to experts re: Afghanastan since early summer. This, regarding the war he called JUST

Where’s the “tough choice”?

IIRC, McChrystal said there was only a window of about 12 months.

185 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:14:59pm

re: #167 Guanxi88

The problem is that while he’s sitting there doing his “deep thinking” about the new facts on the ground, new facts on the ground are taking shape in reaction to his failure to respond earlier. These new facts change the situation, and this will require further analysis and reflection, I’m sure.

There is a happy medium, and from what I have heard, the decision time he is taking right now will not effect the timetable with which we will be moving troops to the front lines in Afghanistan, anyway. If you have clear evidence otherwise I would be happy to hear it, what exactly is the estimated cost to our forces in his taking decision time to hammer out a clear strategy.

186 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:15:13pm

re: #165 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I was stunned when RJ died before his last book was completed, very sad, and one of my favorite series.

Did the story at least come to a conclusion? (after so many thousands of pages)

187 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:15:24pm

re: #180 LudwigVanQuixote


As to the deeper point of American rights an liberties… THEY ARE RIGHTS that as American, we consider to be self evident. Did you forget that? What exactly do we stand for, if when we deal with enemies of the Republic, we can not act as a republic? They are not privileges. If our nation can not properly try someone accused of a crime, then we have no business shouting about the liberties we claim to hold so dear.

Well said.

188 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:15:25pm

re: #179 Irish Rose

His presence, IMO, just would’ve monkey’d up the worx. Glad he stayed away until he did.

But, ask my mother, I’m an idiot.

189 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:15:38pm

re: #180 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohhh… drop the teleprompter meme…

As to the deeper point of American rights an liberties… THEY ARE RIGHTS that as American, we consider to be self evident. Did you forget that? What exactly do we stand for, if when we deal with enemies of the Republic, we can not act as a republic? They are not privileges. If our nation can not properly try someone accused of a crime, then we have no business shouting about the liberties we claim to hold so dear.

Your concern for the future of our republic and these sacred rights is going to look pretty damned foolish when you understand that they will use our system against us. You do not defend a democracy by democratic means, nor a republic by republican means - these bastards are an existential threat, not a public order problem on a par with armed robbery.

190 Claire  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:15:52pm

re: #25 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohhh sweet Sarah, Saint soccer ball, moosebane!

You are an amazon warrior for old fashioned values!

You fight to keep women in their place!

By place, you mean like governorships and vice-presidencies and stuff? Lol.

191 Irish Rose  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:16:24pm

re: #157 erraticsphinx

I’m not ready to judge Obama a good or bad president yet.

I have to disagree on Bush though, I think history will judge him a terrible president in every way.

I don’t.

192 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:16:37pm

re: #180 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

Ohhh… drop the teleprompter meme…

What he said was quite appropriate then and it was not from a teleprompter.

As to teleprompters, shall I run a W. gag reel for you? The reason I bring that is the insane hypocrisy of certain GOP people when it comes to this. You whole heartedly support people like Bush and Palin, who honestly make normal people think of special needs children when they speak, and then go on to piss and moan about Obama at any chance.

It is just silly.

As to the deeper point of American rights and liberties… THEY ARE RIGHTS that as American, we consider to be self evident. Did you forget that? What exactly do we stand for, if when we deal with enemies of the Republic, we can not act as a republic? They are not privileges. If our nation can not properly try someone accused of a crime, then we have no business shouting about the liberties we claim to hold so dear.

193 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:16:38pm

re: #183 Fenway_Nation

I never said your comparison was incorrect, simply that it downplays the major role that our criminal justice system provides, which includes prosecution of domestic terrorist masterminds as well as cold-blooded murderers, reasonably effectively.

194 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:16:48pm

re: #178 sattv4u2

Sorry bout that. I was about to take a minor issue with something you posted. I think it was your beleif that the author of a book has lots of control over what a publisher does with it.

Unless you’re one of THE great authors with a track record or VERY powerful either politically or financially and it’s in the contract that you have with the publisher for control the authors themselves have little say

Thats cool; glad to be part of the discussion in any case. As it turns out, Sully has pointed out a plausible and likely reason why Going Rogue was released sans index. Still say that the lack of an index hurts; here’s hoping they include one in future editions.

195 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:17:01pm

re: #184 Gang of One

IIRC, McChrystal said there was only a window of about 12 months.

re: #185 Sam N

There is a happy medium, and from what I have heard, the decision time he is taking right now will not effect the timetable with which we will be moving troops to the front lines in Afghanistan, anyway. If you have clear evidence otherwise I would be happy to hear it, what exactly is the estimated cost to our forces in his taking decision time to hammer out a clear strategy.

It will take one year, at least, to get the forces in place and ready to rock and roll. I though BHO was going to hit the ground running, qualified and competent from Day 1.

196 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:17:23pm

re: #179 Irish Rose

Yes, I am saying that he should have hopped the first plane down there.

Thirteen soldiers of our soldiers were murdered in cold blood in a terror attack right here on US soil… he’s the Commander-in-chief or our Armed Forces and comforting the families of the wounded and bereaved is his job.

God bless George and Laura Bush, who quietly went there on their own time and their own dime to do the job that he couldn’t be bothered to do.

I wouldn’t go that far. Remember all the contradictory information that was coming fast and furious that day. I think the last day the military and civilian investigators needed would be the POTUS sweeping in from out of the blue with the secret service and press pool in tow.

All I asked was that the man sounded like he gave a flying fuck that day, and he sorely disappointed.

197 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:17:27pm

I am late to the party so if this has been brought up…

I am sure these Dbags will take the stand and spew all kinds of bullshit and the MSM and the idiot press in other countries will eat it up. Then again, maybe not. If they get caught lying they could be charged with perjury.

198 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:18:23pm

re: #194 Surabaya Stew

Great. Thanks for disagreeing without being disagreeable

Enjoyed it

199 subsailor68  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:18:38pm

I’m not much into comparing one president or presidency to another. For me, the major factor in how I view a president is what was accomplished (or not) during the presidency, and whether or not what was accomplished (or not) during the presidency was good for the country.

And history very often continues to view presidents in an ever shifting way, depending on what aspect of a presidency an historian chooses to focus.

FDR, for example, was lionized by many historians early on, but has been seen a bit differently as time goes on - specifically on the New Deal and the handling of the Depression. (“The Forgotten Man” by Amity Schlaes and “New Deal or Raw Deal” by Burton Folsom, Jr.)

200 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:18:52pm

re: #193 Sam N

I never said your comparison was incorrect, simply that it downplays the major role that our criminal justice system provides, which includes prosecution of domestic terrorist masterminds as well as cold-blooded murderers, reasonably effectively.

You don’t think it might be problematic to open up government information to lawyers working for al-qaeda leadership?

201 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:18:59pm

re: #163 SanFranciscoZionist

They’re not enemy combatants by the Geneva definition, though. They’re almost impossible to classify. They’re as much criminals as they are anything else.

Unlawful Combatants.

202 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:19:09pm

re: #189 Guanxi88

You are so right. I see the light now. The good guys can’t play by the rules. My crazy notion that what makes us the good guys is that we do play by the rules is so very outmoded, like 1776 outmoded.

It is also so very much not what religions say either. The good guys there sin all the time in order to be good!

Thanks for explaining that to me.

///

203 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:19:54pm

re: #200 Sharmuta

DOH!

204 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:20:31pm

re: #171 Sharmuta

Indeed- so we’re already being more than accommodating in granting them military trials. They’re certainly not civilians worthy of those protections.

That they were not shot on site/sight summarily gives us the credibility as being a nation of laws.

205 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:20:36pm

OT: This is what happens when you believe that a word for word literal interpretation of the bible is infallible in resolving difficult moral problems instead of looking for the meaning behind the words. Answers in Genesis says “Rather than tell a lie you should turn the Jews over to the Nazis.”

(Hattip to P.Z. at Pharyngula)

Here’s the hypothetical situation:
You know the whereabouts of a family of Jews hiding from the Nazis. A Nazi patrol comes up to you and asks where they are; you, a good God-fearing Christian, can either lie and say you don’t know (which would be bad, because, like, lying is a sin), or you could tell the truth, and the Nazis would zip off and search for and presumably execute the family. What do you do?

As a non-Bible believing amoral godless atheist, my first thought was that this is trivial: you lie your pants off. The ‘crime’ of telling a lie pales into insignificance against the crime of enabling the death of fellow human beings.

According to Bodie Hodge of AiG, though, I’m wrong. The good Christian should reject lies, Satan’s tools, in all circumstances, and should immediately ‘fess up the location of the Jews. He backs it up with Bible quotes, too.

“If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first—before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?

Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

(snip)

Isn’t this exactly the kind of narrow and simplistic thinking about the intent and meaning of the scriptures that is resulting in the shrinking church? What the hell is wrong with these people, have they no decency, no compassion, no sense of proportion or magnitude? I have to agree with the atheist on this one, I would lie my butt off and then ask for forgiveness afterwords, the world has never been as black and white as these people strive to make it. How could anyone believe that sending people to imprisonment and possible death simply for being Jewish is what Jesus would want of them?

(/utter disgust)

206 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:21:00pm

re: #189 Guanxi88

While I agree with LVQ’s point concerning the rule of law and the unacceptable situation of keeping people imprisoned without hope of trial for an indefinite period of time, it’s a soapbox he mounted in order to talk about something other than the original posting, which was concerned with the assignment of some of these cases to civilian courts, rather than to a military jurisdiction, which seems to be a better fit in this instance.

207 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:21:03pm

re: #198 sattv4u2

Great. Thanks for disagreeing without being disagreeable

Enjoyed it

You’re welcome! And the fact that this point in Palin’s defense comes from one of her biggest critics, goes to show that the search of truth is non-partisian.

208 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:21:11pm

re: #201 Slumbering Behemoth

Big Monster! You ain’t been around lately! Miss seeing your [finger]!

Hi Shar!

209 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:21:24pm

re: #173 Sharmuta

What, exactly, is wrong with the military courts trying these?

Civilian court system is open, and civilized. It has it’s problem but I have enough trust in the system that a truly guilty human being will meet justice. The only problem I see is if he was tortured.

210 charlz  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:21:30pm

re: #126 Sam N

It seems to me Obama is actually responding to new information rather than dogmatically following his preconceived notions.

Including the assessment of his Ambassador:
“Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a retired Army general and former commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, objected in two cables delivered to the State Department saying that additional troops would be unwise because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government”
LA Times link…

211 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:22:08pm

re: #202 LudwigVanQuixote


During WWII, Nazi saboteurs came ashore on Long Island and were discovered in pretty short order.

They unlimately wound up in front of a firing squad.

/how barbaric!

212 dugmartsch  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:22:38pm

re: #71 Guanxi88

As demonstrated by his Hamlet-like contemplation of alternatives he himself solicited in order to resolve the war that he himself assured us he would resolve with his cunning plan? As demonstrated by his first round of cabinet picks and advisors, and the raft of tax problems and other hang-ups encountered therein? Competent? Not by a long shot.

So you’re arguments against his competence are that he takes his time with important decisions and selected someone with some corrected before selection process tax problems who most on both sides agreed was an otherwise competent choice for his position? It’s tough to admit that people you don’t agree with are competent, thoughtful, smart people, but it’s the truth. There are lots of people on the right who fit that mold. Palin, for so many obvious and belabored reasons does not.

Go ahead and equate Palin with Obama but I’m not going to be able to take anything you say very seriously and I won’t be able to assume that you’re making arguments in good faith. Rather than just someone who wants to say things to provoke people.

213 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:22:39pm

re: #209 recusancy

Civilian court system is open, and civilized. It has it’s problem but I have enough trust in the system that a truly guilty human being will meet justice. The only problem I see is if he was tortured.

Military courts are not?

214 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:22:39pm

The new Marine battle field dilemma, Miranda rights or a bullet. The rule of unintended consequences.

215 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:22:40pm

re: #209 recusancy

Civilian court system is open, and civilized. It has it’s problem but I have enough trust in the system that a truly guilty human being will meet justice. The only problem I see is if he was tortured.

Maybe the courts’ll have a problem with the torture thing. Not me.

Black is negative, Red is positive.

216 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:22:41pm

re: #200 Sharmuta

You don’t think it might be problematic to open up government information to lawyers working for al-qaeda leadership?

