NYC Trials: Politics or Justice?

I have to admit that this story is getting far more traction than I initially thought that it would get. At first I was really at a loss in understanding why it was getting such outrage from the Republican network. But the more I see the less I like, and I am beginning to see why there seems to be such an outrage. I can certainly also understand why New Yorkers are so against the move made around the trial. What I am failing to understand is how anyone from the left is able to support such a move being made by the administration. I can see no valid arguments being made by those on the left that would justify the Attorney General moving the trial to a civilian court in NY instead of a military tribunal in Cuba. None-the-less, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, along with 4 others will be tried in a civilian court in New York rather than in a military tribunal. And I am not pleased that this is the case.

Now before I get started, allow me to make a correction, or rather an admission of being wrong. I challenged BF on Tuesday, stating that KSM confessed that he was the mastermind of the NYC terror attacks before enhanced interrogation techniques were used against him. BF challenged me on this and I spent about an hour tonight doing research on it. It appears, from what I can find, that I am incorrect. KSM did not confess to US authorities that he played a part in the planning of 9/11 prior to being interrogated. He DID, however confess his part in the September 11 attacks to the al-Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda in April 2002 in an interview in Karachi, Pakistan alongside Ramzi bin al-Shibh who will now stand trial with him in New York (From the Telegraph link below). So while I was wrong about who he confessed to, I was correct in stating that he professed his participation prior to interrogation.

The others who will stand trial for the September 11 attacks include Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a key member of the Hamburg cell who was allegedly one of the hijackers but failed to get a US visa, Walid bin Attash, also known as “Khallad,” who allegedly helped train some of the hijackers, Ali Abdal Aziz Ali, also known as “Ammar al-Baluchi,” Mohammed’s nephew, who allegedly took over from his uncle in planning the attacks against Britain in 2003, and Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, said to be one of the financiers for the September 11 attacks (also from the Telegraph link). For the purpose of this article I am going to be focusing on KSM, but obviously the arguments apply to these other four alleged terrorists as well.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a terrorist. Of that I have no doubt. He has admitted so in many venues and interviews prior to his capture in 2003. And regardless of the claims that the interrogation produces inaccurate results (a claim that I dispute, FTR. While I understand that interrogation or torture can possibly result in bad info, the fact is that it usually does not), I don’t have any qualms about KSM meeting his demise at the hands of US authorities. Whether he actually did plan 9/11 or not, he is a terrorist and is responsible for many other atrocities committed by Al Qaeda over the last decade. So fry him, hang him, poison him, shoot him, electrocute him, or turn him over to the families of his victims, I don’t care. In fact, let’s pay down some of this deficit by featuring him on a pay-per-view where he is hunted in West Virginia by the cast of Deliverance (that is just a joke, simmer down).

So as I address this issue, allow me to first disagree with some of the claims being made by the GOP stalwarts who oppose the move. Some of them are simply wrong, while others are short-sighted.

First, the claim that moving the trials to a civilian court is going to mean that tons of classified information is now going to be publicly offered, putting the US at greater risk and exposing state secrets. I disagree with this claim. Our court systems are set up to deal with this aspect of the trial. Classified information will not be given to the public. There are plenty of protocols in place to ensure this doesn’t happen.

Second, the claim that this puts New York at a much greater risk of terrorist attack. I don’t buy this one either. New York is a preferred target for terrorists, I agree. I don’t think that this makes them a bigger target than they already are. In fact, I would imagine that the gobs of money that will be spent to ensure security during the trials will make New York far less likely to be attacked. Terrorists are cowards. They don’t go after the big, heavily guarded targets. They go after the unsuspected targets of opportunity that are easier to hit. Besides, doesn’t the great GOP fear of an attack on NY, which happens to be US soil, mean the GOP folks are admitting that the Bush administration didn’t actually make us safer with unconstitutional moves like the Patriot Act?

KSM during happier times... see the look of joy on his face

Finally, the claims that this trial could possibly now end in a acquittal or whatever that sets KSM free in the end. Get real folks. This trial is in the bag. And I mean it in the old fashioned way. I believe that the trial’s outcome has been decided before it even begins. Do you really think that the Obama administration would risk the massive backlash that would come with a not guilty verdict? Of course not. It would irreparably harm the Democratic party and it would embolden Republicans in a way that the Democrats are trying really hard to suppress. Obama and Holder would not have made this decision without the verdict already in the bag.

But the question I want someone to answer for me is WHY is this decision being made? What is the purpose of the trials being moved to a civilian court and NYC as opposed to a military tribunal in Cuba? It makes no sense.

If the President felt that military tribunals were unfair, ineffective, or simply wrong, he would stop their use altogether, right? But that is not what is happening. 5 different alleged terrorists were announced as being sent into the military tribunal process. So obviously the administration doesn’t feel there is something wrong with military tribunals. And KSM has stated that he would plead guilty in a military tribunal, but not in a civilian trial. That being the case, if justice is what you want and you are 100% positive that he will be convicted either way, why make the move to a civilian court in NYC?

The costs will be far higher for the civilian trial. From what I have read and heard regularly throughout the course of the debates the last couple of days, the estimated cost to New York City for the trials to be held there will be between $75 Million and $100 Million. Millions of New Yorkers will be inconvenienced due to the increased security. I would imagine that during the trials, taking any form of public transportation will become a monumental pain in the ass. The time frame will be much longer in a civilian trial, making this pain in the ass last much longer in the psyche of Americans. If tribunals are good enough for some, they are good enough for all.

The claims that other terrorists have been tried in civilian courts rings hollow as the ones that were were captured on American soil. Being captured in Pakistan as an enemy combatant should disqualify him as a candidate for a civilian trial in New York. Senator Lindsey Graham pointed this out to the Attorney General in a the Senate Judiciary hearings this morning. He asked, “Can you give me a case where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?” Holder was silent for a minute and then proceeded to attempt to dodge the question. Graham called him on it stating, “let me help you. We are making history here. It has never been done before.” The attack was an act of war and the suspects should be tried in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court, where they will have more legal protections and a potential platform to spew their hatred for America.

See how much "less happy" he seems here

Additionally false are the silly claims that this somehow will show the world the power and grace of the American court systems and show the world that we are a fair country. This notion is beyond silly, it is an outright attempt to play an emotional card for those who hate America. These trials will do absolutely NOTHING for our global image. When we stop invading other countries, stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations, and resort the the VDLG platform of defense only, we may begin to regain our moral stature. Until then, nothing we do in this case is going to change anyone’s opinion of the United States. Claiming so is ridiculous.

I will stop there as far as bashing the two sides of the argument we are hearing today. I am sure there are other points. I will wait to hear them from those on each side of the issue and address them in the comments. I do look forward to someone, anyone, giving me a good reason for the decision to move these 5 jackasses into a civilian federal court and trying them there. I can find no valid reason to do so.

Which brings me to my conclusion, which I will defend as necessary as well. I do believe that this is a calculated move by the Obama administration to rehash the same old arguments against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the CIA. The mood of the American public is suddenly changing. Obama’s approval rating is below 50% for the first time. The Democrats in Congress are finding widespread disdain for their agenda spreading legislation. The Democrats in national politics have made hay by bashing Bush. I think that they figure if they can get back to bashing Bush, the American public will come back around to supporting their madness.

So the answer is to find a way to put Bush, Cheney, and the CIA back on trial in the mind of Americans. And this is the ONLY way that they have to re-hash the same old tired arguments. This is the mechanism they intend to use to take the focus off the traitorous cap and trade, stimulus, and health care legislation.

Additionally, so long as we are focused on the right hand, we don’t pay attention to the right hand. Things like Sarah Palin and this trial are a way to distract all of us from the things they are doing behind our backs. The bottom line is that I don’t see anything beyond a pure political play at hand here. I can find no valid reason for this decision, therefore I have to conclude that the Obama administration is doing this for political reasons (and make no mistake, this was an Obama decision, not an Eric Holder decision).

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: profile – Telegraph

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Do you have any idea how tired I am of hearing about all this BS?

    No one is doing anything about any of this BS but sitting around and whining about it.

    When are you guys going to get up off yer lazy whining glutimus maximusses (yeah, I know I misspelled it so get over it already) and get vocal and get out there and wave signs around or something . . . ANYTHING is better than all this whining!

    There! Got that off my chest. Now maybe folks won’t be so deprressed anymore . . . . .

    Just my not-so-humble opinion.

    • PapaDawg:

      What makes you think everyone here, or anyone for that matter, is just sitting around on their arse whining?

      Did you accidentaly post to the wrong site. That would be understandable as you are not in familiar computer surroundings while on the road.

      P.S. Don’t forget to get ahold of some peaches for me this NEXT year. Or a little home made peach brandy.

      Be Strong my friend
      JAC

      • JAC,

        • One more time . . .

          JAC, since I am an alcoholic – (been sober since March 15th 1986 and right now I am sober) – No brandy, peach or otherwise.

          Had a little tongue in cheek moment at about 2AM when I wrote that (my time – in CA now), however I meant that comment to all the drive by’s who just read and go.

          And my old nemesis BF since he is wont to wax philisophical more oft than not . . .

          Have decided to lighten up a bit since the last time I went under the knife – gettin tired of that, too – so most of what I will have to say should bring a smile to folks . . . except old BF, he just ain’t gotta sensayuma.

          Hope my comments get USW out of his depression some, sometimes ya just gotta laff about it cause ya just git tired of cryin’!

          More on the serious side – I have been seeing more and more liberals start to ask the all important question; “What did I vote for?”

          Hang in there bud, and stay away from knives and needles and all that stuff – Nurses only make you think they like you just so they can stick you with another needle . . . and I ain’t gonna tell you where they like to stick it the most! 😉

          • Papa:

            Wish I could but am about to undergo the same.

