Lawyers of Terrorist "Suspects" endorse Obama

[Big Don]

Really, do you EVER think about the implications of what you write? The razors you use are always double edged. They cut you even as they cut your foe. For instance, which party is more likely to have KKK members voting for it (now Don, not in 1960)?

Those who forget (or ignore) history are doomed to repeat it. Only one party ever campaigned with slavery as part of their platform, and it wasn't the Republicans, but, you knew that...

Oh, and which party are YOU most closely associated with? Hmmmm....maybe that whole "guilt by association" thing isn't everything it's cracked up to be.



The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Not in Ex Parte Quirin they don't.

Once again, not according to our own Supreme Court. See above.



I don't find it in the least surprising that you advocate the slaughter of innocent people. Because, as you should know from my cites but are ignoring (or don't care), our own government admits that most of the detainees cannot be shown to be guilty of anything.

Yep, none have ever done anything wrong
Click it, he is far from the only one.

You are an excellent advocate for yourself, your political views, your religion and your country. You must be so proud.

You are, an excellent example of one who ignores history he doesn't like to remember.

 

[Big Don]

It's also important to remember that the people being detained at Guantanamo are, with good reasons, suspected terrorists. Many, if not most, have been systematically trained to lie and to claim torture. At least a dozen of the 200 already released from GITMO have already been caught back on the battlefield, involved in efforts to kidnap and kill Americans.

DOD Briefing

 

[Andrew Green]

Only one party ever campaigned with slavery as part of their platform, and it wasn't the Republicans, but, you knew that...

Christians raped and pillaged their way across Europe on Crusades, that's got nothing to do with Christianity now.

The US installed Sudam Hussien and funded by the US, Bin Laden was CIA trained and funded. This has nothing to do with the US now.

It was the South that engaged in Slavery, got nothing to do with the South now.

At one point Mexico had a pretty major problem with US citizens moving into their country, this lead to the annexation of Texas and eventually the Mexican-American war. Mexican illegals haven't started a war yet in the US, guess US illegal aliens into Mexico are a bigger problem?

If you look back into any groups history you will find things that in modern views, where very bad. As long as the group evolves and doesn't get locked into outdated dogma, it's not a problem.

But if you think harping on about how the Democratic party had a really bad policy before anyone alive now was even born, go right ahead, but understand that no one has a clean history if you go back far enough. Not the Democratic party, not the Republican Party, and certainly not the US as a whole. You got some nasty things in your nations history, guess the whole country is evil by your logic?

 

[Andrew Green]

DOD Briefing

If I was innocent, and spent some time locked up for no reason, you can bet your house that when I got out I'd be pretty pissed off, possibly even stop being so "innocent".

So pointing out that many that get released turn up as combatants later on is really not surprising.

 

[Big Don]

If I was innocent, and spent some time locked up for no reason, you can bet your house that when I got out I'd be pretty pissed off, possibly even stop being so "innocent".

So pointing out that many that get released turn up as combatants later on is really not surprising.

Gee, so it's our fault? So, were the 9-11 attacks our fault too? What about the Khobar Towers or the 1993 attack on the WTC? Or the attack on the USS Cole? It's our fault for not living under sharia law in a third world craphole?

 

[Big Don]

Christians raped and pillaged their way across Europe on Crusades, that's got nothing to do with Christianity now.

The US installed Sudam Hussien

No,we didn't

and funded by the US, Bin Laden was CIA trained and funded.

Not even CNN agrees with that lie

This has nothing to do with the US now.

Of course not, especially since both statements were untrue

It was the South that engaged in Slavery, got nothing to do with the South now.

It was republicans who championed ending slavery, that you choose to ignore that fact, doesn't make it go away. It was democrats who had slavery as part of their party's platform, that you ignore that, doesn't mean it didn't happen. That Democrats have done more to hold back members of all minority groups, while at the same time pandering to them like brazen whores, is a fact, that, like the crash of the Hindenburg, is historical fact, and while you can ignore it, that doesn't change it.

At one point Mexico had a pretty major problem with US citizens moving into their country, this lead to the annexation of Texas and eventually the Mexican-American war. Mexican illegals haven't started a war yet in the US, guess US illegal aliens into Mexico are a bigger problem?