Actually, that might be quite problematic, and that is a fine, and persuasive, argument to make. What is not so good an argument to make is that we are handling the terrorists softly because they are getting the same treatment as someone driving around with a broken tail light.

217 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:22:54pm

re: #209 recusancy

Civilian court system is open, and civilized. It has it’s problem but I have enough trust in the system that a truly guilty human being will meet justice. The only problem I see is if he was tortured.

That’s great, but you continue to tip toe around my questions so as to avoid giving the answers you don’t really want to give. What is wrong with a military tribunal for these cases?

218 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:23:01pm

re: #186 filetandrelease

I was stunned when RJ died before his last book was completed, very sad, and one of my favorite series.

Did the story at least come to a conclusion? (after so many thousands of pages)

It’s worth noting that the late Robert Jordan (James Rigney) was a highly decorated combat veteran:

Jordan was born in Charleston, South Carolina. He served two tours in Vietnam (from 1968 to 1970) with the United States Army as a helicopter gunner. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with bronze oak leaf cluster, the Bronze Star with “V” and bronze oak leaf cluster, and two Vietnamese Gallantry Crosses with palm.
219 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:23:38pm

re: #194 Surabaya Stew

I seem to recall that the original version of the 9/11 report came without an index. In the rush to get published, sometimes an index is dropped for the practical reason of speed.

220 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:23:47pm

re: #213 sattv4u2

Military courts are not?

Not if the defendant doesn’t have rights. I know you hate hearing that but it’s true.

221 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:24:14pm

re: #208 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Lately, I’ve only been popping in when I can make a masturbation joke.
/

Been busy, how ‘bout you?

222 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:24:14pm

re: #220 recusancy

Not if the defendant doesn’t have rights. I know you hate hearing that but it’s true.

What rights have they been denied?

223 Irish Rose  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:25:01pm

re: #188 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

His presence, IMO, just would’ve monkey’d up the worx. Glad he stayed away until he did.

But, ask my mother, I’m an idiot.

Former President Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush were at Fort Hood the day after the massacre. They requested zero press coverage and spent hours comforting the wounded, their families and the families of the fallen.

If you were to ask those wounded service members, their families and base security if they thought that the Bushes were “monkeying up the works” at Fort Hood the day after the incident I’m pretty sure that their answer would have been “no”.

224 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:25:43pm

re: #211 Fenway_Nation

During WWII, Nazi saboteurs came ashore on Long Island and were discovered in pretty short order.

They unlimately wound up in front of a firing squad.

/how barbaric!

You mean they were given a fair and speedy hearing where sufficent evidence was brought against them to put them in front of a firing squad and that they were not tortured?

How different than this situation!

225 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:25:49pm

re: #220 recusancy

Not if the defendant doesn’t have rights. I know you hate hearing that but it’s true.

I see, so in am military court they just wing it in an uncivilzed manner with no rules, no rights for the accused

Ya sure ya want to go down this raod?

226 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:25:52pm

I like the fact that Gitmo guys who live on the beach and got to play soccer will soon be wondering what happened when they hit Supermax.

227 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:25:56pm

re: #218 Shiplord Kirel

Thank you, I didn’t know that.

228 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:27:00pm

re: #224 LudwigVanQuixote

…you don’t think they were tortured?…

229 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:27:27pm

re: #223 Irish Rose

Former President Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush were at Fort Hood the day after the massacre. They requested zero press coverage and spent hours comforting the wounded, their families and the families of the fallen.

If you were to ask those wounded service members, their families and base security if they thought that the Bushes were “monkeying up the works” at Fort Hood the day after the incident I’m pretty sure that their answer would have been “no”.

Right, and they are not busy being the president anymore.

Did W fly to ground zero within hours?

230 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:27:35pm

re: #222 Sharmuta

gmta (225)

231 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:28:23pm

re: #224 LudwigVanQuixote

In front of a military tribunal, no less.

232 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:28:39pm

re: #228 Charpete67

…you don’t think they were tortured?…

During the Second World War the United States had a very strong anti-torture policy. I will not say it was never infringed, and I do not know each case of saboteur trials. However, I am certain that this was not policy.

233 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:29:06pm

re: #231 Fenway_Nation

In front of a military tribunal, no less.

During a declared war with agents of a nation that had declared war with us…

234 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:29:32pm

re: #209 recusancy

Civilian court system is open, and civilized. It has it’s problem but I have enough trust in the system that a truly guilty human being will meet justice. The only problem I see is if he was tortured.

That’s the problem here, the openness. Too much classified info goes to the wrong people. Is it possible that a truly guilty person cannot meet justice in a military tribunal? We are not talking drumhead justice here. UCMJ is not Medieval. And the torture meme … our own soldiers ‘suffer’ the waterboarding.

235 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:30:03pm

re: #186 filetandrelease

I was stunned when RJ died before his last book was completed, very sad, and one of my favorite series.

Did the story at least come to a conclusion? (after so many thousands of pages)

Jordan orginally said he wanted to do 2 last books, but could not see a way to break up the story, so was going to write 1 super sized book to finish it. As grew worse, he, his wife and his editor found an author they were comfortable with and spent the last months of his life working on notes and briefing the new author. His final work on the series is in 3 books, the one just released and then 2 more books, each released a year apart.

236 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:30:10pm

re: #222 Sharmuta

What rights have they been denied?

They have no rights to be denied. These folks are illegal enemy combatants as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Thus, we can really do as we please with them.

237 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:30:26pm

re: #202 LudwigVanQuixote

You are so right. I see the light now. The good guys can’t play by the rules. My crazy notion that what makes us the good guys is that we do play by the rules is so very outmoded, like 1776 outmoded.

It is also so very much not what religions say either. The good guys there sin all the time in order to be good!

Thanks for explaining that to me.

///

I’m glad my point was made clear to you. I’m pleased you understand now where I’m coming from on this issue, and I’m pleased to offer my own digest of your position on the matter:

We are to mirandize anyone and everyone shooting at our troops, planting explaosives with intent to cause death, or to assist in these or similar activities. In each case, we shall have resort to the court system to resolve these matters as they arise. We are to disband the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces, and pour the Pentagon’s budget into hiring new prosecutors for the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s office.

Because I, like you, am unable to make distinctions.

238 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:31:04pm

re: #224 LudwigVanQuixote

You mean they were given a fair and speedy hearing where sufficent evidence was brought against them to put them in front of a firing squad and that they were not tortured?

How different than this situation!

It was a tribunal. They were tried before a tribunal.

239 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:31:09pm

re: #235 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The never ending saga

240 Jack Burton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:31:15pm

re: #233 LudwigVanQuixote

During a declared war with agents of a nation that had declared war with us…

And those saboteurs had a clearly defined disposition in the Geneva conventions and it was clear what could and could not be done with them. Illegal combatants do not. It is perfectly legal for them to be questioned and summarily executed sans trial according to international law. Is that what you’d rather have us doing to jihadi terrorists who are not US citizens?

241 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:32:15pm

re: #209 recusancy

Civilian court system is open, and civilized. It has it’s problem but I have enough trust in the system that a truly guilty human being will meet justice. The only problem I see is if he was tortured.

Tortured or not, his own statements won’t be admissible because he wasn’t Mirandized. That excludes anything he may have said while imprisoned from use against him. The government surely knows this, so there are only a few possibilities:

* The government believes it has sufficient evidence collected from other sources to obtain a conviction without such statements.

* The government is more concerned with providing KSM a very public platform to rail against heretics and demonize America - particularly the last Administration - than it is in obtaining a conviction.

* The government is hopelessly incompetent, hasn’t bothered to analyze the situation at all, and will simply stumble through whatever occurs on an ad hoc basis.

I’m really hoping the first explanation is correct. But I’m expecting that the other explanations will turn out to be more plausible in time.

242 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:32:19pm

re: #233 LudwigVanQuixote

Who were infiltrating the continental United States
…but oddly enough, not decked out in their spiffy Nazi uniforms.

So Mohammed and al-Nishiri should get kid gloves treatment because they’re not acting as agents on behalf of a sepcific nation-state?

243 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:32:30pm

re: #117 Sharmuta

Did any of those presidents allow enemy combatants into our court system?

It’s interesting that you mention that…

You should look at many of the very charitable ways that Grant dealt with former Confederates. That was actually one of the good things he did.

244 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:32:53pm

re: #223 Irish Rose

Oh, sure.

However, a former President and First Lady do have a little more “stealth” at hand than does a sitting President.

245 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:33:01pm

re: #239 filetandrelease

The never ending saga

Well, at least until 2011, so you have a year to read it before the whole Mayan calendar thing catches up to us.

246 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:33:27pm

re: #236 Honorary Yooper

They have no rights to be denied. These folks are illegal enemy combatants as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Thus, we can really do as we please with them.

You’re joking, right?

247 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:33:43pm

re: #225 sattv4u2

I see, so in am military court they just wing it in an uncivilzed manner with no rules, no rights for the accused

Ya sure ya want to go down this raod?

And the military code of justice still falls under the review of the SCOTUS and the laws of Congress. It’s not like the military justice system has free reign.

248 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:33:50pm

re: #245 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well, at least until 2011, so you have a year to read it before the whole Mayan calendar thing catches up to us.

2012

249 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:33:50pm

re: #212 dugmartsch

.

So you’re arguments against his competence are that he takes his time with important decisions and selected someone with some corrected before selection process tax problems who most on both sides agreed was an otherwise competent choice for his position? It’s tough to admit that people you don’t agree with are competent, thoughtful, smart people, but it’s the truth. .

Hillary is a competent, thoughtful, smart person with whom I don not agree. Nice try, though.
There are lots of people on the right who fit that mold. Palin, for so many obvious and belabored reasons does not.

.

Go ahead and equate Palin with Obama but I’m not going to be able to take anything you say very seriously and I won’t be able to assume that you’re making arguments in good faith. Rather than just someone who wants to say things to provoke people.

Go ahead and show me the difference, other than branding, between these two empty suits, but know that I’m not going to be able to take anything you say seriously and I won’t be able to assime that you’re making arguments in good faith.

250 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:34:25pm

re: #229 LudwigVanQuixote

Right, and they are not busy being the president anymore.

Did W fly to ground zero within hours?

IIRC, by the end of the day he was addressing it from the White House, which was supposedly an attack site (Flight 93 anyone?), and within a mile of another attack site (obviously forgotten here). By the end of the week, after the initial search and rescue was done, he was in New York.

BTW, 9/11 /= Fort Hood. Get your scales right, LVQ. By the end of the day, Fort Hood was done. We were still worried about more attacks before the end of the week of 9/11/2001.

251 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:35:14pm

re: #246 MinisterO

You’re joking, right?

No joke.

252 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:35:16pm

re: #229 LudwigVanQuixote

Right, and they are not busy being the president anymore.

Did W fly to ground zero within hours?

Wasn’t he criticized for not doing that very thing?

253 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:35:38pm

re: #250 Honorary Yooper

What a horrible moment in time that was.

254 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:35:39pm

re: #251 Fenway_Nation

No joke.

me neither…

255 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:36:02pm

re: #217 Sharmuta

That’s great, but you continue to tip toe around my questions so as to avoid giving the answers you don’t really want to give. What is wrong with a military tribunal for these cases?

This isn’t a subject I’m passionate about so I’m slow to respond… Doing this with the full rights and protections of the Bill of Rights gives me pride in my country that we aren’t afraid to do this by our laws and by the books.

256 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:36:07pm

re: #247 Sharmuta

And the military code of justice still falls under the review of the SCOTUS and the laws of Congress. It’s not like the military justice system has free reign.

but,, But ,, BUT ,, it’s not CIVILIZED!!!

Gomer Pyle throwing food trays and picking his nose in court while naked !

257 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:36:36pm

Miliary Justice 101

258 Kragar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:37:07pm

re: #248 Cannadian Club Akbar

2012

Like I said, if something comes out in 2011, and the world ends in 2012, then one would have at best 1 year in between to see it.

259 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:37:12pm

re: #255 recusancy

The laws and the books allow for military tribunals.

260 subsailor68  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:37:24pm

re: #243 LudwigVanQuixote

It’s interesting that you mention that…

You should look at many of the very charitable ways that Grant dealt with former Confederates. That was actually one of the good things he did.

Hi Ludwig! Hope you’re doing great today.

Just a small quibble on Grant. Even by the definition of the Geneva Conventions (written later I grant ya - oops a pun), Confederate soldiers met all the conditions to be considered lawful combatants, and Grant treated them honorably, as well he should have.