            Perhaps twice. Guessing not as much fun as yours though.

            • JAC:

              What’s up with your health? I hope it isn’t serious.

              • Birdman,

                JAC has the disease of “old geezer”, and fatal unless one takes two young blonds with plenty of exercise every morning.

                Unfortunately, he appears satisfactory married, therefore he is incurable.

              • Black Flag:

                What age qualifies you for “old geezer” status?

                I don’t think JAC is that old. My guess is around 55.

                If he is happily married, his wife will not mind him jogging with two blonds …. that is what JAC would do, right?

              • 56 it is.

                The calendar only measures time, not miles.

              • Wow, at 56 this qualifies you for the “dirty old geezer” status!

                After reading the post that doctor’s kill more than guns, I’d find a good doctor.

              • No worries Bird.

                The Doc holds the scalpal.

                Spousal Unit Leader, remember Irish/Italian, looks on and holds the Gun.

                I find I get really good service that way.

              • Well I’ll be . . . Ya DO have a sensayuma after all!!!!

              • Someday I’ll learn to hit the right buttons . . . that comment was for BF.

              • Bird:

                BF has accurately diagnosed my malladies. Just parts wearing out as far a I know.

                Need another shoulder fixed after Christmas.

                Cheers.

              • JAC,

                Just don’t get bullet holes in yer kidny’s, they just don’t hold up well after you pass sixty-five . . .

                Funny story – funny but true.

                Friend of mine was medivac’d by helo to a hospital in Henderson, NV. This guy was single and always on the lookout for B-L-O-N-D-E-S. As luck would have it, that particular hospital (at that time) had the ONLY twin blond nurses woking in its ER.

                True story, my friend, true story. And that is NOT the hospital that I have been a guest of their OR for the last four – make that five – times in this last year. I got all male nurses after the admitting crew . . . Too bad I am a Kraut and not Irish!

  2. Good Morning !

    KSM and his stooges, along with all the other stooges, are not part of an organized Army or foriegn Government, they are foriegn civilians who committed murder. They should by tried as such, to give them the stature of enemy combatants would be a slap in the face to the real military men and women around the world. With that said, I gree with the trial on our courts.

    The choice of NYC was shortsighted, ignorant, and plain wrong. Heven’t NYers been through enough because of these people? Have the trial in my hometown, we have a Supermax right up the street from the Federal Courthouse. We have a far smaller number of residents and traffic is rather minimal.

    But NO, Obama wants this to be a very public circus on the grandest of stages, at the expense of the people of NYC. His decision lacks the feelings of human decency. Obama could care less about NYers, he only cares about himself and his political policies that are being rejected by the people. Does anyone really think this man cares for the average U.S. citizen? Ask a NYer and you will hear the answer.

    I’ll be following, hope everyone has a great day!

    G!

    • Ask a New Yorker? OK. I’ll go ahead and answer for you, then. We do not mind the inconvenience. I was a Californian at the time of 9/11, so I was somewhat detached relative to your average New Yorker, but I’ll tell you this: they are foaming at the mouth over the idea. They want him here, we will happily bear the inconvenience and cost. There’s something deeply satisfying about having the man responsible for destroying the towers in handcuffs like a common thug in a courthouse in the heart of Manhattan. Please, do not object to the move on our behalf.

      Now, I agree with G-Man. These are enemy civilians who committed a crime. They are not military members. Civilians are tried in civilian court. Uniformed regular army soldiers are tried in military court.

      And yes, this move is a show, somewhat. We want the world to see that we’re returning to the rule of law. It is a somewhat important distinction to make given what happened in the last 8.

      If a group of anarchists hacked 3,209 computers from another country and we got our hands on them, would they go to military tribunal? What’s the difference? Nothing other than scale and severity. We would bring them here and let the courts in the aggrieved jurisdiction deal with them.

      Adding, “turn him over to the families of his victims, I don’t care. In fact, let’s pay down some of this deficit by featuring him on a pay-per-view where he is hunted in West Virginia by the cast of Deliverance.” I love these ideas. They have my vote. You know, this is all Obama would have to do if wanted to pick up 30 house seats and 10 senate seats. Guaranteed. Maybe more if he timed it to coincide with the election.

      • The problem I have with the case being tried in a civilian court, is that these foreign thugs are afforded the same rights you or I would have…simply not acceptable…

        • Terry:

          The Supreme Court already settled that. They DO have the same rights as we do regarding due process.

          You can disagree with them if you like, but the idea wasn’t invented by Mr. Obama and it isn’t tied to the fact they get a trial. They get a trial because the law says they get a trial.

          Don’t all thugs and criminals get the same rights as the rest of us?

          I understand the gut reaction but if we want to live by laws then we have to abide by laws.

          • I do disagree…but not a new thing, with the SC on that. They are enemy combatants caught on foreign soil…no such trial has ever been held in civilian court…ever.

            Besides, he has already amitted guilt, and the military tribunal would be short and sweet…the civilian trial will carry on for years possibly and at great cost.

            IMO, this is a political move and nothing more…Obama has already stated his assurance that the verdict will be guilty…if that is due process I am the Easter Bunny.

            • Terry:

              OK, lets assume you get to decide. An enemy combatant gets the full protection of the Geneva Convention.

              If they are “enemy combatants” then they are POW’s. Name, rank and serial number. Full Red Cross access. Well cared for until the end of the War.

              Oh yeah, it also means our CIA/FBI/Soldiers/A.G./President , etc involved in the “enhanced interrogtions” could become subjects of war crimes trials under the Geneva Conventions.

              You are correct about the supposed precedence. But Senator Grahm failed to acknowledge that they ARE NOT enemy combatants in the eyes of the law. Bush made sure they weren’t. Obama in actuality is just carrying out the Bush decision to its logical and lawful conclusion.

              As I said earlier regarding the legalities. We may want this to be simple and it should have been simple, but it IS NOT simple.

        • Wow.. JAC and I are on the same side of something.. go figure..

          But mostly, they get rights because they are human beings. How can we claim moral authority if we’re going to have kangaroo courts for the people we really want to convict. And that’s what they would be – deny them the rights accorded to civilians and it’s a sham. No two ways about it.

          • Would the reciprical be applied to you were you caught by them…go ask Daniel Pearl. Oh yea, can’t do that…

            • Doesn’t matter. We are better than that. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. What do we stand for if we respond in kind? Cruelty only begets cruelty.

              So they kill one of ours and we kill one of theirs and they fly planes into our buildings and we invade their country and another one for good measure and they kill us and we kill them and they execute captured soldiers so we’re just supposed to execute theirs? No! I say hell no! We will put him on trial. A fair, impartial trial (or as close to that as we can) and we will convict him as a criminal and we will sentence him in accordance with our highest ideals. And we will do it as humanely as possible

              You can be admired or fear? But you only get to pick one.

              • Matt:

                If I can only have one I pick feared.

                But your hypothetical is not conistant with reality.

                Therefore, I pick BOTH!

                Admit it, you gotta smile.
                JAC

              • I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

              • No can do brother.

                Reality is reality. It does not depend on a relative perspective.

                Again revealing your undergarments for all to see.

              • That’s what you think. In my reality, reality substitution is possible. Thus, if we are in my reality, I can substitute my alternate reality. But if we are in your reality, then by substituting my reality, it becomes possible to substitute reality. Thus Effect precedes Cause. HUZZAH!

              • Matt:

                You are a very sick young man.

                Go see your doctor immediately.

                I fear you are so twisted in knots your intestines may burst.

                Parents smoked alot of dope before you were born, didn’t they.

              • Matt,

                You can pretend to replace reality with anything you want – the Universe couldn’t care less; it is just as happy to kill you – it will be merely a surprise to you, that’s all.

                Any alteration of reality is an attempt to manifest a contradiction.

                The arrow of time is one way; there must be a Cause before there is an Effect.

                Quantum mechanics shows that the Effect can manifest before the Cause – but the Cause must be real.

              • Well, Mat, I for one recognize a Mythbusters quote.

              • Thank you. You, at least, got it. I award you 5 points.

                Hey.. you’re a physicist, how do you like my theory (below) of Mathius creates the universe? See any holes that need plugging?

              • Yes, the hole between your ears that once contained a brain

                😆

                Sorry, couldn’t miss that set up….

                😆

                Given that you depend on a theory that wholly depends on an assumption that has defied discovery for 10,000 years – good luck in manifesting it!

              • Careful, pirate, that’s blasphemy. I might smite you for your insolence.

              • Now, now..

                JAC, I do not want to go to the doctor. Aparently, they’re likely to kill me by accident.

                Flag, I have a solution which may satisfy you. In a few decades medical science will allow for unlimited lifespans. As such, I will live forever. When the big crunch occurs, I will have the technological wherewithal to avoid being mushed. I will then recreate the big bang (by technological means) – thus creating a new universe (because floating in nothingness is boring). Much to my surprise, this new universe will turn out to be identical to our current universe. Earth is created and humanity evolves. I watch from behind the scenes as I am born and grow to become my future self. After my second big crunch, I have figured out enough that I can create any type of reality I wish. Here the laws of physics are completely at my whims. I create this universe. I wait for my birth. Then, as we were having that conversation a few short minutes ago, I spring into action and CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS TO SUBSTITUTE MY PREFERRED REALITY.

              • This has the added benefit of allowing me to conclusively prove evolution and creationism at the same time.

              • True, as you are now GOD.

                But wait.

                You don’t believe in GOD.

                Therefore you can not exist.

                You just killed yourself.

              • Just because I don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And really, I’m agnostic about God. But I do and will believe that I exist.

                But, good point, this also allows me to conclusively prove the existence of God.

                I wonder what other side benefits this has..

              • Science will not allow you to live forever – it will simply end biologic exhaustion as a reason for death.