I'm guessing here, but, there weren't anywhere NEAR 12 MILLION Americans living in Mexico... EVER.

If you look back into any groups history you will find things that in modern views, where very bad. As long as the group evolves and doesn't get locked into outdated dogma, it's not a problem.

So, in your mind the current democratic tendency towards kooky conspiracy theories, dozens of indicted FOB's (Friends of Bill) etc, is a good thing?
Remind me again, of what party were the Presidents who:
Appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court?
Appointed the first woman National Security Adviser?
Appointed the first Black Secretary of State?
Appointed the first Black woman Secretary of State?
Appointed the first Hispanic Attorney General?
Were Impeached in 1868 and 1998?
Left Americans in the hands of terrorists for 444 days?

 

[elder999]

Sun Myung Moon, a convicted felon, and it looks like Georgie returned the favor:

In January 2001, Moon sponsored newly elected president George W. Bush's Inaugural Prayer Luncheon for Unity and Renewal

John Poindexter, a convicted felon-Georgie returned he favor by appointing him head of DARPA.

oh,,,,and lets no forget Jack Abramoff, convicted felon......another friend of Goergie....

unlike you, I won't attempt to sully a current Republican candidate in a foolish and hackneyed attempt to make them guilty by association, but I easily could.

 

[Andrew Green]

No,we didn'tNot even CNN agrees with that lie

My apologies, however it is still true that the US has sponsored the organizations that gave birth to the current terrorist organizations when they where fighting the soviets.

Of course not, especially since both statements were untrue It was republicans who championed ending slavery, that you choose to ignore that fact, doesn't make it go away.

I never claimed otherwise. I said it was the south, nothing about either political party.

It was democrats who had slavery as part of their party's platform, that you ignore that, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I never claimed it didn't happen, I claimed that pretty much any organization with a long history has some nasty things in their past.

That Democrats have done more to hold back members of all minority groups, while at the same time pandering to them like brazen whores, is a fact, that, like the crash of the Hindenburg, is historical fact, and while you can ignore it, that doesn't change it.

Ok, one more time, I am not saying historically it isn't true, I;m not ignoring it as a piece of history. Historically the British ruled much of the world through imperial colonialism, that doesn't represent the current British system though. It's history, and things change.

To ask which party represents minority interests now, I don't think most people would answer republicans. But the republican party now, is quite different then the republican party of 50 years ago, just like the current democratic party is quite different then it was at different points in history.

I'm guessing here, but, there weren't anywhere NEAR 12 MILLION Americans living in Mexico... EVER.

Nope, of course that was also 270 years ago, so 12 million would have made up a significant chunk of either countries population. However they did have enough people to outnumber and take over a good chunk of Mexico. Something Mexican immigration has yet too pull off.

So, in your mind the current democratic tendency towards kooky conspiracy theories, dozens of indicted FOB's (Friends of Bill) etc, is a good thing?

Please read my post, I said very little about the democratic party. You are the one that insists on polarizing the issue, not me. But if you want we could talk about friends of the Bush's as well, presidents aiding their buddies is not restricted to either US political parties, or really political parties in general.

Were Impeached in 1868 and 1998?

I'm sorry, you are putting Bill Clinton keeping a intern under his desk up as a major issue? With all the sex scandals that have hit the republican party in the last little while as well? Or with Bush / Cheney facing possibly facing impeachment for starting a illegal war, amongst other things that really amount to war crimes? And it's a hummer that is the real issue at stake?

I have to say I am impressed at how well you are able to completely demonize a single party and polarize the issue. Both parties are corrupt in many ways, both have bad history, both have had many scandals. It's just the nature of politics it seems.

At the end of the day both US parties seem pretty much the same, with a few differences in policy on some issues. Why not discuss those issues? it will be more interesting then your own little smear campaign against the party you don't like.

 

[Big Don]

To ask which party represents minority interests now, I don't think most people would answer republicans.

Pandering is representing their intrests?

But the republican party now, is quite different then the republican party of 50 years ago,

Because you say it is?

just like the current democratic party is quite different then it was at different points in history.