261 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:37:40pm

re: #258 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Like I said, if something comes out in 2011, and the world ends in 2012, then one would have at best 1 year in between to see it.

My bad.

262 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:37:41pm

re: #238 Guanxi88

I am well aware of this. It is also a fact that these were agents of a state that had declared war on us who had taken actions against us during wartime. In essence, spies.

As to the stuff about Miranda rights, do stop hyperventilating. The people going on trial were not captured on the battlefield in the heat of combat.

Yes I am making the proper distinctions. You are letting your desire for vengeance get in the way of your desire to see justice done properly. I have no sympathy for the terrorists, but they do and should get their proper day in court, if only to determine the just thing to do with them and then carry it out.

They were picked up, detained for years and thrown into a legal black hole. We do not do that as Americans. That is what Russians and Chinese do. The trial will be made all the more difficult because of the Abuses of the Bush administration however.

263 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:37:55pm

It’s shocking how many people have so little faith in the principles upon which this country was founded.

Even worse, I think they think they’re patriots.

264 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:38:19pm

re: #246 MinisterO

You’re joking, right?

Their only legal right is to be treated humanely while in custody.

265 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:38:31pm

re: #246 MinisterO

You’re joking, right?

honestly, I don’t give a shit about people who fly planes into buildings and kill 3000 people.

266 Jack Burton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:38:38pm

re: #246 MinisterO

You’re joking, right?

They were not part of the armed forces of a nation engaged in war.
They were not civilians in a combat zone.
They were not saboteurs employed or working on behalf of a nation state.
They were not American citizens…

Geneva contentions do not apply.
US Constitutional rights do not apply.
In lieu of some other international law which does not yet exist, these people have no rights and we are bending over backwards to try to invent some for them.

267 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:38:55pm

re: #219 lawhawk

I seem to recall that the original version of the 9/11 report came without an index. In the rush to get published, sometimes an index is dropped for the practical reason of speed.

That, and such an Index would be the size of a regular book all by itself!

268 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:39:09pm

re: #255 recusancy

This isn’t a subject I’m passionate about so I’m slow to respond… Doing this with the full rights and protections of the Bill of Rights gives me pride in my country that we aren’t afraid to do this by our laws and by the books.

Yeah, that’s the best possible way to do it. Treat them like they’re common criminals, pay no attention to the underlying ideologies or networks, and certainly don’t do anything that might deny them their rights. Furthermore, ensure that the distinction between criminal and terrorist is forever erased.

I wonder though, in light of yesterday’s conversation, whether you extend a similar neutrality to the US and its dealings with terrorists that you do to Israel and its dealing with terrorists? I ask because you confessed yourself no fan of either side in the Mid-East, and I’d be curious to learn what your balanced and nuanced position would be in this case.

269 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:39:45pm

So, Going Rogue. Interesting title and I’ll admit to not really understanding the subtext of ‘rogue’ in this context. I’m just hoping for a Movie Of The Week.

270 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:40:18pm

re: #249 Guanxi88

.
Go ahead and show me the difference, other than branding, between these two empty suits

Really? If asked the question about where Obama gets news from I am sure he would have named the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. and not, “all of them.” Did Obama ever have a ‘death panels’ moment? I am interested if you think so, what is it?

By and large you provide cogent arguments, I am surprised you do not see some clear differences between Obama and Palin aside from ‘branding’.

271 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:40:35pm

re: #269 Jeff In Ohio

So, Going Rogue. Interesting title and I’ll admit to not really understanding the subtext of ‘rogue’ in this context. I’m just hoping for a Movie Of The Week.

I smell an Emmy for Tina Fay.
/

272 lawhawk  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:40:43pm

re: #243 LudwigVanQuixote

Former confederates who were and once again became US citizens? Whereas here the terrorists in question are not US citizens?

273 HoosierHoops  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:40:50pm

re: #269 Jeff In Ohio

So, Going Rogue. Interesting title and I’ll admit to not really understanding the subtext of ‘rogue’ in this context. I’m just hoping for a Movie Of The Week.

Dumb title for a book

274 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:41:10pm

re: #266 ArchangelMichael

They were not part of the armed forces of a nation engaged in war.
They were not civilians in a combat zone.
They were not saboteurs employed or working on behalf of a nation state.
They were not American citizens…

Geneva contentions do not apply.
US Constitutional rights do not apply.
In lieu of some other international law which does not yet exist, these people have no rights and we are bending over backwards to try to invent some for them.

Military tribunals were gracious enough. We are not obligated under any law to grant them even that right. I was perfectly willing to accept tribunals as a means to bring justice, but this move to federal court goes too far.

275 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:41:11pm

re: #259 Sharmuta

The laws and the books allow for military tribunals.

But the tribunals do not allow for full rights. The rules are changed and set before each one by executive decision (if i remember correctly). There is no set way to do them. This also comes down to an executive power issue. I didn’t like Bush pushing the limits of executive power and I don’t want Obama to. In this case he’s not.

276 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:41:20pm

re: #269 Jeff In Ohio

So, Going Rogue. Interesting title and I’ll admit to not really understanding the subtext of ‘rogue’ in this context. I’m just hoping for a Movie Of The Week.

do women still wear rogue?…

277 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:43:07pm

re: #275 recusancy

But the tribunals do not allow for full rights.

OMG!1! Call for the whaaambulance!

Here’s a clue on the clue phone- we don’t have to grant them any.

278 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:43:42pm

re: #262 LudwigVanQuixote

I am well aware of this. It is also a fact that these were agents of a state that had declared war on us who had taken actions against us during wartime. In essence, spies.

As to the stuff about Miranda rights, do stop hyperventilating. The people going on trial were not captured on the battlefield in the heat of combat.

Yes I am making the proper distinctions. You are letting your desire for vengeance get in the way of your desire to see justice done properly. I have no sympathy for the terrorists, but they do and should get their proper day in court, if only to determine the just thing to do with them and then carry it out.

They were picked up, detained for years and thrown into a legal black hole. We do not do that as Americans. That is what Russians and Chinese do. The trial will be made all the more difficult because of the Abuses of the Bush administration however.

They are not soldiers and they did not wear the uniform of a state. They are illegal foreign combatants and as such have no legal rights except to be treated humanely while in custody.
Even prisoners of war have no right to a trial and they can quite properly be held in custody until the conclusion of the war.

279 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:43:48pm
Are al Qaeda Fighters Prisoners of War?

First, what does it take to qualify as a prisoner of war? Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria.

The criteria are: “(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

Al Qaeda does not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered “a person responsible for his subordinates,” although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members openly flout the remaining three conditions.

Al Qaeda members deliberately attempt to blend into the civilian population - violating the requirement of having a “fixed distinctive sign” and “carrying arms openly.” Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the “laws and customs of war.”

Thus, al Qaeda members need not be treated as prisoners of war.

280 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:44:15pm

re: #262 LudwigVanQuixote

It is also a fact that these were agents of a state that had declared war on us who had taken actions against us during wartime. In essence, spies.

They were Afghan agents? News to me. It was news to them, too.


281 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:45:03pm

re: #280 Guanxi88

They were Afghan agents? News to me. It was news to them, too.

That’s how top seekrit it was…they didn’t even know…

282 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:45:16pm

re: #240 ArchangelMichael

And those saboteurs had a clearly defined disposition in the Geneva conventions and it was clear what could and could not be done with them. Illegal combatants do not. It is perfectly legal for them to be questioned and summarily executed sans trial according to international law. Is that what you’d rather have us doing to jihadi terrorists who are not US citizens?

Actually yes.

I do not have that much difficulty extending the notion of saboteurs to known foreign terrorists who work for groups dedicated to destroying America. Give them a federal trial. It is still a federal crime, and if you get them red handed, then have a proper hearing, with oversight and representation, and execute them if they are guilty.

What you can not do is hold them indefinitely, torture them and then debate about if they exist as people. Everyone, even terrorists deserve a fair and speedy trial of some sort with adequate representation.

What you can not do is willy nilly pick up all sorts of people, call them terrorists and use the grey areas of the law to cover your own mistakes as a government.

What you can not do, is simply not care about the ones that your really don’t have all that much evidence on and treat them to the same standards as known terrorists.

283 Jack Burton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:45:17pm

re: #275 recusancy

But the tribunals do not allow for full rights.

Which, as we stated ad nauseam, these people are not entitled to under any existing law.

284 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:46:05pm

re: #268 Guanxi88

Yeah, that’s the best possible way to do it. Treat them like they’re common criminals, pay no attention to the underlying ideologies or networks, and certainly don’t do anything that might deny them their rights. Furthermore, ensure that the distinction between criminal and terrorist is forever erased.

I wonder though, in light of yesterday’s conversation, whether you extend a similar neutrality to the US and its dealings with terrorists that you do to Israel and its dealing with terrorists? I ask because you confessed yourself no fan of either side in the Mid-East, and I’d be curious to learn what your balanced and nuanced position would be in this case.

How does locking them in a hole and doing what we wish “pay attention to the underlying ideologies or networks”.

Ahhh… So you’re probably implying that I’m a terrorist lover being that I don’t defend Israel no matter what. Israel can do what they want with their criminals and terrorists as per their laws. I’m not an Israeli citizen. I do care what America does.

285 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:46:20pm

re: #278 Spare O’Lake

They are not soldiers and they did not wear the uniform of a state. They are illegal foreign combatants and as such have no legal rights except to be treated humanely while in custody.
Even prisoners of war have no right to a trial and they can quite properly be held in custody until the conclusion of the war.

Only that there is no declared war to end. Terrorists are nothing more or less than criminals. They should be treated as such - in a criminal court.

286 charlz  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:46:47pm

re: #183 Fenway_Nation

And no…as far as I’m concerned, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abdul as-Nashiri are being afforded the same legal protection under the constitution as a jaywalker or somebody who went 37 MPH in a school zone.

Are you saying they wouldn’t receive the same or similar legal protection at a military trial?

287 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:47:28pm

re: #275 recusancy

tribunals do not allow for full rights
re: #277 Sharmuta

OMG!1! Call for the whaaambulance!

Here’s a clue on the clue phone- we don’t have to grant them any.

recusancy,, maybe while they’re in New York, we can take them to a Broadway play and dinner at Tavern On the Green. How bout we let them vote in a local election or two? While we’re at it, we should give them food stamps!

288 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:48:15pm

re: #270 Sam N

Really? If asked the question about where Obama gets news from I am sure he would have named the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. and not, “all of them.” Did Obama ever have a ‘death panels’ moment? I am interested if you think so, what is it?

By and large you provide cogent arguments, I am surprised you do not see some clear differences between Obama and Palin aside from ‘branding’.

Obama gets his news from the same place every president gets his news - his staff. Before that, who knows? Did Obama have a death panels moment? No, see, he’s got the office, and so the making of whacky and pointless statements to gin up the base is not necessary. His bad ideas become policy, whereas Palin’s are fodder for humor (which we all need these days).

You’re pretty sharp yourself, and I;m shocked you don’t see these two (Obama and Palin) as competing brands of the same commodity.

289 Jack Burton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:48:23pm

re: #282 LudwigVanQuixote

If you wish to shoehorn Al Qaeda terrorists and the like into the definition of espionage and sabotage, then they would be getting a military tribunal and not a federal civil trial with grandstanding ACLU lawyers having access to classified material.

290 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:48:32pm

re: #255 recusancy

This isn’t a subject I’m passionate about so I’m slow to respond… Doing this with the full rights and protections of the Bill of Rights gives me pride in my country that we aren’t afraid to do this by our laws and by the books telegraphs weakness to our enemies.

Thought I’d fix that for ya.

291 Sam N  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:49:15pm

re: #274 Sharmuta

Military tribunals seem sensible in these cases. Are you aware of the strongest arguments for using our usual criminal justice system? These threads move fast and I am having some trouble taking in all the information. Are there particular rights we should be concerned are being abused through such a system?

292 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:49:21pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

More than Palin! How many times did he quit on the people who elected him, of fail a test of eighth grade or lower knowledge?

If you could drop the partisan scales from you eyes for half a minute, you would see, in a fair appraisal, that Obama is actually a vastly better president than many we have had.

!?

I think the term “vastly better president” needs to be reserved until something actually verifiable as positive occurs during his term.

293 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:49:22pm

re: #285 LudwigVanQuixote

Only that there is no declared war to end. Terrorists are nothing more or less than criminals. They should be treated as such - in a criminal court.