                You will still die by accident or murder.

                The only way you can create the big bang is by compressing energy into an infinitely small space – which will take all the energy in the Universe to do.

                Since this would necessarily consume you well prior, your effort will – necessarily – fail.

              • Assuming I make it to a few hundred years old, I expect to have my consciousness backed up somewhere in the event of my death by accident or murder. Eventually, I will have it backed up on multiple planets in multiple galaxies. Killing me will be effectively impossible.

                As for a reproduction of the big bang, I will assume that my tiny mass will not effect the equation and that I will be able to conduct my experiment by remote from a safe distance (whatever ‘distance’ means in a post-big-crunch / pre-big-bang world).

                You suppose an understanding of physics which I will be far, far beyond. You cannot hope to understand my future methods and technology. Perhaps I will be able to replicate the effects of the missing matter (myself) without actually including them. (kind of like using an electromagnet in lieu of several normal magnets) Who knows? The me of several billion years from now is/will be quite capable – and he will understand the forces at work far better than we do.

          • Matt:

            Technicality that is revealing your true self.

            “But mostly, they get rights because they are human beings.”

            Replace “get rights” with “have rights” and you are on your path to recovery.

            • They get their rights, as in we will not deny them the rights that they have. Semantics.

              • Matt:

                It is not semantics.

                We do not deny them rights. We deny them the freedom to experience or enjoy those rights.

                I have the right to life. You can violate it, eliminate my freedom to experience it, by killing me. But you didn’t kill the right. You killed me.

                Come on now, your almost there. Just a little closer my young friend and you will find the light you need to escape the cave.

              • Actually, by killing you, I did kill your right. The dead have no rights. Thus, by extinguishing your life, I also extinguish your right to life.

                However yes, in the above case, he has the right to a fair trail and we would just be denying him the exercise of that right. But that, again, is semantics. I was not implying that if we deny him a fair trial he therefore has no right to a fair trial – that would be nonsensical. It’s like saying if I steal your property, you lose the right not to have your property stolen.

              • But you see I don’t have a right not to have my property stolen

                I have a right to property and a right to defend it against taking.

                You can not kill my rights for my rights are your rights and BF’s rights. It is a right.

                It is not a JAC right, it is A right.

                These Rights exist abscent all of humanity. It is just that our existence gives them human context and meaning.

      • Mathius, you said “I’ll tell you this: they are foaming at the mouth over the idea. They want him here, we will happily bear the inconvenience and cost.

        Evidently not everyone is “foaming at the mouth”.

        Forty-five percent of 602 city residents surveyed by telephone on Nov. 16 said they think the plan is a good idea, while 41 percent said it’s a bad one, the Poughkeepsie, New York-based school’s Institute for Public Opinion said in a statement on its Web site today. Fourteen percent were unsure.

        • I guess that depends on where you are…reported this morning on ABC (go figure)….in Texas. Houston…76% against civilian trial. Dallas/Fort Worth (I prefer Fort Worth/Dallas) 72% against civilian trial…San Antonio 81% against civilian trial. Amarillo….you gotta love this one….94% against civilian trial (and they actually asked 115 people in Amarillo..but that is West Texas for ya…Western justice) Bring em here….trial over in one day, new ropes, strong tree branch…security not needed…save 75 million. Simple, fast, effective. we will even give them a headstone….unmarked of course, and eat pork ribs on their grave.

          damn..there I go again. Sorry.

          • Time for my second song posting of the day..

            Well a man, come on
            Six o’clock news
            Says somebody been shot
            Somebody’s been abused
            Somebody blew up a building
            Somebody stole their car
            Somebody got away
            Somebody didn’t get too far, yeah
            They didn’t get too far

            Grandpappy told my pappy
            Back in my day, son
            A man had to answer
            For the wicked thing he done
            Take all the rope in Texas
            Find a tall oak tree
            Round up all of them bad boys
            And hang ’em high in the street
            For all the people to see

            And justice is the one thing
            You should always find
            You gotta saddle up your boys
            You gotta draw a hard line
            When the gun smoke settles
            We’ll sing a victory tune
            And we’ll all meet back
            At the local saloon

            We’ll raises up our glasses
            Against evil forces
            Singing, “Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!”

            We got too many gangsters
            Doing dirty deeds
            Too much corruption
            And crime in the streets
            It’s time the long arm of the law
            Put a few more in the ground
            Send them all to their Maker
            And he’ll set them on down
            You can bet, He’ll set ’em down

            Cause justice is the one thing
            You should always find
            You gotta saddle up your boys
            You gotta draw a hard line
            When the gunsmoke settles
            We’ll sing a victory tune
            And we’ll all meet back
            At the local saloon

            And we’ll raise up our glasses
            Against evil forces
            Singing, “Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!”
            Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!

            You know justice is the one thing
            You should always find
            You gotta saddle up your boys
            You gotta draw a hard line
            When the gunsmoke settles
            We’ll sing a victory tune
            And we’ll all met back
            At the local saloon

            We’ll raise up our glasses
            Against evil forces
            Singing, “Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!”
            Singing ,”Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!’

          • I was referring more to the fact that Mathius lives there and said that almost everyone he has talked to wants the trial there. But, I agree with Texas…

            • I was being hyperbolic. Obviously I have not taken a scientific poll. I have only casually spoken to a few people. I responded below though.

        • Interesting that the highest percentage of people you mentioned wanting a civilian trial are new yorkers. I wonder, can you narrow those results down to Manhattan as opposed to the entire city? It’s a big city. We have more people than the state of Virginia. If we were a state unto ourselves, we’d be the 12th most populous, right behind New Jersey.

          Obviously, there is no unanimous agreement, but I’m surprised to hear it’s so close.

          Side note though, this is all irrelevant. Public opinion does not and should not determine the treatment of prisoners. Otherwise this guy would be swinging from a tree right now.

          • True, public opinion means squat…either for or against. In this case, the guy should have been swinging from a tree long ago, and now most likely will not swing at all. By the time the defense lawyers get through with the evidence, he’ll wind up with a law suit against the US that he will probably win.

            • I wouldn’t worry about it. If he gets off, someone will take care of the problem for us anyway – he will simply join Jimmy Hoffa.

              I wonder though.. who is paying for his defense? If no one, then it’s the state, and that means a public defender – not quite the equal of Johnny Cochran..

          • I have looked, but so far have not been able to locate a poll that is Manhattan based…will continue search.

  3. Bottom Line says:

    At this point, be it a military or civilian trial, either will result in a life or death sentence. My guess… Their gonna get theirs.

    Doing it in NYC is almost sweet revenge if you ask me. Hell, if they really wanna punish the 911 terrorists, they should just sentence them to be set free in the middle of NYC with an edible transponder in their belly, and a brand mark and/or tattoo on their face. Announce on the news the time and place of the release. Make it clear that the public is immune to prosecution for any “accidents” that may happen. Display the terrorists locations with color coded symbols on a public television screen. They wouldn’t last long.

    • Would make a great reality tv show…

    • I highly doubt the vast majority of evidence gathered is even remotely presentable in a civilian court. Everything from the gathering methods themselves to the character of the informants is going to come under scrutiny and precious little of it will survive. Most Americans are NOT going to like the verdict and once they have to resort to “holding him” and seek another avenue for prosecution, the lauded goal of displaying “American Justice” will be the biggest tool against America for the proponents of Jihad since Abu Ghraib. Islam has a certain friend in Eric Holder and that has never been any more apparent than in this case. The Obama administration will be removing radical Islamics from the system before the next administration can get their hands upon them regardless of the outcome and through Holder himself. Even looking at his former law firm of Covington & Burling shows them to be more than knee deep in things taking “8 years” to come to trial. How is it such does not come to light in the MSM nor from Holder’s own office who would one and all be very much aware of such? Who among you is stupid enough to believe bending a single American legal principle to get any sort of conviction whatsoever is NOT going to be a PR feast for radical Islam?

      Another “Wake up America” moment.

      • Quick question.. I think he’s guilty (as evidenced by his confessions), but if he’s acquitted, isn’t that generally a sign that he’s not guilty? Isn’t that how this system works? We have courts because our assumption of guilt is not sufficient for justice.

        Yes, sometimes there is a miscarriage of justice (though I doubt the government will allow that to happen here), but by-and-large, we want only good evidence to be used, etc. If the evidence is bad because the characters of the informants is weak or whatnot, well, how can we know that justice is being miscarried?

        This is why we have courts in the first place, no?

        • The confessions are one and all null and void. Good old Miranda means that after a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be “in custody” anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. These must be communicated to the individual in their native language and must be confirmed as being “understood”. Also any physical and psychological duress placed upon him will also be negating everything they’ve gotten him to admit, any evidence collected as a result of this information and any other vectors the investigation took because of illegally obtained evidence can be challenged with a very good chance at winning those as well.

          In effect your system is going to be handling what would be a non citizen having a confession beaten from him, illegal wire taps in and outside of America without the consent of the host governments and a host of other goodies you can’t do to an individual in the civilian system. Any and all evidence from that occurring, regardless of its content’s damning nature, would be inadmissible. Hell he could even sue the American government for “torture” and wouldn’t that make America the laughing stock of the world. Pain and suffering, religious persecution and just wait for the cries of racism. This is going to be a farce to top all others.

        • Actually you have courts to afford those in loftier positions the opportunity to make use of the “government might” to enforce protection over their possessions and actions, pealing the law back to its core.

        • The problem in this case is that maybe we can’t present all the evidence against them because of national security. If we have informants in Afghanistan, we may not want to reveal them. I’m not sure if we can use the information and keep it secret, but this seems like it could result in an acquittal…

          I don’t really care about this whole thing other than it is being used by the president as a political tool. This will inevitably be about the Bush administration. I wish someone in government would have some character and stand on their own worthiness rather than the past’s worthlessness. Like that’ll ever happen…

        • Matt:

          No, it can mean the evidence wasn’t sufficient or it was tainted.