Please read my post, I said very little about the democratic party. You are the one that insists on polarizing the issue, not me. But if you want we could talk about friends of the Bush's as well,

Go for it. You want to compare convictions, indictments, etc?

I'm sorry, you are putting Bill Clinton keeping a intern under his desk up as a major issue?

That the house managers brought only focused only on his admitted perjury was foolish when there were myriad other scandals to go on. IIRC, and I do, their thinking was since everyone KNEW he lied it would be a 'slam dunk'

With all the sex scandals that have hit the republican party in the last little while as well?

Gee, just a few words ago, the impeachment of Clinton over a sex was wrong, but, you want to apply a different standard for republicans.

Or with Bush / Cheney facing possibly facing impeachment for starting a illegal war

Was Clinton's bombing campaign of Bosnia a "legal" war? There was no UN approval or declaration of war...

, amongst other things that really amount to war crimes?

Only the kookiest of the extreme left wing suggest that and there is zero support for it aside from the moonbat fringe, of which you are apparently a proud member.[/quote]And it's a hummer that is the real issue at stake?[/quote] No, it was always, repeat, ALWAYS about the undisputed fact that he lied about it, both to the American people, (I did not have sexual relations with that woman...) and under oath. Try to stay in the realm of actual history.

I have to say I am impressed at how well you are able to completely demonize a single party and polarize the issue. Both parties are corrupt in many ways, both have bad history, both have had many scandals. It's just the nature of politics it seems.

At the end of the day both US parties seem pretty much the same,

I'm sure they do, to the stupid.

with a few differences in policy on some issues. Why not discuss those issues?

Gladly, however, that would require YOU to be honest about the issues, and honest about the motives of each party and politician, and, I doubt, having read your posts, you are either capable or willing to do that.

it will be more interesting then your own little smear campaign against the party you don't like.

Oh, but your smears against the party you don't like are different? See, that is the classic Democrat bovine excreta, when you do it, it's ok, should a republican do exactly the same thing it's a crime, there ought to be impeachment, etc.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Pinko. Oh, too young to remember the term, ehh? :yoda:

Actually no but I was a kid then :uhyeah:

 

[Andrew Green]

Pandering is representing their intrests? Because you say it is?

Because history says it is. Do a little looking. Republicans, historically have been elected to end wars and reduce spending, how's that been going as of late?

Go for it. You want to compare convictions, indictments, etc? That the house managers brought only focused only on his admitted perjury was foolish when there were myriad other scandals to go on. IIRC, and I do, their thinking was since everyone KNEW he lied it would be a 'slam dunk'

Not really, I have no desire to polarize the issue, I have no real interest in either party and can't vote for either. But, I do have to admit, I found the whole idea of impeachment over sex rather silly. Republicans seem to be better at going after someone legally, democrats don't seem to have it in them form what I've seen.

Gee, just a few words ago, the impeachment of Clinton over a sex was wrong, but, you want to apply a different standard for republicans.

Nope, Just questioning your motives for making it a issue with Clinton and overlooking it when it's a republican. They can have all the sex they want with whoever they want, as long as they do their job their personal life should be their own.

Was Clinton's bombing campaign of Bosnia a "legal" war? There was no UN approval or declaration of war...

Yes.

Only the kookiest of the extreme left wing suggest that and there is zero support for it aside from the moonbat fringe, of which you are apparently a proud member.

"Moonbat fringe", I like it. I'm gonna make membership cards.

No, it was always, repeat, ALWAYS about the undisputed fact that he lied about it, both to the American people, (I did not have sexual relations with that woman...) and under oath.

A married man lied to a bunch of people who really had no business knowing about his sex life. Who cares?

Oh, but your smears against the party you don't like are different? See, that is the classic Democrat bovine excreta, when you do it, it's ok, should a republican do exactly the same thing it's a crime, there ought to be impeachment, etc.

Ok, let's try again to get this through. I AM CANADIAN, I am not a Democrat, or a Republican. I don't "like" either party. I think both have some good things, and both have some bad things.