What LVQ said. If we combat this ideology/network the way we tried to fight state nations then we lose.

294 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:49:47pm

re: #280 Guanxi88

You were talking about the second world war. That’s not particularly strong as a come back.

295 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:49:52pm

re: #275 recusancy

But the tribunals do not allow for full rights. The rules are changed and set before each one by executive decision (if i remember correctly). There is no set way to do them. This also comes down to an executive power issue. I didn’t like Bush pushing the limits of executive power and I don’t want Obama to. In this case he’s not.

Some of the procedures vary, but I’m not aware of any rights which are curtailed. The defendant has the right to hear the evidence against him; he has the right to an attorney, and one will be provided if he doesn’t have the means to provide his own; he has the right to question witnesses; he has the right to contest evidence presented; he has the right to appeal.

What rights, specifically, is the defendant denied that he would have in a civilian court?

I’ll grant that there are significant procedural differences. In the relatively infrequent instances where civilians have wound up in front of military courts, the courts have always acknowledged this and insisted that defendants be provided with JAG counsel, even if they were already represented privately, in order to remove any question at all that defendants were somehow shortchanged through unfamiliarity with military process. A relatively recent case involving the Presidio comes to mind, but not the details.

But as far as I know, there’s no abrogation of rights between the two systems.

296 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:49:57pm

re: #284 recusancy

How does locking them in a hole and doing what we wish “pay attention to the underlying ideologies or networks”.

Ahhh… So you’re probably implying that I’m a terrorist lover being that I don’t defend Israel no matter what. Israel can do what they want with their criminals and terrorists as per their laws. I’m not an Israeli citizen. I do care what America does.

And so that means that your position is that transnational conspiracies to slaughter Americans and others in support of the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate and the armed conquest of territory is on a par with, let us say, armed robbery.

297 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:50:23pm

re: #286 charlz

Are you saying they wouldn’t receive the same or similar legal protection at a military trial?

They would fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is a separate legal system still under the jurisdiction of Congress, the Executive and the SCOTUS. It also has it’s own appellate court system. I trust the UCMJ would be adequately fair in granting rights and protections to men we are gracious enough to grant them to despite no legal requirement on our part to do so.

298 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:50:28pm

re: #293 recusancy

What LVQ said. If we combat this ideology/network the way we tried to fight state nations then we lose.

calls more for a teaching moment over a couple of beers, right?

299 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:50:28pm

re: #287 sattv4u2

tribunals do not allow for full rights
re: #277 Sharmuta

recusancy,, maybe while they’re in New York, we can take them to a Broadway play and dinner at Tavern On the Green. How bout we let them vote in a local election or two? While we’re at it, we should give them food stamps!

maybe instead of shooting them on the battlefield, we could fly them to a tropical island, provide them with three hots and a cot and then give them better medical care than they’ve ever received in their entire life.

300 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:50:46pm

re: #294 LudwigVanQuixote

You were talking about the second world war. That’s not particularly strong as a come back.

You’re defining them as comparable to agents of an established nation, not me.

301 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:51:06pm

re: #287 sattv4u2

maybe while they’re in New York, we can take them to a Broadway play and dinner at Tavern On the Green. How bout we let them vote in a local election or two? While we’re at it, we should give them food stamps!

C’mon, you couldn’t work in ACORN and abortion?

302 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:51:12pm

re: #285 LudwigVanQuixote

Only that there is no declared war to end. Terrorists are nothing more or less than criminals. They should be treated as such - in a criminal court.

Honk! Wrong! Back to the end of the line.

303 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:51:37pm

re: #285 LudwigVanQuixote

Only that there is no declared war to end. Terrorists are nothing more or less than criminals. They should be treated as such - in a criminal court.

Wrong. Domestic terrorists like Hasan have rights, but not foreign terrorists. Foreign terrorists have no rights other than to be treated humanely while in custody.
They can legally be shot on sight.

304 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:51:38pm

re: #298 sattv4u2

calls more for a teaching moment over a couple of beers, right?

I think once we get this all sorted out, we’ll find out that KSM acted stupidly…

305 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:51:53pm

re: #290 Fenway_Nation

Thought I’d fix that for ya.

I’m not worried about how our enemies see us. I’m worried about the uncorrupted young who are on the fence about America and who could become recruitable to their cause.

We must win the hearts and minds of those who could possibly become our enemy. Not those who already are.

306 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:51:54pm

re: #270 Sam N

Did Obama ever have a ‘death panels’ moment


“I don’t know all the facts, but the cambridge (MAss) police acted stupidly”

THIS from the POTUS !

307 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:52:21pm

re: #301 MinisterO

C’mon, you couldn’t work in ACORN and abortion?

fingers got tired!

308 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:52:27pm

re: #289 ArchangelMichael

If you wish to shoehorn Al Qaeda terrorists and the like into the definition of espionage and sabotage, then they would be getting a military tribunal and not a federal civil trial with grandstanding ACLU lawyers having access to classified material.

NO I wish to see them treated as criminals and given criminal trials. They are no different than any other mass murderer. Try them as such and execute them if there is sufficient evidence. Make us a beacon of actually being a just nation to the world, and we win a vastly larger victory.

309 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:52:51pm

re: #296 Guanxi88

And so that means that your position is that transnational conspiracies to slaughter Americans and others in support of the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate and the armed conquest of territory is on a par with, let us say, armed robbery.

No. Do you think that a pick pocket is on par with a serial killer or a pedophile? Because they both go through the same system.

310 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:53:32pm

re: #303 Spare O’Lake

Wrong. Domestic terrorists like Hasan have rights, but not foreign terrorists. Foreign terrorists have no rights other than to be treated humanely while in custody.
They can legally be shot on sight.

If you catch them in the act certainly!

Once you capture them though and take them in alive, it is another matter.

What did we do with the shoe bomber? That worked out pretty well.

311 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:53:39pm

re: #284 recusancy

How does locking them in a hole and doing what we wish “pay attention to the underlying ideologies or networks”.

Ahhh… So you’re probably implying that I’m a terrorist lover being that I don’t defend Israel no matter what. Israel can do what they want with their criminals and terrorists as per their laws. I’m not an Israeli citizen. I do care what America does.

Because while we had them in “the hole” that was the base at Gitmo, we were interrogating them and gaining information that was used to make their comrades dead and to frustrate their plans. Dragging them into a scenario where the first words we say to them are “You have the right to remain silent” sorta kinda makes interrogation difficult.

American law allows us to try these guys before military tribunals. Why isn’t that good enough for you and AG Holder?

And as for Israel, say no more.

312 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:53:40pm

re: #246 MinisterO

You’re joking, right?

Um, no, I’m not. Read them.

Unlawful Combatant
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977


Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

Unlawful combatants and legal protections

In addition, according to Convention 1, mercenaries are not entitled to POW status. One can make a very vaild argument that the jihadis are mercenaries.

313 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:53:47pm

re: #303 Spare O’Lake

Wrong. Domestic terrorists like Hasan have rights, but not foreign terrorists. Foreign terrorists have no rights other than to be treated humanely while in custody.
They can legally be shot on sight.

Well, not exactly. Once they’re taken into custody, the whole shooting on sight thing goes straight out the window. It’s only applicable on the battlefield.

I think that’s what you meant, but it didn’t seem clear.

314 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:54:14pm

re: #293 recusancy

What LVQ said. If we combat this ideology/network the way we tried to fight state nations then we lose.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should not deal with them as criminals nor as illegal-combatants, but as … what?
How about we deny them ANY kindness, rights or trial and shoot them where they stand? After all, they’re sole reason for being is to kill as many of us as possible, and if they die in the process, hell, they get to go their version of Celestial Disneyland. Seems to me a win-win solution. No terrorist to feed and house, they get their 72 Raisins, which is something like a reward for them.

315 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:54:48pm

re: #305 recusancy

I’m not worried about how our enemies see us. I’m worried about the uncorrupted young who are on the fence about America and who could become recruitable to their cause.

We must win the hearts and minds of those who could possibly become our enemy. Not those who already are.

Which is why we distinguish ourselves buy acting as an honorable nation of laws!

What disgusts me about this thread is the number of people who seem to not give a damn about that.

316 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:54:50pm

re: #309 recusancy

No. Do you think that a pick pocket is on par with a serial killer or a pedophile? Because they both go through the same system.

nope, but at least the perpetrators are US citizens…

317 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:55:30pm

re: #315 LudwigVanQuixote

Which is why we distinguish ourselves buy acting as an honorable nation of laws!

What disgusts me about this thread is the number of people who seem to not give a damn about that.

What part of military tribunals is against our laws?

318 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:55:30pm

re: #315 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF!

Which is why we distinguish ourselves by acting as an honorable nation of laws!

What disgusts me about this thread is the number of people who seem to not give a damn about that.

319 HoosierHoops  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:55:41pm

re: #308 LudwigVanQuixote

NO I wish to see them treated as criminals and given criminal trials. They are no different than any other mass murderer. Try them as such and execute them if there is sufficient evidence. Make us a beacon of actually being a just nation to the world, and we win a vastly larger victory.

The whole problem with this argument isn’t the rights of terrorists…It’s the discovery process…Every secret will be revealed in public court.
Thank you AG Holder…

320 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:56:01pm

I’m disappointed that we don’t do that inalienable rights thing anymore. I always thought it was a nice feature.

321 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:56:31pm

re: #309 recusancy

No. Do you think that a pick pocket is on par with a serial killer or a pedophile? Because they both go through the same system.

Both are individual criminal actions, conducted in pursuit of criminal means. A pickpocket seeks gain or pleasure at the expense of another, as do the serial killers and the pedophiles. Their actions do not, however, serve any larger project relating to the laws of the nation in which they live or operate. The pickpocket isn’t snagging wallets in order to set up a republic of pickpockets, the serial killer isn’t killing to secure political support for a new system of law based on what the neighbor’s dog told him, and the pedophiles (except for NAMBLA) don’t seek to use pedophilia in order to establish a regime where their practices are normative.

These are not difficult distinctions to make, not difficult at all.

322 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:56:51pm

re: #316 Charpete67

nope, but at least the perpetrators are US citizens…

Not always.

323 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:57:03pm

re: #317 Sharmuta

What part of military tribunals is against our laws?

I have no problem with sending them promptly to a proper military tribunal that has proper oversights - if they are captured by the military, it is done speedily, and not turned into a mismanaged fiasco that stains our honor as a nation.

324 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:57:32pm

re: #305 recusancy

I’d like the enemies of this country to understand something more dire could happen to them than a lengthy trial and the nationa they’ve sworn to destroy providing them with 3 square meals a day if they choose to attack us or have their proxies attack us.

325 Jack Burton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:57:38pm

re: #308 LudwigVanQuixote

NO I wish to see them treated as criminals and given criminal trials. They are no different than any other mass murderer. Try them as such and execute them if there is sufficient evidence. Make us a beacon of actually being a just nation to the world, and we win a vastly larger victory.

You said you wanted to extend the definition of sabotage to include this. Under Geneva conventions, those people get a military tribunal, not Alan Deshowitz.

326 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:57:40pm

re: #146 erraticsphinx

Off topic:

Tom Tancredo is running for Governor of Colorado.

Yeah.

The only problem with that is that it seems that most in Colorado really hate border security, and would probably prefer a plantation state…

327 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:58:01pm

re: #318 LudwigVanQuixote

Calm down. Typos mean you are human. We know what you meant.

328 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:58:17pm

re: #319 HoosierHoops

The whole problem with this argument isn’t the rights of terrorists…It’s the discovery process…Every secret will be revealed in public court.
Thank you AG Holder…

And yet, there are all manner of federal laws in place that curtail that problem. Secret evidence has been given to federal judges to review before. Witness protections exist. All sorts of things curtail that.

329 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:58:25pm

re: #322 recusancy

Not always.

they should be…but I would still argue that even in that case, they committed the crime while in our country.

330 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:59:20pm

re: #325 ArchangelMichael

You said you wanted to extend the definition of sabotage to include this. Under Geneva conventions, those people get a military tribunal, not Alan Deshowitz.

If they are captured by the military then sure.

If they are captured by a civilian arm of justice, then they go to federal court.

331 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:59:23pm

re: #305 recusancy

I’m not worried about how our enemies see us. I’m worried about the uncorrupted young who are on the fence about America and who could become recruitable to their cause.

We must win the hearts and minds of those who could possibly become our enemy. Not those who already are.