          Innocence is not the same.

          But he still walks. Or in this case will be escorted to some other country where someone will be waiting for him.

          Now many other nationalities were in the twin towers and pentagon?

          How many other countries could file similar charges and start the whole thing over, using their judicial system. Weren’t their some Saudi’s killed in the towers?

      • Bottom Line says:

        I could care less what the Islamic jihads think about our so called justice system. They can kiss our collective American asses as far as I’m concerned. New Yorkers aren’t stupid and they don’t play either. They(terrorists) will more than likely be found GUILTY as charged and sentenced accordingly.

        • And those words fly directly in the face of what your very own Barack Obama and Eric Holder have lauded as the goal of this whole deal.

          • Bottom Line says:

            They’ll get over it when New Yorker’s have a chance to convict someone for conspiring to wreck their town and kill thousands.

            Alan – “…your very own Barack Obama and Eric Holder…”

            BL – Not mine. I didn’t vote for ’em.

            • I don’t think POTUS and his lap dog Holder need to get over anything. Those in New York looking forward to a hanging will be the one’s disappointed with how this is going to turn out.

  4. Canine Weapon says:

    Doctors:

    (A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000

    (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000

    (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%

    Statistics courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health &Human Services

    ***************************
    Guns:

    (A) The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 (yes that’s 80
    million)

    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is
    1,500

    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner! is 0.001875%

    Statistics courtesy of the FBI

    ***************************

    So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
    than gun owners.

    ***************************
    Remember, guns don’t kill people, doctors do.
    ***************************
    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE
    DOCTOR.

    • This one I’m saving ! LOL (for comments also)

    • Now…this is cool. Thank you Canine Weapon.

    • The sad fact is that the post is not a joke.

      “Death by Doctor” is the leading cause of accidental death in the USA – 3x higher then car accidents. The primary cause is mistakes in prescription medicine; either the doctor did not prescribe the right medicine, the wrong dose, was ignorant of the side effects, or his writing confused the pharmacists.

      • Out of curiosity, where does the line for “mistake by doctor” get drawn? A lot of people who go to the doctor and subsequently die are sick or injured. A lot of times there is little time to make a thorough diagnosis or treat with sufficient care and a ‘best attempt’ must be made.

        If you come in with a gunshot wound and they give you morphine before talking to your family to find out your allergies, is that a “mistake by doctor,” or just a really back situation? If you have a rare condition and the doctor doesn’t catch it in time, is that a “mistake by doctor”? If you have an unexpected reaction to medication, is that a “mistake by doctor”?

        The point is that mistakes happen all the time. When driving, you forget to signal, or you don’t check your blind spot well enough, etc. All. The. Time. But they aren’t usually fatal. But doctors deal with situations where the slighted mistake can mean death. Thus, higher death tolls. But it’s not because the doctors are somehow reckless.

        And I’d like to add, the gun deaths listed here are “accidental” gun deaths. This number is much higher if you remove that word.

        • Did the doctors have their “accidents” on purpose? Must compare apples with apples…

          • True. Euthanasia is illegal but happens non-the-less. I imagine morphine overdoses would probably fall under this header regardless. Probably more likely than criminal action..

            I’d be very interested in the pertinent numbers.

        • US gun deaths are about 35,000 per year, including suicides.

        • Matt:

          The threshold is determined by International surevey of the “other industrialized nations” of the world.

          Whatever their average is, that is the threshold. Anything over that number is proof positive of the failure of our system, and therefore “mistake of the doctor” as opposed to “mistake of compassion”.

        • Matt,

          The numbers are compiled by the cause of death statistics.

          If a person was dying from cancer, but given a mistaken medicine that killed them, the cause of death was recorded as the mistake in medicine.

          What is more frightening is, statistically, the number of “Deaths by Doctor” will be far higher. Because of the nature of death determination will more naturally favor “natural causes” vs. human caused, the deaths whose determination was marginal _that is, maybe it was the drug, but he was almost dead anyway_ will place the benefit of the doubt in the favor of the doctor.

        • “A lot of people who go to the doctor and subsequently die are sick or injured.” You realize how close this is to the “uninsured dieing in emergency units” rhetoric POTUS was using?

  5. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – interesting article – kinda of a smorgasbord of things but that’s ok:

    1. Act of War – do you have a working definition of this or is it situational?

    2. If isn’t situational – should Timothy McVeigh have been sent to Cuba or elsewhere for trial? Others?

    3. Does an act of terrorism equate an Act of War? What then becomes what we define terrorism as? Maybe computer hackers should be considered terrorists – one thing begets another…..

    “Which brings me to my conclusion, which I will defend as necessary as well. I do believe that this is a calculated move by the Obama administration to rehash the same old arguments against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the CIA.”

    USW- you’re the ‘facts guys’ here – wonder where you are drawing this conclusion?

    Here is where I think you are flat out contradicting yourself – you stated earlier that the “juicy stuff” that people fear will come out in the trial will not actually happen. I would assume this to mean anything that is not already in the public record or available FOIA. Having said that – in order for this to be something that POTUS and Administration could use to “rehash old arguments” would ostensibly require some of that “juicy stuff” to be publicized as a result of this trial. So which is it USW? Please explain yourself.

    • Ray:

      Let me answer your last part regarding rehashing Bush.

      Now, I don’t know motives as I wasn’t there when they made the decision.

      I think civilian court is the right venue.

      But, if there is political motivation they know it won’t manifest in the court room. It will manifest in the media frenzy around the trial. All they have to do is put the catalyst in the solution and step back.

      I do share one big question, why New York? There is actual precedence to say that these guys should be tried where they reside, as in where they are being held. Is it because no other state would take them? I don’t know. Perhaps they had info. indicating New Yorkers would love to see these guys put through the ringer close by. Maybe they view this as a positive image building opportunity and not the big negative the pachyderms think it is.

      I suspected that all the cacaphony from the elephants about NY is alot of BS. Some are reporting the move is even a split decision among families of the victims. So the supposed “uniform” outrage is alot of Crap. Wanted to make sure this morning that I used that word in a way that you wouldn’t suspect bias, LOL.

      One technical correction Ray. Just because they are civilians does not eliminate the option of military tribunal. The question is whether they are subject to laws governing war or laws governing civil crimes.

      Hope you are feeling less tension today.
      JAC

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        JAC – I had less tension until I realized one of my dogs ruptured an anal gland last night. This changes my plans for the day. 😦

    • “Act of War” – using a National Military to attack and invade another country.

    • Any idea if this is a jury trial? How are they going to find an impartial jury in NY?

  6. It is a political move for 2010; distract the country with another year of Bush and CIA bashing. If enough folks look the other way our “I can’t spend enough” government will ram a few more trillion dollar programs down our throats. Also civilian court means millions of dollars spent for trial lawyers, got to pay them back for their support. There are more lawyers in public office than any other group, and they know how to work the system for more money. Who knows if enough attention is placed on this showboat trial, a few more Dems might get reelected next November.

    • Bama,

      Having similar thoughts. Timing, we are close to the endgame on health care.
      Need to distract the public, so they generate another “crisis”. Its pure smoke and mirrors. Gives the media an excuse to reduce their coverage on health care and focus on the trials. Expect staged press conferences and photo ops timed with votes on health care.

      Picture Holder meeting with KSM,” we have decided to have your trial in NY
      as a distraction to the public, to help advance our agenda. Do you still plan on pleading guilty?”

  7. I think this administration is doing this because they want to be seen as having “brought the terrorists to justice.” Doing it in NY will make sure it is front and center in the news plus it will add a little drama. It’s disgusting that they are willing to inconvenience millions of people and cost tax payers millions of dollars just to gain a few points with the public.

    As far as showing the world how great our justice system is, that kind of went out the window when the president spoke about his conviction and death sentence as if it were a given.

  8. Rani Merryman says:

    I am just curious, I have seen a reaction that I can say I have not heard before.
    If I understand correctly, you are saying that there has to be a recognized form of government or it is not an act of war. I am just playing devil’s advocate here, but weren’t these murders an act of Jihad, which is a Holy war? I understand that this is not perpetrated by a recognized country or nation, but Holy wars have been going on for centuries and at times have not been connected in every case to a specific country.
    There are advantages to military tribunals when dealing with these kind of criminals who are part of a well financed and well organized group of people who have declared a continuous assault against the people of our nation. (For any of you who know Eddie Izzard… Do you have a flag?) So I suppose my question is… do we save the advantage of military tribunal for recognized official wars and what would constitute the involvement of our national defense agencies to gain intelligence as it relates to the dissolution of well organized groups who would do our nation and citizens harm?
    Just wondering what you think, hope everyone is having a good day!

    • Rani:

      The attack on us does not have to come from a recognized govt but it in itself did not create legal WAR. When a war starts seems a bit fuzzy to me but it seems it relates to when the aggressor decides to either attack or to retaliate.

      All of this is covered by numerous international laws, treaties and our own laws. At the root it comes down to whether they fall under the WAR laws or the regular laws. The WAR laws cover soldiers and other “protected” types as well as civilians captured by a beligerant force (in this case US). The WAR laws allow for military tribunals for soldiers and unlawful combatants (spies, sabatours, who are just warriors dressed as civilians. The WAR laws also allow for and in some cases require trial in the regular court system of the capturing party.

      Now the big thing everyone seems to have forgotten is the Supreme Court and Federal Distric Court rulings on the status and rights of some these characters. The “supposedly conservative court” ruled that certain of the prisoners held in Cuba must be tried in a civilian court according to our laws.