I am not out to smear the Republicans, or to promote the Democrats. I am simply stating that both have nasty things in their past, both have had scandals, and both have had members lie to the public on a wide range of issues.

I know you like to frame this in a very black and white way, and that if I am pointing out flaws in one side, I must be attacking it to promote the other, but I'm not. No black and white, just gray.

So please, step back for a second and try to come at this from a approach other then "us vs them" and "good vs evil", it's not.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Miami Herald Story

In stories of crimes the euphemism "alleged" is used, no matter how sure or well known the guilt of the defendant. In stories about Gitmo, the euphemism is "Suspected".

Is that bastard supporting civil rights again?
Sean

 

[Flying Crane]

The Geneva Conventions specifically outline what a lawful combatant is: (I'm paraphrasing from memory, look it up) A member of a nation's military forces, in uniform/ Those combatants NOT in uniform or NOT members of a nation's military are unlawful combatants and may be, UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS summarily executed as saboteurs or spies.
I agree, not one person should be held at Gitmo. They should be shot where they are captured, it would save us a fortune.

hmm...just exactly what is the "uniform" of the vast armies of al Qaida? Just what exactly is the "nation" of al Qaida?

Since we are pursuing a war with al Qaida, an organization without a nation and without a uniform, then I guess it's OK to just slaughter wholesale anyone who we think might have any connection to al Qaida, whether or not we can prove it?

Sounds to me like some people just like to get their kicks by killing people. Very disappointing. I thought as a nation, we would have moved beyond this kind of thinking.

 

[Andrew Green]

unlawful combatatants cannot be summarily executed, they are to be treated as civillians and prosecuted as such, losing the extra protection POW status gives them. They are still entitled to humane treatement and fair trial before recieveing punishment.

 

[Empty Hands]

Those who forget (or ignore) history are doomed to repeat it. Only one party ever campaigned with slavery as part of their platform, and it wasn't the Republicans, but, you knew that...

Alright, since you consistently want to ignore the point, let's try this. Within your own lifetime, your own church hierarchy prevented black people from entering the priesthood. Right now, fundamentalist Mormons are living in the remote desert areas of states like Arizona, marrying young girls, exiling young boys, and scamming the government for welfare money. By your own logic, that common association says something negative about your character.

Get it yet?

Not in Ex Parte Quirin they don't.

Were you unaware that more recent Supreme Court decisions take precedence over older ones?

Yep, none have ever done anything wrong
Click it, he is far from the only one.

So clearly then, because some are guilty, we must execute them all.

It is actually difficult for me to believe that you call yourself a Christian. Did you skip the portions of the Bible calling for justice and mercy? Or do they only apply to fellow white Christians?

You are, an excellent example of one who ignores history he doesn't like to remember.

I'd ask you to detail exactly what I have been ignoring, but I've had my fill of dishonest, bad-faith arguing for the day.

 

[Big Don]

Alright, since you consistently want to ignore the point, let's try this. Within your own lifetime, your own church hierarchy prevented black people from entering the priesthood. Right now, fundamentalist Mormons are living in the remote desert areas of states like Arizona, marrying young girls, exiling young boys, and scamming the government for welfare money. By your own logic, that common association says something negative about your character.

Eh? I have never, not once, not ever said to what religion I belong. I am not, however, a mormon, but, you are, apparently an anti-mormon bigot.

Get it yet?

It is actually difficult for me to believe that you call yourself a Christian. Did you skip the portions of the Bible calling for justice and mercy? Or do they only apply to fellow white Christians?

I have never, not once, not ever said to what religion I belong.

 

[Empty Hands]

Eh? I have never, not once, not ever said to what religion I belong. I am not, however, a mormon, but, you are, apparently an anti-mormon bigot. I have never, not once, not ever said to what religion I belong.

I thought you were, and mentioned it to you in several posts long ago, as did tellner. You should have corrected us then.

In any case, substitute whatever group you may belong to in order to get the essential point.

Which you ignored.

Again.

BTW, those points about the Mormon faith are facts. Pointing them out doesn't make me a bigot. Especially since I am clearly trying to show that past bad acts or current associations DO NOT say anything bad about other people that might share those associations.