C’mon. Flush out your head-gear, new guy. This is a slaughter. You go up against their religio-fundamentalism and passion. This is not about a politics, this is about their single-minded desire to impose their twisted version of Islam on all of us, including you.

332 Jack Burton  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:59:46pm

re: #323 LudwigVanQuixote

I have no problem with sending them promptly to a proper military tribunal that has proper oversights - if they are captured by the military, it is done speedily, and not turned into a mismanaged fiasco that stains our honor as a nation.

This I can agree with. GITMO shouldn’t have been necessary because we should have put the detainees into that tribunal system post haste. Who was it that bitched and moaned about doing that… oh yeah… democrats and the left.

That’s why Camp X-Ray had to be replaced by GITMO.

333 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:59:48pm

re: #305 recusancy

I’m not worried about how our enemies see us. I’m worried about the uncorrupted young who are on the fence about America and who could become recruitable to their cause.

We must win the hearts and minds of those who could possibly become our enemy. Not those who already are.

Maybe it’s time to worry instead about winning through strength and willingness to exercise the necessary power with extreme prejudice to those who would kill your civilians.

334 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:59:54pm

re: #323 LudwigVanQuixote

I have no problem with sending them promptly to a proper military tribunal that has proper oversights - if they are captured by the military, it is done speedily, and not turned into a mismanaged fiasco that stains our honor as a nation.

What makes you think the proceedings would be anything other than run with precision by the greatest military even known on earth? All while likely being more open about the proceedings than any other country would likely be in our place?

335 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:00:17pm

re: #324 Fenway_Nation

I’d like the enemies of this country to understand something more dire could happen to them than a lengthy trial and the nationa they’ve sworn to destroy providing them with 3 square meals a day if they choose to attack us or have their proxies attack us.

I’m pretty sure they aren’t worried about dire things happening to them. 72 virgins and all.

336 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:01:02pm

re: #334 Sharmuta

What makes you think the proceedings would be anything other than run with precision by the greatest military even known on earth? All while likely being more open about the proceedings than any other country would likely be in our place?

zactly!

337 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:01:37pm

re: #320 MinisterO

I’m disappointed that we don’t do that inalienable rights thing anymore. I always thought it was a nice feature.

As Ludwig will tell you, I’m a little bit slow

Explain to me…IN DETAIL…why foreign nationals who plot and carry out attacks against American servicemen and civilians are supposed to be granted inalienable rights, fucking tool…

338 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:01:40pm

re: #334 Sharmuta

What makes you think the proceedings would be anything other than run with precision by the greatest military even known on earth? All while likely being more open about the proceedings than any other country would likely be in our place?

When do we throw in this…

mebbe now?

339 HoosierHoops  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:01:52pm

re: #328 LudwigVanQuixote

And yet, there are all manner of federal laws in place that curtail that problem. Secret evidence has been given to federal judges to review before. Witness protections exist. All sorts of things curtail that.

And how did that work in the 1993 trial of the first world trade center bombings? The terrorists found out just about our entire wiretap operations and tapes…America got fucked flat out…
But hey who cares? This guys have professed their guilt already…But they will plead not guilty and have the entire discovery at their disposal…

340 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:02:58pm

It really is too bad they weren’t put before a tribunal years ago and promptly shot. That I will agree with.

Assuming we learned all we could from them.

341 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:03:30pm

re: #339 HoosierHoops

And how did that work in the 1993 trial of the first world trade center bombings? The terrorists found out just about our entire wiretap operations and tapes…America got fucked flat out…
But hey who cares? This guys have professed their guilt already…But they will plead not guilty and have the entire discovery at their disposal…

Yes- now they can orchestrate a circus for years on end while railing against the system that’s giving them the propaganda platform to do it.

342 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:04:03pm

re: #313 SixDegrees

Well, not exactly. Once they’re taken into custody, the whole shooting on sight thing goes straight out the window. It’s only applicable on the battlefield.

I think that’s what you meant, but it didn’t seem clear.

Yes that is exactly what I meant.
Although it would in my opinion be legal to fly them back to their places of capture, release them with a 5 minute headstart, and then hunt them down and kill them.
Oh yes.

343 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:05:25pm

re: #320 MinisterO

I’m disappointed that we don’t do that inalienable rights thing anymore. I always thought it was a nice feature.

U.S. citizens have still have these rights protected by the U.S. government when last I checked.
These terrorists are not U.S. citizens. They detest our philosophy of laws and rights enough to want to destroy it. They reject our social contract. Fair enough, so we won’t apply it to them.

344 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:05:31pm

re: #342 Spare O’Lake

Yes that is exactly what I meant.
Although it would in my opinion be legal to fly them back to their places of capture, release them with a 5 minute headstart, and then hunt them down and kill them.
Oh yes.

Why does every conservative think they’re John Wayne?

345 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:05:57pm

New transcripts released by the Pentagon show that the man considered to be the chief mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has admitted he is responsible for the terrorist attacks from “a to z”.

Mohammed has also acknowledged being responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as other attempted terrorist attacks around the world in the years since.

The confessions come from a transcript of a hearing held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Saturday in which the Al Qaeda terrorist also acknowledged a plot to assassinate Bill Clinton while the former president was visiting the Philippines in 1994. The transcripts also show Mohammed admitted to plotting the October 2002 terrorist attack in Bali, Indonesia.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

346 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:06:02pm

re: #341 Sharmuta

Yes- now they can orchestrate a circus for years on end while railing against the system that’s giving them the propaganda platform to do it.

If these trials are still going on in 2012, does this have a chance of…

…nah…

347 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:06:29pm

re: #330 LudwigVanQuixote

If they are captured by the military then sure.

If they are captured by a civilian arm of justice, then they go to federal court.

And just who, pray tell, captured these unlawful combatants out in the field? Hint, it was not any civilian arm of justice.

348 HoosierHoops  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:06:58pm

re: #344 recusancy

Why does every conservative think they’re John Wayne?

I’m more of a Steve Nash guy…

349 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:07:06pm

re: #334 Sharmuta

What makes you think the proceedings would be anything other than run with precision by the greatest military even known on earth? All while likely being more open about the proceedings than any other country would likely be in our place?

How can you imagine that the military never fucks up?

Why do soldiers have words like SNAFU?

How can you imagine that the forces of fear and overzealousness would not net a large number of innocents as well as the guilty?

How many kids are on the no fly list for having the wrong name?

I am not against giving terrorists the justice they deserve.

What I am against is shoddy work that nabs the innocent and keeps them for years without trial.

What I am against is the innocent executed in the rush to kill the guilty.

If you have them in custody, they are not going anywhere. It is not a battlefield situation. There is no reason that you can not take enough time to have some sort of due process.

If the people involved fall under military jurisdiction, then so be it. My argument is that there should be a speedy and fair trial. See to it the JAG has orders to do a proper and honorable job - not a rush ob that will increase the risk of executing the innocent and that is fine.

Otherwise send them to federal court.

Either way, show the world and ourselves that we live up to our principles.

Either way, prove that those principles can not be eroded even by terrorists and don’t give them that victory.

You want to stop the bad guys ideology from spreading, then show through our actions, that we have a better one.

350 mikhailtheplumber  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:07:24pm

re: #25 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohhh sweet Sarah, Saint soccer ball, moosebane!

You are an amazon warrior for old fashioned values!

You fight to keep women in their place!

///You stole that last line from the my ode to Phillis Schlafly!

351 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:07:31pm

re: #344 recusancy

Why does every conservative think they’re John Wayne?

cuz John is kool

352 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:08:36pm

re: #347 Honorary Yooper

And just who, pray tell, captured these unlawful combatants out in the field? Hint, it was not any civilian arm of justice.

I think KSM was pulled over for a broken tail light and then when they ran his drivers license #, they found out about the warrants…

353 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:09:27pm

re: #352 Charpete67

I think KSM was pulled over for a broken tail light and then when they ran his drivers license #, they found out about the warrants…

Yeah, it was definitely as case of DWT*.

*Driving while terrorist.

354 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:09:32pm

re: #344 recusancy

Why does every conservative think they’re John Wayne?

guns/penises…

355 recusancy  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:10:24pm

re: #351 Charpete67

cuz John is kool

They wet themselves if a terrorist touches American soil in shackles and an orange jump suit, but they concoct inane cowboy and indian fantasies about hunting them down with their bare hands.

356 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:11:36pm

re: #344 recusancy

Why does every conservative think they’re John Wayne?

Why does every liberal paint us as John Wayne?

357 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:11:50pm

re: #353 Honorary Yooper

Yeah, it was definitely as case of DWT*.

*Driving while terrorist.

so…profiling works?

358 sattv4u2  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:12:37pm

re: #323 LudwigVanQuixote

I have no problem with sending them promptly to a proper military tribunal that has proper oversights - if they are captured by the military, it is done speedily, and not turned into a mismanaged fiasco that stains our honor as a nation.

Talk to your POTUS and AG about that, then!

359 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:12:45pm

re: #339 HoosierHoops

And how did that work in the 1993 trial of the first world trade center bombings? The terrorists found out just about our entire wiretap operations and tapes…America got fucked flat out…
But hey who cares? This guys have professed their guilt already…But they will plead not guilty and have the entire discovery at their disposal…

And the alternative in that case would have been what exactly? There are valid differing options for trying the 9/11 masterminds, due to the fact that they were captured far outside the USA, but the 1993 bombers did their evil right here. Would military tribunals have been a legal option? Failing that, how about secret government courts? Trial by mob? Execution without trial in a naval brig?

Seriously, we’re better than all that! Oh and please tell me how we got fucked flat out by the 1993 trial. Did these dummies gain so much by learning that they were under surveillance?

360 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:13:03pm

re: #356 Gang of One

Why does every liberal paint us as John Wayne?

see my #351

361 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:13:06pm

re: #356 Gang of One

Why does every liberal paint us as John Wayne?

That is one thing liberals can do well, paint with a broad brush.

362 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:13:21pm

re: #355 recusancy

They wet themselves if a terrorist touches American soil in shackles and an orange jump suit, but they concoct inane cowboy and indian fantasies about hunting them down with their bare hands.

Broadest brush evar!!11!

363 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:13:24pm

re: #354 LudwigVanQuixote

guns/penises…

Both with repeating action and long barrels.

364 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:13:40pm

re: #355 recusancy

They wet themselves if a terrorist touches American soil in shackles and an orange jump suit, but they concoct inane cowboy and indian fantasies about hunting them down with their bare hands.

Now you’re beginning to sound like my 9th graders. Don’t go there.

365 HoosierHoops  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:14:47pm

re: #359 Surabaya Stew

Good points.. I really don’t have the answers

366 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:15:02pm

re: #363 Spare O’Lake

Both with repeating action and long barrels.

Touch my gun it becomes a rifle!

367 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:15:11pm

re: #201 Slumbering Behemoth

Unlawful Combatants.

I’m not sure that’s a perfect definition, although it certainly does fit them. The problem is that while there’s a war, there ARE no lawful combatants on one side of it.

368 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:15:28pm

re: #363 Spare O’Lake

Both with repeating action and long barrels.

At least you didn’t make a pun about heavy loads…

369 sagehen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:15:34pm

re: #265 Charpete67

honestly, I don’t give a shit about people who fly planes into buildings and kill 3000 people.

Do you give a shit that your grandchildren in 50 years should have documentary evidence to shove up the 9/11 deniers’ asses when somebody tries to claim it didn’t happen, or that it was done by somebody other than who got executed for it?

Part of why we have trials is to create a record.

Holocaust deniers are enough of a problem as it is, imagine if there were no Nuremberg transcripts to wave in the faces of people they’ve almost convinced.

370 Charpete67  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:15:54pm

re: #366 Gang of One

Touch my gun it becomes a rifle!

better have that safety on…

371 SixDegrees  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:16:14pm

re: #343 Gang of One

U.S. citizens have still have these rights protected by the U.S. government when last I checked.
These terrorists are not U.S. citizens. They detest our philosophy of laws and rights enough to want to destroy it. They reject our social contract. Fair enough, so we won’t apply it to them.

Actually, everyone on United States territory enjoys those rights, citizen or not.

It’s one of the reasons Gitmo was chosen for detention, rather than, say, Hoboken. It isn’t officially US territory, as I understand it. It’s Cuban soil, under American control, but it is one of the few places on earth where US sovereignty doesn’t exist to the extent of providing extension of the legal rights enjoyed within the US itself, on the grounds of it’s embassies and in a handful of other jurisdictions, like Puerto Rico, which is an unincorporated territory.