      Bottom line it is not as clear cut in my view that these particular criminals COULD in fact be tried in military courts. The examples used by the “elephants” to claim absolute knowledge are not comparable in circumstances and facts.

      Remember, for a military tribunal to apply thes guys must fall under laws of WAR. They then must be captured within the theatre of WAR. Where is that theatre? KSM was captured in Pakistan where he had been living for quite some time.

      Once again the TRUTH is much more complicated than what the POLITICO’s would like us to believe. Both of the extremes in the public debate are ignoring the factual information. After all, complexity doesn’t play well in a 10 second sound bite.

      I hope you are well my dear revolutionary.
      JAC

      • JAC….a theater of war does not have to have a definition. The world can be a theater of war. A theater is not bound by geographical lines that say..” do not go in there”. Make no mistake about it…we are in a war. If you really want a true definition….this could actually be a world war…because it is not just us.

        • D13:

          I completely understand all of that. But the Applicable Laws use the term. I am guessing that there is legal presedence that eliminates some of the fuzz.

          Just for the record here, we are facing a dilemna created by the lack of intestinal fortitude by our govt to recognize that a war existed many, many years ago.

          Bush tried to play both sides of the legal fence to create the “limbo land” that does not exist in either WAR or Criminal environments.

          WE should have simply declared WAR on Al Queda 20 years ago. Then we could claim every captured as a POW and locked them up until the WAR was over. Any of those captured inside the US could have been tried and executed as spies.

          But all that simplicity was lost when our Govt decided to pass laws making “Terrorism” a crime and then the stupid POLITICO’s starting calling these folks “terrorists”.

          • Hmmmm…..trying to find a way around this one…..have to admit…good points. Crap….have to go to Quik trip for a 64 oz DP now.

          • Congress authorized the use of force and appropriated money for the use of that force against Al Queda. They HAVE declared war. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates the form of a declaration of war.

          • Rani Merryman says:

            JAC,
            I am doing well! I wanted to answer you earlier but I had a Thanksgiving Dinner for the Vets Hospital that we were serving. I felt kind of bad about it. I was volunteering but I had more fun than they did I think. It was a great night. I wish everyone could have experienced it! Great group of gentlemen and a great group of volunteers. It was nice to just be the funny girl who can carry all those plates instead of the candidate.
            In any case, thanks for the answer. I can definitely see the conflict. I am conflicted about it but I really think for me it comes down to the idea that these people have indeed declared war on us and I feel we must do whatever we need to in order to protect the citizens of our nation. You bring up some good points. I will have to think about it a bit more.

            I suppose the difference between “whatever we need to do to protect our citizens” and “whatever we need to do to protect our citizens while at the same time furthering our political agenda” is the monster we are dealing with.

            I probably won’t have time to come back in for a couple of days, hopefully I will see you in a couple of posts!

      • The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to dictate where or how prisoners of any kind will be tried. That is a porwer specifically given to Congress under the Consittuion. The only thing that the Supreme Court had the power to do was to declare the the law that Congress passed setting up the military commissions was to delcare the law unconstitutional.

        • Actually all courts have the power to determine jurisdiction.

          I wager that will be the first thing his defense team will attack – that there is no jurisdiction for the hearing.

          • Actually..that might be good. The US Attorney General has no authority over the secretary of Defense to determine the POW status. The SOD has to give up his jurisdiction to the AG or unless ordered by the POTUS…..so, it seems relevant to me that if the jurisdiction is challenged for the US civil courts, the SOD can now take over and the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the SOD to determine POW status if so dictated by the SOD….as I read the law. The current decision by SCOTUS on POW’s does not apply in this case.

          • Courts have that power BF…. but the Supreme Court does not.

            • I believe they most certainly do – they can only hear cases with the jurisdiction of the United States..

              “SUPREME COURT ENDS PANAMA LIBEL SUIT; Federal Courts Lack Jurisdiction in The World Case, Chief Justice White Holds”

              http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B02E6DC1331E233A25757C0A9679C946096D6CF

              • But they are only able to hear cases on whether a law was applied correctly or whether it was unconstitutional. In other words, some lower court can decide jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS can only rule on whether they were correct in doing so. They cannot step in and determine jurisdiction on their own.

              • Constitution:
                The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

                In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

                In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

                So, in the matters as listed first, the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction – and thus, as the first matter, must determine if such jurisdiction is appropriate.

                In its appellate role, I wholly agree with you – its only role is to review the decisions of other courts. If a question of jurisdiction is a reason for appeal, then they can review whether jurisdiction – however, I agree, they cannot test the original courts decision of jurisdiction without question.

                So to conclude – where they are the original jurisdiction, they must do the test.

                Where they are the appellate, they can only confirm/deny if questioned.

    • Bottom Line says:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002331—-000-.html

      US CODE: Title 18, 2331.

      (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
      (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
      (B) appear to be intended—
      (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
      (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
      (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
      (2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
      (3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
      (4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
      (A) declared war;
      (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
      (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
      (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
      (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
      (B) appear to be intended—
      (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
      (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
      (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

      • Bottom Line says:

        http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/war-crime.html

        WAR CRIME:

        Definition – Noun
        : an act committed usu. during an international war for which individual criminal liability will be imposed by a domestic or international tribunal
        specif
        : a violation of the laws or customs of war as embodied or recognized by international treaty, court decisions, or established practice ­usu. used in pl.
        Following World War II, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg first codified war crimes including crimes against humanity. Also encompassed in the legal concept of war crimes is the crime of planning or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties.

      • B.L.:

        Your going to get a kick out of this. Found on Wiki last night when researching all the applicable laws. Fits with your Nuremberg post.

        “After the United States entered World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt declared at Casablanca conference to the other Allies and the press that unconditional surrender was the objective of the war against the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Prior to this declaration, the individual regimes of the Axis Powers could have negotiated an armistice similar to that at the end of World War I and then a conditional surrender when they perceived that the war was lost.

        The unconditional surrender of the major Axis powers caused a legal problem at the post-war Nuremberg Trials, because the trials appeared to be in conflict with Articles 63 and 64 of the Geneva Convention of 1929. Usually if such trials are held, they would be held under the auspices of the defeated power’s own legal system as happened with some of the minor Axis powers, for example in the post World War II Romanian People’s Tribunals. To circumvent this, the Allies argued that the major war criminals were captured after the end of the war, so they were not prisoners of war and the Geneva Conventions did not cover them. Further, the collapse of the Axis regimes created a legal condition of total defeat (debellatio) so the provisions of the 1907 Hague Conventions over military occupation were not applicable.[13]“

        And everyone thinks G.W. was the first to try and manipulate the laws for advantage. I love how the crime of planning the war became a crime after it was committed and then they tried the accused based on the new crime, which wasn’t a crime when the act was committed.

        Anyway, thought you would find interesting.
        The best to you this fine morning.
        JAC

  9. Mrs. Weapon says:

    From the desk of Mrs. Weapon,
    I will tell you that I spent 22 hours in the car last weekend and 20 of those hours were spent listening to Fox News repeat over and over as to why the trial should NOT be held in NYC. To be honest, I really didn’t hear any reasons besides the fact that it is expensive and will cause trouble for the transportation system. Well I have been to New York (originally from the western section of the state: GO BILLS!) and I will agree that disruption to the transportation systems is enough of a reason to NOT have the trial there. But my question is this…and this is more of a question to Ray because I know how everyone else feels, “Why do you feel it SHOULD be in NYC?”

    My other question is our idea of our civilian court system. Is it not “innocent until proven guilty?” We know what this man did…at least we think we do. The torture tactics are going to be revealed in the trial. I know we say the system is set up to ensure national security will be protected and this information will not leek out but we all know the truth. I also want to believe that Obama and the Attorney General have concrete reasons for doing this, besides exposing Bush and Chaney for what they did wrong. Mr. Obama, no one cares anymore. I really don’t think there is anything left that will make people hate Bush and Chaney any more than they already do. IT IS OVER. THEY ARE NO LONGER IN OFFICE. Can we not focus on what is going on now? I really don’t want to believe this is a conspiracy for the government to hide what is really going on.

    Personally, I have problems hearing about the torture tactics of anyone. I am a woman…. we do not identify with these actions. Our torture is much worse than anything the military could ever do to a man. I love the cartoon above about waxing. I know this sounds silly and it was meant as a joke but seriously, that should be his torture.

    And just to everyone knows, Canine Weapon does not own a firearm, although he is a member of the NRA….that is unless they don’t stop calling us EVERYDAY asking for more money.

    • Torture!

      • Oh no….i can beat this one, LOI. Go to Magic Kingdom in Orlandlo all day with a grand child…you will have the words to “It’s a Small World After All” memorized and embedded in the deep recesses of your mind…..FOREVER. You will even shoot the radio and tv when you hear it again. 🙂

        • You should try LegoLand.

          ::shudder::

          I’d sooner vote for Bush’s third term than go back there.

          • OMG….LegoLand, eh. If it makes you want to vote Bush for a third term….perhaps I should stay away. I voted Bush but never for a third term….even if Obama ran against him. I would have to write you in as a candidate.

            Hmmm..ok..off to research LegoLand.

            • I was going to say that I’d vote for Cheney, but I think I’d just kill myself instead. It’s more merciful.

              • Oh wow…researched LegoLand and talked with someone that went there. She said…..NEVER A AGAIN….LOL.

        • Try Atlanta Aquarium on Christmas day with all the grandchildren. I was never so glad for a day to end. Talk about a crowd of people there.

        • Supposedly they played this song at loud volume as one of their “torture” techniques.

          http://www.thedailytube.com/video/14699/music-used-to-torture-terrorists-artists-pissed

          Human rights groups revealed that US forces are blasting loud music into the cells of terrorists as a means of torture. “Born in the USA” is a pretty bad-ass song, but who wants to hear it at full volume for 22 hours a day? Many of the songs original artists (including we kid you not, Rage Against the Machine AND the guru behind the Barney theme song) are angry about their music being used as a means to drive prisoners mad. It’s cruel, it’s unusual and it also has to be a bit bruising on the ego. “Hey, why was MY song considered as an instrument of torture?”