But the point is that citizenship isn’t the point.

372 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:16:23pm

re: #349 LudwigVanQuixote

If the people involved fall under military jurisdiction, then so be it. My argument is that there should be a speedy and fair trial. See to it the JAG has orders to do a proper and honorable job - not a rush ob that will increase the risk of executing the innocent and that is fine.

You’re assuming perhaps they’re not already doing this? These men have been provided and cared for while in our custody, and we’ve been more than humane and merciful, imo. They do not fall under any jurisdiction, and that is the point we continue to point out to you and others. That we’ve agreed to give them a military tribunal is more than fair on our part. That we’d extend that to grant them federal court protections is outrageous.

373 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:17:41pm

re: #223 Irish Rose

Former President Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush were at Fort Hood the day after the massacre. They requested zero press coverage and spent hours comforting the wounded, their families and the families of the fallen.

If you were to ask those wounded service members, their families and base security if they thought that the Bushes were “monkeying up the works” at Fort Hood the day after the incident I’m pretty sure that their answer would have been “no”.

They no longer travel with the inconveniences that accompany a serving president.

374 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:18:10pm

re: #371 SixDegrees

Actually, everyone on United States territory enjoys those rights, citizen or not.

It’s one of the reasons Gitmo was chosen for detention, rather than, say, Hoboken. It isn’t officially US territory, as I understand it. It’s Cuban soil, under American control, but it is one of the few places on earth where US sovereignty doesn’t exist to the extent of providing extension of the legal rights enjoyed within the US itself, on the grounds of it’s embassies and in a handful of other jurisdictions, like Puerto Rico, which is an unincorporated territory.

But the point is that citizenship isn’t the point.

Yes, exactly. Our rights and laws only exist within our territory.

375 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:18:24pm

re: #355 recusancy

They wet themselves if a terrorist touches American soil in shackles and an orange jump suit, but they concoct inane cowboy and indian fantasies about hunting them down with their bare hands.

That may be your fantasy - it sure ain’t mine.
Kapow.

376 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:19:02pm

re: #372 Sharmuta

You’re assuming perhaps they’re not already doing this? These men have been provided and cared for while in our custody, and we’ve been more than humane and merciful, imo. They do not fall under any jurisdiction, and that is the point we continue to point out to you and others. That we’ve agreed to give them a military tribunal is more than fair on our part. That we’d extend that to grant them federal court protections is outrageous.

Many were tortured.

That is against the law.

Some were actually innocent and picked up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure we took years of their lives, but we humanely fed them.

Sharm I expect better from you.

The bottom line is that a nation of laws gives a speedy and fair hearing.

We purposefully put them in Gitmo to avoid having to do that.

That is against everything we should be standing for.

377 charlz  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:19:39pm

re: #297 Sharmuta

They would fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is a separate legal system still under the jurisdiction of Congress, the Executive and the SCOTUS. It also has it’s own appellate court system. I trust the UCMJ would be adequately fair in granting rights and protections to men we are gracious enough to grant them to despite no legal requirement on our part to do so.

Supreme Court: Guantanamo Detainees Have Rights in Court

I’m well aware that this was a closely decided case, but this paragraph seems apposite here:

The case is one of the most significant wartime cases in a half century. It was filed on behalf of Lakmar Boumediene and other detainees who the United States is currently holding at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. Oral arguments came replete with references to wartime legal issues dating back centuries as attorneys sparred with justices over the rights of the 270 foreign nationals currently held at Guantanamo who were captured both on and off the battlefield in an unconventional war.
378 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:19:43pm

re: #234 Gang of One

That’s the problem here, the openness. Too much classified info goes to the wrong people. Is it possible that a truly guilty person cannot meet justice in a military tribunal? We are not talking drumhead justice here. UCMJ is not Medieval. And the torture meme … our own soldiers ‘suffer’ the waterboarding.

Why do our own soldiers get waterboarded? To make their coats shiny?

379 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:20:46pm

re: #376 LudwigVanQuixote

Sharm I expect better from you.

This argument won’t work on me… don’t try it again.

380 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:20:50pm

And fillet,

I understand that you hate the notion of American laws. Why not move to Russia? Their courts work more to your approval.

381 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:20:57pm

re: #365 HoosierHoops

Good points.. I really don’t have the answers

I don’t either, but unless evidence proves otherwise, the way in which we prosecuted the 1993 WTC bombers was as effective a process that existed as an option at the time.

382 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:21:02pm

re: #378 SanFranciscoZionist

Why do our own soldiers get waterboarded? To make their coats shiny?

SERE training.

Survival
Escape
Resistance
Evasion

383 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:21:18pm

re: #378 SanFranciscoZionist

Why do our own soldiers get waterboarded? To make their coats shiny?

No. To familiarize them with certain unpleasant interrogation techniques, should they be captured, I believe.

384 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:22:39pm

re: #379 Sharmuta

This argument won’t work on me… don’t try it again.

OK, then respectfully, what about the other ones?

I am not your foe. You know I like you. However, I think you are wrong here.

We have to do as honest, fair and speedy a trial as possible if only to maintain that we are more honorable than those we fight.

Then there is the issue of those who were actually innocent.

What about them?

When do they get a fair hearing?

385 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:22:41pm

re: #368 LudwigVanQuixote

At least you didn’t make a pun about heavy loads…

Or shooting one’s wad.

386 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:23:21pm

re: #385 Spare O’Lake

Or shooting one’s wad.

Come on… that was over the top!

387 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:23:35pm

re: #380 LudwigVanQuixote

And fillet,

I understand that you hate the notion of American laws. Why not move to Russia? Their courts work more to your approval.

Silly…lol, a tribunal would be more than they deserve. These are not criminals.

388 Sharmuta  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:23:44pm

re: #384 LudwigVanQuixote

I told you not to pull that argument with me again. It’s not working.

389 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:26:29pm

re: #380 LudwigVanQuixote

And fillet,

I understand that you hate the notion of American laws. Why not move to Russia? Their courts work more to your approval.

LVQ, you should be ashamed for suggesting such a thing. So far as I can tell, no one here’s accused you of sympathy for these people, their cause, or the actions they took. No one’s accused you of harboring sympathy for them, or relishing the thought of their success.

And yet, you immediately assume that suggesting they be tried in military tribunals, as law and precedent allow and call for, is hatred of American law.

390 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:26:33pm

re: #337 Fenway_Nation

Explain to me…IN DETAIL…why foreign nationals who plot and carry out attacks against American servicemen and civilians are supposed to be granted inalienable rights, fucking tool…

This is a simple a matter of understanding what the words mean. One is not granted inalienable rights. There’s no qualifying requirement. One simply possesses inalienable rights by virtue of being. It’s one of the founding principles of the nation. They even wrote it down.

It disappoints me that so many of my countrymen reject the concept.

391 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:26:53pm

re: #96 Charpete67

he quit his Senate seat after 2 years and any 8th grader could tell you that we don’t have 57 states. You don’t like Palin, fine, but take the scales off of your eyes and admit that Obama was treated far more favorably by the press than Palin.

Oh, Obama was! Palin made news often during the campaign for saying embarrassing and weird things, and the news likes covering famous people who say embarrassing and weird things. Also, she has a zany family. The strange families of famous people are also great grist for the media mill.

She was taken apart by the press, but she bears some responsibility for it. Just like Obama bears some responsibility for manipulating the media and making it work for him. The press is a dumb beast, it’s not a bunch of conspirators all working in concert. Obama was savvy and good at working them, Palin was not.

392 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:27:04pm

re: #388 Sharmuta

I told you not to pull that argument with me again. It’s not working.

What the argument that some of the detainees were actually innocent?

Why doesn’t that matter?

Or the argument that as Americans we are taught to value certain rights and liberties as protected by the law?

I am not saying just let the terrorists go Sharmuta. IN fact I was pretty clear that we should execute the guilty ones.

What is so terrible about living up to the actual standards this nation claims to love?

393 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:28:26pm

re: #390 MinisterO

This is a simple a matter of understanding what the words mean. One is not granted inalienable rights. There’s no qualifying requirement. One simply possesses inalienable rights by virtue of being. It’s one of the founding principles of the nation. They even wrote it down.

It disappoints me that so many of my countrymen reject the concept.

The inaleinable rights bit (its unalienable, but never mind) is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document. You might as well drag in the Gettysburg address or the Marc Antony’s funeral oration, for all the relevance.

394 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:29:05pm

re: #389 Guanxi88

No worries mate, I try and take LVQ serious, he has good points sometimes, he just muddles them with a variety of old and tired insults. Nothing that would bother an old thick skin like me.

395 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:29:28pm

re: #382 Guanxi88

SERE training.

Survival
Escape
Resistance
Evasion

Right. It’s used to prepare men for possible torture. Because it’s a form of torture. Can we PLEASE stop acting as though waterboarding’s use in SERE training somehow means it’s not a form of torture?

396 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:29:52pm

re: #389 Guanxi88

LVQ, you should be ashamed for suggesting such a thing. So far as I can tell, no one here’s accused you of sympathy for these people, their cause, or the actions they took. No one’s accused you of harboring sympathy for them, or relishing the thought of their success.

And yet, you immediately assume that suggesting they be tried in military tribunals, as law and precedent allow and call for, is hatred of American law.

NO I did not say that. In fact I said very clearly that a properly run, speedy and fair military tribunal in cases that fall under military jurisdiction is fine.

I said that about three times.

What you are immediately assuming is that somehow, if a case falls under federal jurisdiction, that too is wrong.

What you are assuming is that it is somehow ok to detain people for years on end without hope of a trial.

What you are assuming is that such things are consonant with American values.

News Flash: They are not. However, the Russians and the Chinese certainly do roll that way.

397 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:30:52pm

re: #395 SanFranciscoZionist

Right. It’s used to prepare men for possible torture. Because it’s a form of torture. Can we PLEASE stop acting as though waterboarding’s use in SERE training somehow means it’s not a form of torture?

‘Course it’s torture. I have evolved my position on this thing. Yeah, it’s torture within the common meaning of the term. I don’t have a problem with it being used, recognizing as I do that it compromises us morally.

398 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:31:26pm

re: #390 MinisterO

This is a simple a matter of understanding what the words mean. One is not granted inalienable rights. There’s no qualifying requirement. One simply possesses inalienable rights by virtue of being. It’s one of the founding principles of the nation. They even wrote it down.

It disappoints me that so many of my countrymen reject the concept.

Who, where and how are ‘they’ rejecting these rights? These people were not American citizens on American soil. Those rights though inalienable and possessed by everyone, are protect ONLY on American soil.

399 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:32:41pm

re: #396 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually, I said up thread that they should have been taken before a tribunal years ago. And then shot.

How come that didn’t happen? Not the shot part, but why wasn’t GB able to get them in front of a tribunal years ago? I thought he tried?

400 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:33:03pm

re: #330 LudwigVanQuixote

As pointed out by others, Noriega was sent to Federal court…so, explain why Omar Khadr is going to a military tribunal..

401 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:33:04pm

re: #394 filetandrelease

No worries mate, I try and take LVQ serious, he has good points sometimes, he just muddles them with a variety of old and tired insults. Nothing that would bother an old thick skin like me.

What insult?

Seriously, either you believe in due process of law, that is the American IDeal, or you believe that the state can do as it pleases with people (which is what we did at Gitmo) which is how the Russians and the Chinese do things.

That is reality.

402 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:34:03pm

re: #399 filetandrelease

Actually, I said up thread that they should have been taken before a tribunal years ago. And then shot.

How come that didn’t happen? Not the shot part, but why wasn’t GB able to get them in front of a tribunal years ago? I thought he tried?

There were a lot of concerns about the fair part.

403 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:34:14pm

re: #396 LudwigVanQuixote

NO I did not say that. In fact I said very clearly that a properly run, speedy and fair military tribunal in cases that fall under military jurisdiction is fine.

I said that about three times.

What you are immediately assuming is that somehow, if a case falls under federal jurisdiction, that too is wrong.

What you are assuming is that it is somehow ok to detain people for years on end without hope of a trial.

What you are assuming is that such things are consonant with American values.

News Flash: They are not. However, the Russians and the Chinese certainly do roll that way.