          • And the problem with Born in the USA at 100 decibles three feet away is?

            • Not a problem to me. My issue is the liberals are defining everything as torture.
              ” the soldiers called me bad names all the time, it was horrible. They would taught me with BLT’s and ham sandwiches. I have nightmares whenever I see a McDonald’s because in the morning they would always eat a bacon, egg and cheese biscuit”.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I learned this from an eight year old that learned it from kids at school…

        “I hate you

        You hate me

        Lets hang barney from a tree

        With a knife in his back and a bullet in his head

        Let’s all cheer now that Barney’s dead.”

        Kids really do just say the darnedest things.

    • Why do you feel it SHOULD be in NYC? Because we are the aggrieved party. If I rob a house in Montana, I should be tried in Montana, no? Yes, they attacked the United States, but specifically, the crime was committed in NYC. Actually, there were crimes in PA and Virginia as well, and those jurisdictions are more than welcome to try the case as well if they like as far as I’m concerned.

      Is it not “innocent until proven guilty?” Absolutely. We all think he’s guilty. But she should have to prove it in a court. Our assumption is not good enough. That is the whole reason for courts instead of the justice of the mob.

      Re Bush/Cheney There may be something to this. They will try to ensure that privileged information does not leak, but I agree that some probably will anyway. Nonetheless, the trial is not about Bush/Cheney. They will certainly be a factor, but that is, I think, unavoidable. A conviction that cannot sustain public scrutiny is a conviction that should not be upheld. Justice cannot be done in secret.

      Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. – Lord Acton
      The price of Justice is eternal publicity. – Arnold Bennett

      You should probably get Canine Weapon a gun. The dogs are on our side, but cats think of nothing but murder all day. Can you really trust Feline Weapon?

      • The trial will digress to a Bush/Cheny bashing extravaganza…and provide the media with plenty to divert the public’s opinion on domestic issues that will allow this Marxist regime we now have in the White House to further their agenda…

  10. Mrs. Weapon says:

    From the Desk of Mrs. Weapon,
    I also want to add the Weapon did all the driving for the 22 hours we spent in the car. Not only is he a wonderful husband, he doesn’t complain about driving. I don’t know how many women read this blog but I will tell you, don’t ever believe you cannot have your dream man. My husband is everything I could ever ask for and more.

    I had to take a moment and thank him for everything he does. My husband is amazing, and a true patriot. God bless him.

  11. To all,

    Our host requested we rate the articles.

    Ray & Matt, you can think of it as giving the devil his due?

    • Due given..

      Home in the valley
      Home in the city
      Home isn’t pretty
      Ain’t no home for me

      Home in the darkness
      Home on the highway
      Home isn’t my way
      Home I’ll never be

      Burn out the day
      Burn out the night
      I can’t see no reason to put up a fight
      I’m living for givin’ the devil his due
      And I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’ for you
      I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’ for you

      Time is the essence
      Time is the season
      Time ain’t no reason
      Got no time to slow

      Time everlasting
      Time to play B-sides
      Time ain’t on my side
      Time I’ll never know

      Burn out the day
      Burn out the night
      I’m not the one to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right
      I’ve seen suns that were freezing and lives that were through
      But I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’ for you
      I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’ for you

      Burn out the day
      Burn out the night
      I can’t see no reason to put up a fight
      I’m living for givin’ the devil his due
      And I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’ for you
      I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’ for you

      I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’ for you
      And I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’, I’m burnin’ for you

  12. Ok….I cannot believe this diatribe. I simply cannot believe it. I really feel that those of you who think they are criminals….know better and are just trying to get the dander riled. Well, congrats….you have succeeded. My dander is ballistic today over this bullshit and you “bleeding heart” types that are psuedo military strategists have no idea what you are saying and no definition from Webster is going to change it. Philosophical reasoning is not reality in this case.

    Number one: Those of you, who think that these “terrorists” are not an organized standing army are dead wrong. And believing this…you will one day be dead. BF and I had a discussion the other day about the Vietcong and his belief that they are simply civilian criminals. Well, sir…that was not the case either. So, I will back up my position and will do so from facts and not from philosophy or thinking that these are “freedom fighters” or poor shop keepers and farmers. BULLSHIT. The Vietcong were a trained army with commanders and squad, platoon, battalion, division, and army designations. They were paid soldiers not shop keepers and farmers taking up arms against American aggression and Imperialism. Trained by the Soviets and Chinese in Soviet and Chinese territory. They had access to the latest satellite intelligence at that time, sophisticated communications and not smoke signals and mirrors, and the latest in weaponry and not WWII surplus weapons as reported by CNN and the French. Their uniform of choice…….civilian clothes….not unlike our camouflage…that was their camouflage. UNIFORMS DO NOT MAKE AN ARMY. A uniform does one thing and one thing only. A uniform ONLY….ONLY…ONLY…brings the “rules of warfare” (Geneva Convention) into play for captured soldiers. ANY soldier that was captured in civilian clothes was given summary execution in WWII, as a spy. When a spy put on civilian clothes…that did not make him a civilian. He was a trained soldier acting clandestinely. He was not given rights…three meals a day…etc. He was summarily executed….ON THE SPOT and that is the way it should have been. THAT is all that a uniform does. NOTHING MORE. It does not make an army. Designators as, for example, the C10 Battalion of the VietCong, or the Cell R14 of the Red Brigade, or Cell 124 al-Qa’ida….As a matter of record, al-Qa’ida has a structured designation and flow chart of squad sized cells to battalion sized cells. CELLS = platoons and squads, battalions and divisions. These “terrorists” are not civilian criminals….they are a trained army and use civilian clothes as their uniform. It is that simple regardless of the spin put on it and the “poor civilian” attitude prevalent on this site. Terrorist is a word put on these animals for political correctness. When the CIA went into Afghanistan and trained a rag tag army into a functioning army…they made just that. An Army. A trained soldier in civilian uniform. They functioned under central command and field commanders. So, do not call them “civilians” doing “criminal activity” because they do not have uniforms. To believe that makes you naive. Hell, our own National Guard is an Army and they are civilians….trained to be an Army. Any terrorist cell that receives orders and functions under a command is a standing army. Any terrorist cell that uses fire and maneuver is a trained army…….AND…they are paid. the Vietcong were paid and al-Qa’ida is paid.

    Secondly, if any of you think that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is acting alone on his own whim and not part of a larger organization….that makes you even more naive than I would have originally thought. He is a thug….yes. He is despicable…yes. He is an animal…yes. He is a Muslim fanatic…yes. He is a murderer and rapist….yes. He is evil…yes. He is an enemy combatant…YES. He is a civilian…..no. He is a dedicated soldier bent on one thing….destruction !!!! And not for a cause as some of you would want us to believe.

    Thirdly, thanks to Mathius’ quote as follows…” I love these ideas. They have my vote. You know, this is all Obama would have to do if wanted to pick up 30 house seats and 10 senate seats. Guaranteed. Maybe more if he timed it to coincide with the election.”

    Sorry Mathius, but if the intent is to grand stand (which it is) to try to win friggin’ world support (which it is) and its intent is to try to pick up political capital (which it is)….. this makes you and Obama no better than the terrorist army themselves if you support it (which you apparently do)….actually worse…if that is your and Obama’s intent. Holder has defended terrorists from day one in his law practice under various disguises. It is unbelievable that even you would back this up. Unbelievable.

    Fourth, USW is right about one thing. You want to show the world that we really mean to change? Then come home and defend our country. Let the G** D***** muslims have Europe and the Middle East. Leave them alone and let the world defend itself. THAT will show the world that we mean business…not a reality tv show for ratings. Damn, I am pissed. But, you bleeding heart types….even if we do this and pull back and mind our own business….they (any terrorist army) will not mind theirs. But…when they do hit us again…no matter who it is….hit back with finality….no occupation..no conquering army….finality. No bands, flags, or bugles. No negotiations…..End it.

    Fifth…only one sentence….Bush bashing on this is child’s play and a cowards way out.

    D13 (wishing he had a yard)

    • This, of course, from a dumb, lamed brained retired Colonel with no insight. I will save you the trouble,.

    • D13…you are absolutely 100% correct. I wholeheartedly concur with every word…I have a yard, and you are welcome anytime!

    • D13:

      You obvious anger over all of this is I think impairing your vision. Drink some Pepper and take a deep breath. Upon reading again I don’t think you will find the “whining” and “sympathizing” you claim exists in the various posts on this issue.

      Matt was supporting the concept of turning them over to families or releasing them into the woods for “Deliverance” style treatment.

      Regardless of what the effect is of there organization, structure, tactics, strategies or whatever, is irrelevant.

      IT IS THE LAW THAT DETERMINES WHAT APPLIES HERE. You may not like it, but that is equally the REALITY.

      If you don’t have adquate yard you should try Cow Tipping or Steer Wrastling.

      Best wishes my dear Colonel
      JAC

      • I know, JAC, where he was coming from…. and you are correct in that I am very passionate about this. We are a Nation of Laws…this I realize. it boils down to one thing and this is where it gets so damned convoluted….I do not understand the argument of civilian law over military law. To say that these are simply criminals is an abomination because they are not a government and not wearing uniforms. This is absurd. You do not need a government to have a war or even declare a war but these “terrorists” are a government. Maybe not defined by geography but a government never the less…all these politically correct issues are driving me insane and it is going to be a short trip. I guess that I have seen too much and experienced too much in the real world to be objective….so I woill continue to exercise my freedom of speech until the Obamamites of the world take that away.