Then take it up with the Chinese and the Russians. We would have been more than pleased to try them before tribunals shortly after their capture, but you may recall the previous administration (the one BHO - easily one of the greatest leaders in history - is cleaning up after) wanted to do this very thing, and got nothing but grief for it. They sat in Cuba because they were the legal equivalent of radioactive waste - no one wanted them, everyone knew something had to be done, but no one knew what it ought to be.

Oh, and you may not have heard, but we have released a number of Gitmo guests, some of whom were found to be innocent, others of whom returned to the jihad. We didn’t just sit on these guys forever.

404 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:34:17pm

re: #396 LudwigVanQuixote

NO I did not say that. In fact I said very clearly that a properly run, speedy and fair military tribunal in cases that fall under military jurisdiction is fine.

I said that about three times.

What you are immediately assuming is that somehow, if a case falls under federal jurisdiction, that too is wrong.

What you are assuming is that it is somehow ok to detain people for years on end without hope of a trial.

What you are assuming is that such things are consonant with American values.

News Flash: They are not. However, the Russians and the Chinese certainly do roll that way.

Your sactimony is wearing thin, and whining commie is bullshit too.
Terrorists are entitled to less rights than POW’s not more rights.
What is the matter with you?

405 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:35:16pm

re: #404 Spare O’Lake

Your sactimony is wearing thin, and whining commie is bullshit too.
Terrorists are entitled to less rights than POW’s not more rights.
What is the matter with you?

LVQ is better than you are, you just don’t see it.
//

406 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:35:49pm

re: #400 J.S.

As pointed out by others, Noriega was sent to Federal court…so, explain why Omar Khadr is going to a military tribunal..

Honestly I can not in legal terms.

In political terms, it was a matter of where they thought they could get a conviction while showing the world that we were acting under a system of laws.

Noriega got a fair trial to the best of my knowledge. The fact that he did justified our going into Panama.

This is a point lost on many here.

407 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:36:21pm

re: #402 LudwigVanQuixote

There were a lot of concerns about the fair part.

Naturally, a military tribunal can’t be fair. Why, everyone who’s ever come before one ends up dead or locked up to be waterboarded til the sweet release of death.

408 sagehen  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:36:29pm

re: #399 filetandrelease

Actually, I said up thread that they should have been taken before a tribunal years ago. And then shot.

How come that didn’t happen? Not the shot part, but why wasn’t GB able to get them in front of a tribunal years ago? I thought he tried?

Because he didn’t want to use the existing military tribunal process He made up a whole new procedure, that didn’t pass SCOTUS muster.

409 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:36:42pm

re: #402 LudwigVanQuixote

There were a lot of concerns about the fair part.

Serveral have and are going to be tried in tribunals, were they not and are they not fair?

That seems a silly arguement to make. After all, how are they to receive a fair trial in NY?

410 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:37:15pm

re: #406 LudwigVanQuixote

Honestly I can not in legal terms.

In political terms, it was a matter of where they thought they could get a conviction while showing the world that we were acting under a system of laws.

Noriega got a fair trial to the best of my knowledge. The fact that he did justified our going into Panama.

This is a point lost on many here.

Noriega was a leader of an established government. That is a point lost on you.

If a court trial’s the thing, then why not court trials for all? Why are some facing the evil unfair tribunals?

411 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:38:29pm

re: #406 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, well, I don’t get it either…(unless of course one cynically concludes that these are all Show Trials.)

412 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:38:49pm

re: #404 Spare O’Lake

Your sactimony is wearing thin, and whining commie is bullshit too.
Terrorists are entitled to less rights than POW’s not more rights.
What is the matter with you?

Interesting that because I hate the lack of Justice in Russia and China, I am a commie now…

If shouting that we need rule of law and due process as a nation and this is what proud republics do, then no doubt you find, Adams, Washington, Jefferson et al to be equally sanctimonious, commie and whiny.

On this issue above many others the right prove itself to be the most obnoxious of hypocrites. Either you care about principoles of justice and liberty and rule of law or you do not.

And here I have lots of so called conservative defenders of these notions calling them commie.

HYPOCRITE!

413 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:38:56pm

re: #408 sagehen

Because he didn’t want to use the existing military tribunal process He made up a whole new procedure, that didn’t pass SCOTUS muster.

Yeah, the idea that maybe the intel sources used to build the case ought not to be released was problematic. No sarc, it really IS a problem, from a variety of angles.

414 palomino  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:41:02pm

Beyond superficial characteristics like youthfulness and “sex appeal”, the Obama-Palin comparison is just silly. The only people who want to make this comparison are Republican partisans desperately trying to elevate Palin’s stature.

415 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:42:08pm

re: #410 Guanxi88

Noriega was a leader of an established government. That is a point lost on you.

If a court trial’s the thing, then why not court trials for all? Why are some facing the evil unfair tribunals?

You need to read better. I did not call all tribunals evil. In fact, if I thought that, I would not support them for those cases that are arguably under military jurisdiction.

Is the notion of a fair hearing for the accused so difficult to comprehend?

Is the fact that these prisoners - some of them innocent, not all or even most, but some of them innocent - were detained for years without one lost on you?

Is the fact that we tortured lost on you?

Tell you what, you are arguing incoherently for the Chinese legal system. Enjoy it!

416 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:43:23pm

re: #390 MinisterO

This is a simple a matter of understanding what the words mean. One is not granted inalienable rights. There’s no qualifying requirement. One simply possesses inalienable rights by virtue of being. It’s one of the founding principles of the nation. They even wrote it down.

It disappoints me that so many of my countrymen reject the concept.

Do I understand you to advocate that everyone in the world is entitled to be tried under American law in an American civil court, regardless of their citizenship, regardless of the place of the event, and regardless of the nature of the alleged wrong?
Are you insane?

417 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:43:58pm

re: #412 LudwigVanQuixote

Interesting that because I hate the lack of Justice in Russia and China, I am a commie now…

If shouting that we need rule of law and due process as a nation and this is what proud republics do, then no doubt you find, Adams, Washington, Jefferson et al to be equally sanctimonious, commie and whiny.

On this issue above many others the right prove itself to be the most obnoxious of hypocrites. Either you care about principoles of justice and liberty and rule of law or you do not.

And here I have lots of so called conservative defenders of these notions calling them commie.

HYPOCRITE!

Moron! You invoked Russia and China as suitable places for the exercise of jurisprudence theories other than your own. You, not the evil hating conservative hypocritical torturing traitors to the US constitution and the rule of law, were the one who equated the opposing position to totalitarianism. You, not the vicious knuckle-dragging torturers of innocent shepherds, were the one who explained that the use of military tribunals was on a par with Russian and Chinese “justice”. You should inform the department of Defense about your novel understanding of their procedures; I’m certain they;d be pleased to learn the errors of their ways and would thank you for correcting Supreme Court precedent, the Geneva Conventions, and the customs and usages of international law.

418 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:44:24pm

re: #416 Spare O’Lake

Do I understand you to advocate that everyone in the world is entitled to be tried under American law in an American civil court, regardless of their citizenship, regardless of the place of the event, and regardless of the nature of the alleged wrong?
Are you insane?

NO, he is consistent. If you break a law in the US, even as a foreign national, you are tried under the American legal system.

Go figure…

419 filetandrelease  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:44:56pm

LVQ, I would love to stay, but got to go, I will come back later and finish this interesting read.

IMO, these “animals” do not deserve the dignity of sitting in a federal court room in the U.S. This will be a circus like we have never seen. No, it would be far better to put them in front of a tribunal with ZERO fan fair, no light, just a blip in the news paper.

420 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:45:35pm

re: #355 recusancy

You really re: #355 recusancy

They wet themselves if a terrorist touches American soil in shackles and an orange jump suit, but they concoct inane cowboy and indian fantasies about hunting them down with their bare hands.

You really don’t want to hear my response to what you just said.

What is offensive, though, is your sensitivity toward the rights and feelings of bloodthirsty terrorists. There seems to be an unwritten presumption that these guys would have been OK, if they’d only been given a chance.

Wrong.

421 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:46:02pm

re: #417 Guanxi88

Umm the Chinese and the Russians are well known for detaining all sorts of people, innocent orr not, for years on end and torturing them. They have no hope of trial.

This is what you are supporting at the moment.

So why are you so upset?

Is it not totalitarianism or lawlessness when we do it?

422 Summer Seale  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:48:48pm

I just am curious to see if Sarah Palin has actually read the book yet or just the summaries of leaked copies to the press?

423 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:49:09pm

re: #412 LudwigVanQuixote

Interesting that because I hate the lack of Justice in Russia and China, I am a commie now…

If shouting that we need rule of law and due process as a nation and this is what proud republics do, then no doubt you find, Adams, Washington, Jefferson et al to be equally sanctimonious, commie and whiny.

On this issue above many others the right prove itself to be the most obnoxious of hypocrites. Either you care about principoles of justice and liberty and rule of law or you do not.

And here I have lots of so called conservative defenders of these notions calling them commie.

HYPOCRITE!

I did not call you a commie, I pointed out that you were whining that people here were advocating commie tactics.
You are a liar and a sanctimonious crybaby.
Done.

424 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:49:42pm

re: #415 LudwigVanQuixote

You need to read better. I did not call all tribunals evil. In fact, if I thought that, I would not support them for those cases that are arguably under military jurisdiction.

True, you just said there’d be concerns about their fairness. So, not evil, just unfair.

Is the notion of a fair hearing for the accused so difficult to comprehend?

Is the notion of “an unlawful combatant is not a defendant in any known civilian system of justice” lost on you?

Is the fact that these prisoners - some of them innocent, not all or even most, but some of them innocent - were detained for years without one lost on you?

is the fact that many of these prisoners, some of them innocent, others not, have been reviewed by tribunals and released lost on you? How many people do you think we’ve got down there, anyway?

Is the fact that we tortured lost on you?

As I recall, the total number of men torutred was fewer than a half-dozen. All provided valuable information that was not obtained when other methods were tried. We weren’t looking for evidence to use in a criminal proceeding, we were looking for operational intelligence we could act on to shut these guys down. That fact is lost on you, and you value your moral purity so very highly that you’re prepared to have others endure any level of sacrifice necessary to confirm you in your high opinion of your morality. I’m prepared to be a bad guy and live with the consequences of actions that prevented greater evil.


Tell you what, you are arguing incoherently for the Chinese legal system. Enjoy it!

Tell you what, you are arguing incoherently.

425 Gang of One  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:52:02pm

re: #420 really grumpy big dog Johnson

You really re: #355 recusancy

You really don’t want to hear my response to what you just said.

Actually, I’d love to hear your response, Johnson.

426 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:52:08pm

re: #421 LudwigVanQuixote

Umm the Chinese and the Russians are well known for detaining all sorts of people, innocent orr not, for years on end and torturing them. They have no hope of trial.

This is what you are supporting at the moment.

So why are you so upset?

Is it not totalitarianism or lawlessness when we do it?

LVQ, I’ll refer you to what I wrote above, and leave it at that.

427 Decatur Deb  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:54:02pm

re: #117 Sharmuta

Did any of those presidents allow enemy combatants into our court system?

Andrew Johnson did, from Thaddeus Steven’s point of view.

428 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:54:30pm

re: #418 LudwigVanQuixote

NO, he is consistent. If you break a law in the US, even as a foreign national, you are tried under the American legal system.

Go figure…

And if you break it outside the US?

429 oldegeezr  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:01:02pm

Yeh all have missed the best satirical soliloquy of them all “Going Rouge”…!

Where’s “Rush” the “master satirist” when yah… really, really need him…?

430 Skeetghazi  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:08:34pm

AP factchecks “Going Rogue”

[Link: hosted.ap.org…]

431 J.S.  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:11:26pm

CBC is noting that there are two tracks — two tracks — one is the civilian courts route, the other is the military tribunal route. What some do not understand, is, What is the differentiating factor? I don’t fully understand it..

432 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:23:44pm

Looking Back to the 2008 Election, of the “Four” - Gov. Palin had BY FAR more Executive Experience than Sens. Biden, McCain and Obama. Beyond that, she paid her own way through school, and was actually a partner in a business that had to meet an Actual Payroll, apart from being a Mom. IF she is unqualified to be President, it says more about the choices we had in 2008 than it does about her. Tha is all.

-S-

433 oldegeezr  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:25:03pm

re: #430 Stanley Sea

“Going Rouge” actually addresses many of [Calvin Woodward’s
Associated Press Writer] issues.