        SIGH…..and to those of you who have offered your yards…thank you but I feel that you would not like the AAA bunkers, land mines, barbed wire, guard towers…not to mention the empty Dr Pepper cans and bottles and crumpled up Jalepeno bean dip and Dorito packages.

        🙂

        • They should have shot him in the field…along with all of the ones they have in GITMO…solve both the GITMO issue and this one too…

        • D13:

          I think what you see here is not so much “political correctness” but “legal correctness”.

          And after digging on this subject for about a week now it is still foggy to me when you move from civilian law to military law. Hell the Geneva Conventions even provide for “civilian law” trials for some of those captured.

          I agree that Al Queda is a govt in its structure and function and that it is also an army due to the same. But they currently don’t meet the International Legal definition of an army.

          I do wonder if we simply treated them as such if that would create the precedence. It is obvious that the current International and U.S. laws DO NOT adequately address these types of organizations relative to WAR law.

          That is perhaps why the USA approached it all as a “criminal” matter. It was faster and easier than negotiating new international treaties. I don’t know.

          I do know that if G.W. hadn’t tried so hard to split hairs and create the “limbo land” we wouldn’t have had these Supreme Court decisions hanging over the whole process.

          Just remember that the arguments here for regular trial are not due to some sympathy for these murderers. It is simply a desire to live up to the laws we claim as our own.

          Hang loose my friend
          JAC

          • I also fault Bush…should have had the tribunals within a couple of months of capture…

            • Before you do that find out when the appeals from their American lawyers started and remember to include Eric Holder’s former firm for good measure.

            • he couldn’t do that. It took years to get the new tribunal laws parsed out, pased, and implemented.

          • Ok…I will go with this. Forget the vagueness of International Law (which is laughable) and the vagueness of Civilian Law as it relates to the Geneva Convention. ( I know full well the use of the hair splitting at the end of WWII with relation to civilian vs military law )….I will grant this.

            HOWEVER: you stated “I do wonder if we simply treated them as such if that would create the precedence. It is obvious that the current International and U.S. laws DO NOT adequately address these types of organizations relative to WAR law.”

            Now, I think I can calm down a little here. I can go this route. The frustrating part and it is still political correctness (my view..so far I am still entitled to that)is the grand standing under this particular disguise. And that is what it is…a disguise. The agenda of Holder and Obama is not trying to correct something….if it was…to use your argument…they would set a precedent. But they are afraid to do this OR they wish to set their own agenda ( which I feel is the real thing here ).

            But, my purposetoday, was not International Law….it is to address those that hang their hats on uniforms and designations.

            Want to argue your precedent idea…cool with me and arguable. But not what is happening. This is where I get the politically correct stance. It is politics at its finest….not world order or opinion and not for the best interest of America and you or I.

            • D13:

              I agree to this. The political circus will hide and confuse the REAL legal issues involved. It already has. And as I said the other day, folks like Rush, Hannity and the elephant leadership are making it worse.

              I am optimistic enough to hope that somehow the actual legal issues will surface during this. I am a realist enough to know the probability of hope is slim to none. But it still exists in the remote recesses of my mind.

              I brought up the definition of “solider” relative to “visible sign” as that is the Geneva Convention critera for “protected” status as a POW.

              The fact is that all the laws in the world were written for a different kind of warfare. It is time to adjust, adapt, improvise. It is time to modernize those laws.

              Question. You know you only have a few choices given your view of these characters.

              POW, unprotected combatant, civilian, or civilian criminal.

              Given the Geneva Conventions and the other laws of war, which would you use to classify them?

              • Great question. To remain consistent with my “being an army”…I would classify them as POW since we are technically at war. However, if you want to classify them as “unprotected combatant” and you define the term to basically be the same as a “spy” or relevant description thereof…I could be for that and go with summary judgments.

                You do raise a interesting point. Perhaps the definition of war should also change to fit the times.

              • D13:

                I agree that the definition of war should be changed to fit the times. You may want to go back to Saturday’s thread and read what JAC had researched. The laws were written for when nation states go to war and just don’t fit the terrorist organization that we see today.

              • Birdman,

                Why do think the definition has to change?

                What has changed?

                There have been “terrorists” and States, and war, and crime in human history for the last 5,000 years.

                Why do you think NOW something is different?

              • Right again BF. Terrorism has existed as long as we’ve been organizing ourselves and identifying ourselves as tribes and clans.

              • Taking this to the bottom

      • Thanks, JAC,

        Sorry, Colonel, but I do not sympathize with them. Further, improving our standing in the world is probably one of the biggest things we can possibly do for our national security.

        Bashing Bush/Cheney may be child’s play, but outting the abuses under their administration is important. I have no urge to drag either of them through the mud (Cheney would probably just shoot me), but I think we need to know – we deserve to know – what was done in our name. Sunlight, they say, is the greatest disinfectant. Out, damned spot! out, I say! One; two: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?

        Cow tipping is advised only with extreme caution. The cow will get up and run off, but they will sometimes come back with a bull. Saw that happen in Arizona with a buddy of mine – he escaped, but by an uncomfortably small margin.

        Skip the Pepper, Red Bull gives you wings! But you might want to try something decaffeinated this morning…

        Hope all is well.

        • Oh…I am ok Matt. Really…. I hate the grandstanding…and the world stage issue. This is ridiculous. Want to try them in civilian court….go ahead. Ban tv coverage and reporters until it is over.

          Would you agree to that?

          • TV coverage yes, reporters no.

            TV just makes a zoo. Though reporters would make a zoo anyway, it’s less of one. But the reporters need to be there. The who point is to sentence him in a way that we have shown a conviction in accordance with our laws and with world standards of justice. We can’t do that if the proceedings are closed to journalists.

            I wish there were a way to exclude only the reporters who would do it for entertainment and keep the ones who will report the serious issues, but I do not see how that is possible. Nor do I think the courts should be in the business of deciding who gets to cover what – that’s just begging for abuse.

            • Just FYI, I work in the federal courts (on the security side). Typically there are no cameras allowed inside federal courthouses, but reporters are allowed because we have an “open” court system. Usually in the high threat or publicity trials a separate room is set up for the press (mainly to keep them from being a distraction).

              Stay safe,
              Displaced Okie

    • My leaves need raking, and I’m only a couple of hours away!

      • See, that’s what happens when you have too much yard. Perhaps you should share with D13, since he doesn’t have one.

    • D 13

      The only post that really tells it like it is.

    • Thanks, as always D13!

    • “BF and I had a discussion the other day about the Vietcong and his belief that they are simply civilian criminals”

      So let me get this straight.

      The major street gangs of the USA are sending their boys into the Army to learn weapons and tactics to be used back home.

      This, to you, now makes the street gangs “an army”?

      • No sir, not at all. I am not real familiar with the organizations of gangs except to say they are thugs…however, street gangs have no political agenda. They are not fighting crime, they are not fighting anything except each other. They are not blowing up trade centers, ships, barracks, or attacking military or civilian targets to further a cause of any kind. They do not have squads, platoons, companies, battalions, and divisions and, other than stealing, they are not paid by a country or other government to fight.

        The Vietcong were. We captured underground banks and payrolls and communications equipment, along with documents and governmental data.

        We are doing the same with the “so called” terrorist groups. They have structure, banks that pay them, health/hospitals, and government structure.

        • And most importantly, they have politcal/ideological objective, not individual motives such as McVeigh or simply financial motives such as the gangs or mob.

        • Interestingly, according to Freakonomics, the nearest organizational structure to street gangs is McDonalds. He says that the command and pay structures are virtually identical. Not sure what to make of that, but I thought I’d share it with you.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Nothin’ like a dose of blunt cold harsh brutal honesty to put things into perspective.

  13. Politics at its finest. Michelle Malkin has background info on Holder and his law firms involvement in delaying KSM trial.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/18/culture-of-corruption-holder-terrorists-covington-burling/

    • Kathy and others

      As much as I dislike much about what lawyers do, I hope we are not going down the path of condemning a lawyer because of the clients he had or those of his law firm. Law firms become very good at certain things which make them more in demand. It does not necessarily mean the lawyers actually sympathize or support the actions of those they defend.

      Most of them worship the law and legal processes. That is why they flock to those they think are being mistreated, with regard to those processes.

      Now that said, I think this Holder character is a little to full of Bulldookey for my liking. Seems more politician than legal beagle to me. I hope I am wrong but I remember all the political operative the Clinton/Gore folks put into the justice system. Once installed they can work their magic within the guise of federal lawyer. It is really quite clever and undetectable.

      • Yeah, JAC. Have to agree with you. Lawyers=necessary evil. Cannot fault Holder ofr using his talents to defend even terrorists,,,this is a free country after all….well…never mind.

        Ummmm….I have a problem with the conflict of interest. If he was passionate about “these types” before public office…should he be making the decisions now.

        • D13:

          BINGO.

          He should have removed himself from the entire decision making process.

          Bet folks here didn’t know that one of the Supreme Court cases on this issue was decided 5-3. Because Justice Roberts recused himself. He had been involved in a ruling on the issue at the lower court level.

          Mr. Holder has a smell about him I don’t care for.

        • I have a problem with criticizing the former administration’s not being able to litigate all the while being directly involved in preventing them for doing such. Holder did exactly that.

      • Oh, I agree, every law firm can choose to work with whatever clients they want. However, if this is really, as Holder/Obama say, about getting it right, then how can Holder be involved at all?

        • Kathy:

          You are correct. He SHOULD NOT be. One of the Asst. AG’s should be handling the whole thing and he should have recused himself from the decision making process, not been the point man.

          But ethical standards have never meant much to the progressive’s anyway. So no surprise.

          • JAC< JAC< JAC……how many times must you be chastised….NEVER NEVER NEVER use ethics referring to politicians in the same sentence. Shame.