434 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:26:22pm

re: #393 Guanxi88

The inaleinable rights bit (its unalienable, but never mind) is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document.

The principle of unalienable rights is described as a self-evident truth in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

“It’s not codified into law” is a poor excuse for abandoning the principle.

re: #393 Guanxi88

You might as well drag in the Gettysburg address or the Marc Antony’s funeral oration, for all the relevance.

How silly. Maybe next you’ll tell me Jack Bauer quotes from 24 are just as relevant as the Declaration of Independence.

435 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:29:50pm

re: #398 Gang of One

Who, where and how are ‘they’ rejecting these rights? These people were not American citizens on American soil. Those rights though inalienable and possessed by everyone, are protect ONLY on American soil.

Are you saying that we (US citizens and our government) should not recognize these unalienable rights off American soil?

As a man of principle it’s a binary question. Either you accept (and recognize everywhere) this self-evident truth or you don’t.

436 Skeetghazi  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:30:48pm

re: #433 oldegeezr

Hey Olde - I tend to read the mudflats!

437 oldegeezr  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:35:57pm

re: #432 Dr. Shalit


That may be the case for her credibility in your mind; but how are yeh gonna convince the rest of us by merely stating yer opinion?

438 oldegeezr  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:39:06pm

re: #436 Stanley Sea

Once a muckraker…always a muckraker…
Keep the faith…!

439 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:56:01pm

re: #437 oldegeezr

That may be the case for her credibility in your mind; but how are yeh gonna convince the rest of us by merely stating yer opinion?

oldgeezr -

I DO NOT expect to convince the rest of ‘all’y’all by stating an opinion. I will however “opine” that a President Sarah Heath-Palin would not be on a World Apology Tour at this time, and suspect she would have given at least as much support to Persian/”Iranian” dissidents as Former President CARTER gave to those in the former USSR, not to mention Former President REAGAN.
Bottom Line - recognizing limitations and bad acts committed in its name, I am still proud of my USA, as I believe the former Governor of Alaska is. As for the current President, Barack H. Obama - Not So Much, certainly Not Enough. As for Books - I believe Former Governor Palin is more honest about having written an “as told to” book, with attribution than the President. I can not prove that in a court of law - AND - believe it to the marrow of my bones nonetheless.
Perhaps Pres. Obama IS a Political Genius I will recognize in years to come, as I came to appreciate Reagan. As for NOW - don’t think so. Even if he IS, that does not make Sarah Heath-Palin an idiot.

-S-

440 oldegeezr  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:16:02pm
“Obama IS a Political Genius I will recognize in years to come, as I came to appreciate Reagan.”

WOW Doc…
Send me to bed without supper…!

I admire President Reagan as a prolific reader of news and academic books; but not so many know; he was also a prolific writer.

My thought would be you have placed President Obama in the proper indeterminate, perspective.

“Obama IS a Political Genius I will recognize in years to come, as I came to appreciate Reagan.”

Well written Doc…!

441 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:20:57pm

re: #434 MinisterO
The principle of unalienable rights is described as a self-evident truth in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

“It’s not codified into law” is a poor excuse for abandoning the principle.

re: #393 Guanxi88

You might as well drag in the Gettysburg address or the Marc Antony’s funeral oration, for all the relevance.


How silly. Maybe next you’ll tell me Jack Bauer quotes from 24 are just as relevant as the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, and that self-evident truth is used to explain the reason for the institution of governments among people. it is not a general theory of jurisprudence, and it is not a document used to govern or direct the affairs of men.

Dragging in a document that is not governing, has no bearing on the law, and is not a part of the body of law into a discussion of governing documents, legal question, or matters of the law, is pointless. Again, why not invoke the Gettysburg Address and/or Julius Caesar? They’re every bit as relevant.

442 prairiefire  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:32:30pm

re: #273 HoosierHoops

I read on Political Wire that the title of her book is in reference to the title of an article that John Dickinson wrote about her for Slate.com.

443 MinisterO  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:41:14pm

re: #441 Guanxi88

Dragging in a document that is not governing, has no bearing on the law, and is not a part of the body of law into a discussion of governing documents, legal question, or matters of the law, is pointless.

I once again express disappointment that Americans no longer embrace the principles on which this country was founded. My interest ends there. I don’t care discuss US law, the Gettysburg Address, Marc Antony’s funeral oration or Julius Caesar with you today.

Anyway, my real contribution to this thread was the quote (not mine) from #34

My, my: What you must do alone at night, alone with your potted plants, with which you identify more, and more. And she, Palin, is getting closer and she is not coming by the path you think, rather by one or another you can’t think. Water yourselves. Fertilize.

444 Guanxi88  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 5:06:28pm

re: #443 MinisterO

And I love that quote more than Julius Caesar or mar Antony’s orations. It’s hell of a find, and I doubt I’d have the integrity to admit I hadn’t come up with it.

445 oldegeezr  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 5:17:57pm

re: #443 MinisterO

My, my what you must do to yer “potted plants”…!

446 oldegeezr  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 6:01:53pm

re: #443 MinisterO

Which “cloth” do you wear sir…?
Mine was “death”…
Was your’s “life”…?

447 oldegeezr  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 6:29:00pm

re: #34 MinisterO

Hi Sarah…!

448 PT Barnum  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 6:48:50pm

re: #439 Dr. Shalit

No, being completely incapable of talking in anything but word salad makes her an idiot.

Also.

449 HappyWarrior  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 6:59:48pm

Is she seriously upset about the news magazine question? Seriously, it wasn’t a ridiculous question at all. The thing that many Palin fans did that confused me was to say that liberals were afraid of her but then she couldn’t answer Couric’s questions about Supreme Court cases or what she read and if you brought that up you got called a sexist.

450 JRCMYP  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 8:03:50pm

re: #46 Irish Rose

Ugh, wow.
Any respect that I ever had for Sarah Palin is long gone.

You were a vice Presidential nominee, Ms. Palin, a running mate. And it was your job to help Mr. McCain - the Presidential nominee - win the election. It was a tremendous honor. You accepted the nomination and in doing so you agreed to comply with the job requirements, be a team player and do everything in your power to support the campaign.

These requests were not unreasonable. You’re a whiney, ungracious biotch to complain about everything from your wardrobe to your coaching and stab the man who selected you as a running mate - and the other people who worked tirelessly to advance your political career - in the back after the fact.

Get a clue: without their help, you would never have gotten any farther than Alaska.

And you certainly wouldn’t be pocketing your millions from this book deal.

Yes, yes and YES. Thank you.

She is a classic narcissist. Much has been made in the right blogosphere about Obama as a narcissist. But honestly, Palin is so text book, I don’t understand how everyone can’t see it. I have my issues with Obama, but I just can’t imagine if this woman—this “polebrity”— had been elevated beyond the talk show circuit, what a mess our executive branch would be in right now. She’s not someone who ever could have settled for the warm bucket of spit that makes up the vice president’s role.

451 JRCMYP  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 8:09:14pm

re: #436 Stanley Sea

Hey Olde - I tend to read the mudflats!

Mudflatter here too. ;)

452 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, Nov 13, 2009 8:52:50pm

If Sarah Palin thinks she was tossed to the savage shark jaws of Katie Kouric, I admit I would pay an irresponsible amount of money to let her clear her good name by means of an interview by Jeremy Paxman.

If Paxman’s not up to it, I’d settle for Hitchens.

453 Wozza Matter?  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 4:42:47am

re: #452 negativ

Anne Coulter vs Paxman on youtube… i recommend it.

454 Jimbouie  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 6:41:22am

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohhh Sarah…

Sweet Sarah, you are the darling of wingnuts everywhere.

You are a saint to the barely literate,
You are a theocon barbiturate

How you whip them up!
Why we can’t think of you…
without guns and flags in pick up trucks!

Your education stopped in eighth grade,
But pandering to ignorance is your trade.

You shine as wise to the witless
but only bad joke to the rest of us.

The dems all love you and everywhere you delve
You give them jokes and laughter and victory 2012!


This is a riot. Doggerel as criticism!

455 Jimbouie  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 6:48:02am

re: #65 Surabaya Stew

Yeah…Ayers did a good job that way.

456 Gang of One  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 6:55:19am

re: #435 MinisterO

Are you saying that we (US citizens and our government) should not recognize these unalienable rights off American soil?

Strawman. I am saying that terrorists already [cynically] enjoy the recognition and protection of several human/civil rights enumerated in our Constitution because those ideals were eloquently discussed by the likes of Locke, Beccaria, Voltaire, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc., and were placed in our Constitution to remind the Government that their mission is to protect those rights … and these terrorists are getting more than they deserve, OFF American soil.

As a man of principle it’s a binary question. Either you accept (and recognize everywhere) this self-evident truth or you don’t.


I accept this truth. They do not. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, sir.

457 MinisterO  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 8:20:47am

re: #456 Gang of One

Strawman.

Rubbish. Strawman2. You introduced “American soil” into our discussion, saying

Who, where and how are ‘they’ rejecting these rights? These people were not American citizens on American soil. Those rights though inalienable and possessed by everyone, are protect ONLY on American soil.


Incredulous, I asked if I had understood you correctly:

Are you saying that we (US citizens and our government) should not recognize these unalienable rights off American soil?


The question still stands.

Regardless, perhaps even irregardless, of that petty point:

“All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” is a clean statement of principle. It leaves no wiggle room for logical gerrymandering.

And, you don’t have to call me sir.

458 Professional Poo Flinger  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 8:13:12pm

re: #332 ArchangelMichael

This I can agree with. GITMO shouldn’t have been necessary because we should have put the detainees into that tribunal system post haste. Who was it that bitched and moaned about doing that… oh yeah… democrats and the left.

That’s why Camp X-Ray had to be replaced by GITMO.

Camp X-Ray was intended as a temporary compound. That’s why it was replaced by GITMO.

459 Professional Poo Flinger  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 8:56:26pm

re: #420 really grumpy big dog Johnson

You really re: #355 recusancy

You really don’t want to hear my response to what you just said.

What is offensive, though, is your sensitivity toward the rights and feelings of bloodthirsty terrorists. There seems to be an unwritten presumption that these guys would have been OK, if they’d only been given a chance.

Wrong.

Where did he say that? Where did he even imply that?
It seems you are putting words into his mouth.

It’s interesting how you combine rights and feelings together as if they warrant the same consideration. Well it does allow you to dismiss rights with little real argument because worrying about their feelings is pure idiocy and you’ve equated the two.

The rights issue is about the Geneva convention in which the US is a happy participant.

From [Link: www.icrc.org…]

The personal field of application of GC IV is defined in the following
terms. Article 4 (1) specifies:
“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment
and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or
occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of
which they are not nationals.”

Conclusion
As this article has shown, it can hardly be maintained that unlawful
combatants are not entitled to any protection whatsoever under interna-
tional humanitarian law. If they fulfil the nationality criteria of GC IV’s
Article 4, they are clearly protected by that convention. The fact that a per-
son has unlawfully participated in hostilities is not a criterion for excluding
the application of GC IV, though it may be a reason for derogating from cer-
tain rights in accordance with Article 5 thereof. The specific protections of
GC IV depend on the situation in which such persons find themselves in
enemy hands. They are most extensive if unlawful combatants are in enemy
hands in occupied territory. For those in enemy hands in enemy territory the
protections of international humanitarian law are also quite well developed,
whereas on the battlefield, where no actual control is established — depend-
ing on the interpretation of occupation — they may be the least developed.
The guarantees contained in Article 75 of PI constitute the minimum pro-
tections that apply to all persons, including unlawful combatants, in the
hands of a Party to an international armed conflict, irrespective of whether
they are covered by GC IV or not.

460 Professional Poo Flinger  Sat, Nov 14, 2009 9:09:46pm

re: #432 Dr. Shalit

Looking Back to the 2008 Election, of the “Four” - Gov. Palin had BY FAR more Executive Experience than Sens. Biden, McCain and Obama.

The question is; did she learn anything from that experience and is she capable of applying what she learned in a situation outside of the learning context?

Beyond that, she paid her own way through school, …

What is the relevance of this?

…and was actually a partner in a business that had to meet an Actual Payroll, …

That makes her qualified to be VP? How so?

apart from being a Mom.

Relevance?

IF she is unqualified to be President, it says more about the choices we had in 2008 than it does about her. Tha is all.

-S-

You are assuming she is more qualified than the others but you have not shown that is the case.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 114 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 273 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1