            • My most humblyist of appologies my dear sir.

              You are absolutely correct.

              I have slipped on the mud of corruption someone left on the cave floor.

              Hope your day was good.
              Tipin an Irish Whiskey to ya tonight.
              JAC

      • Precisely JAC…. Even the worst offenders are entitled to a competent defense. I have no issue with who he may have defended before. D13’s question about having a conflict of interest is interesting to me, and I shall ponder it more. But as to the fact that Holder’s firm represented terrorists in the past, a non-issue for me. That is what lawyers do.

        Show me where they acted un-ethically when defending them and we have a different story all together.

  14. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

    ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made —

    GRAHAM: We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.

    HOLDER: Well, I think —

    GRAHAM: The Ghailani case — he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn’t object to it going into federal court. But I’m telling you right now. We’re making history and we’re making bad history. And let me tell you why.

    Now, the real focus of this NPR piece was Graham’s subsequent question concerning whether or not U.S. officials would have to Mirandize Osama bin Laden if he was captured:

    GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?

    HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.

    GRAHAM: Where would you try him?

    HOLDER: Well, we’d go through our protocol. And we’d make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. […]

    GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

    HOLDER: Again I’m not — that all depends. I mean, the notion that we —

    GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you’re going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

    The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over — to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence — for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you’re confusing the people fighting this war.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/npr-shocker-attorney-general-holder-stumped-lindsey-graham

    A caution to those who think this is an automatic win for the US. If a judge rules evidence was gathered illegally, it cannot be used. He could be shown to be guilty beyond any doubts, and ordered released, all charges dropped. I think this was a very poor decision, made for their political agenda.

    • From the November 19 broadcast of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:

      DOOCY: It was interesting, yesterday Eric Holder seemed completely unprepared for what seemed like a pretty simple question from Lindsey Graham: When was the last time there was an enemy combatant was tried in a civil court?” “Uh, uh….” And then Lindsey Graham eventually answered: “Never.”

      Fact: Padilla was held as an enemy combatant before eventually getting a civil trial

      As The New York Times reported, Padilla was a U.S. citizen who was originally arrested on suspicions of “taking part in an Al Qaeda plot to detonate a radioactive ‘dirty bomb’ within the United States.” Padilla was held “more than three years in solitary isolation in a military brig as an officially designated enemy combatant.” While Padilla’s lawyer challenged his designation, in November 2005, “the Bush administration suddenly announced that criminal charges had been filed against him in federal court in Miami. The new indictment made no mention of the dirty bomb or most of the other original charges. … On Aug. 16, 2007, Mr. Padilla and two co-defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people in a foreign country, which carries a penalty of life in prison. All three were also convicted of conspiracy to provide material support for terrorists, and providing material support for terrorists.”

      http://mediamatters.org/research/200911190010

      I think media matters is deliberately twisting things here. A US citizen
      is subject to US laws. I wonder about the other two, were Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi US citizens?

  15. I am just curious how long it will take, what the cost will be, and who in NY can stand before the defending lawyers and say with an honest conviction that they do not have a pre-concieved idea of guilt?

    I cannot see this man getting any kind of fair trial by his peers; he doesn’t have any in NY, least ways not US citizens.

    BTW: Not that I give two cents its the principle.

    CM

  16. Why should KSM and friends not be treated as wartime saboteurs (soldiers in civilian clothes), like the Germans who tried to infiltrate the US in WWII?

    I’m with D13.

    In addition, a civilian trial will provide a huge platform for jihadi propaganda and will make the US look even weaker than we look already to our enemies.

    • JayD

      If they had been caught here they could have been.

      Maybe even stretch to those that were here during planning.

      But the guy who planned and ordered the Germans to the US could not be tried for espionage, and thus KSM could not either.

  17. off topic:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6599281/Societe-Generale-tells-clients-how-to-prepare-for-global-collapse.html

    Société Générale tells clients how to prepare for potential ‘global collapse’
    Société Générale has advised clients to be ready for a possible “global economic collapse” over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction.

    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
    Published: 6:12PM GMT 18 Nov 2009

    Comments 68 | Comment on this article

    Explosion of debt: Japan’s public debt could reach as much as 270pc of GDP in the next two years. A bullet train is pictured speeding past Mount Fuji in Fuji city, west of Tokyo Photo: Reuters
    In a report entitled “Worst-case debt scenario”, the bank’s asset team said state rescue packages over the last year have merely transferred private liabilities onto sagging sovereign shoulders, creating a fresh set of problems.

    Overall debt is still far too high in almost all rich economies as a share of GDP (350pc in the US), whether public or private. It must be reduced by the hard slog of “deleveraging”, for years.

    Related Articles
    ‘Debt levels risk another crisis’ “As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse,” said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of the dangers, not a forecast.

    Under the French bank’s “Bear Case” scenario (the gloomiest of three possible outcomes), the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.

    Governments have already shot their fiscal bolts. Even without fresh spending, public debt would explode within two years to 105pc of GDP in the UK, 125pc in the US and the eurozone, and 270pc in Japan. Worldwide state debt would reach $45 trillion, up two-and-a-half times in a decade.

    (UK figures look low because debt started from a low base. Mr Ferman said the UK would converge with Europe at 130pc of GDP by 2015 under the bear case).

    The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. “High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt,” it said.

    Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.

    If so, gold would go “up, and up, and up” as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.

    The bank said the current crisis displays “compelling similarities” with Japan during its Lost Decade (or two), with a big difference: Japan was able to stay afloat by exporting into a robust global economy and by letting the yen fall. It is not possible for half the world to pursue this strategy at the same time.

    SocGen advises bears to sell the dollar and to “short” cyclical equities such as technology, auto, and travel to avoid being caught in the “inherent deflationary spiral”. Emerging markets would not be spared. Paradoxically, they are more leveraged to the US growth than Wall Street itself. Farm commodities would hold up well, led by sugar.

    Mr Fermon said junk bonds would lose 31pc of their value in 2010 alone. However, sovereign bonds would “generate turbo-charged returns” mimicking the secular slide in yields seen in Japan as the slump ground on. At one point Japan’s 10-year yield dropped to 0.40pc. The Fed would hold down yields by purchasing more bonds. The European Central Bank would do less, for political reasons.

    SocGen’s case for buying sovereign bonds is controversial. A number of funds doubt whether the Japan scenario will be repeated, not least because Tokyo itself may be on the cusp of a debt compound crisis.

    Mr Fermon said his report had electrified clients on both sides of the Atlantic. “Everybody wants to know what the impact will be. A lot of hedge funds and bankers are worried,” he said.

    • People will never learn the lesson “Do not trust government”

      Government are thieves. Do you trust thieves?

      Buying sovereign debt – can there be anything dumber when the currency is threatened with collapse? Well before the default on the currency, the government will most certainly default on its debt obligations.

      Congrats, you are now holding fancy wallpaper!

  18. v. Holland says:

    I’ve been reading and trying to figure out what we should do in this situation which follows our laws and the Constitution, while my gut is screaming military courts, but I have come to the conclusion that there is enough ambiguity in this mess that we can do whatever we want- I go for military courts-lets choose to go over the bridge and bypass the hidden minefields.

    • v. Holland says:

      I should of said -Why aren’t we choosing to go over the bridge-obviously I don’t actually get a vote.

  19. Bottom Line says:

    Time for some fun…

  20. A. General Death Rates
    Cause
    Number

    Heart disease 737,563
    Cancer 538,455
    Stroke (cerebrovascular disease) 157,991
    Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 102,899
    Doctor’s negligence 93,329
    Motor-vehicle 43,363
    Firearms (Total)

    Suicides 18,503
    Homicides 15,551
    Accidents 1,125
    35,673

    Suicides (all kinds, including firearms) 31,284
    Accidents (five causes)

    Falls 13,986
    Poison 8,461
    Drowning 4,350
    Fires, burns 3,761
    Firearms 1,225

    Homicides (all instruments) 22,895
    Chronic liver disease, cirrhosis 25,222
    Source: Except for the figure on doctor’s negligence, the above information is for 1995 and is taken from National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 10, 121. The number of yearly deaths attributed to doctor’s negligence is based on the Harvard Medical Practice Study (1990) which is cited in Kleck, Point Blank, at 43.

    B. Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)
    Cause Number
    Motor-vehicle 3,059
    Drowning 1,060
    Fires, burns 833
    Mechanical suffocation 459
    Ingestion of food, object 213
    Firearms 181
    Source: Figures are for 1995. National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 10, 11, 18.

    • Matt,

      Sorry, Dept. of Justic publishes new info yearly.(not my source for previous post)

      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

    • The figures LOI presents are 10 years old.

      The traffic accident figure has remained essentially static.

      Death by Doctor in 2008 was +/-132,000

      • I think what we have to take into consideration is that when you make an accident while driving it’s probably less likely to kill you. That is, a car crash you might survive, but really, mistakes happen all the time of a lesser nature – you forget to signal, you stop short, you don’t sufficiently check your blind spots.. etc.

        The problem is that, in medical situations – and especially with an aging population – these slight mistakes (proscribing slightly too much medication, mixing up charts, failing to notice a dark spot on the x-ray, etc) will kill the person.

        Not sure what to make of it, but those are just my thoughts..

        • They don’t call it a medical practice for no reason.

          We are all guinea pigs in their eyes….

          Hech, have you read the insert to the H1N1 shot?

          “…we have no study that determines whether the vaccine has determental effects on pregnant women, including alterations to reproductive capacity…”

          “….there is no evidence that any dose of the vaccine is effective in preventing H1N1 flu…”

          I kid you not.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Flu shots contain

            1. Ethylene Glycol (anti-freeze)
            2. Phenol (used as a disinfectant and dye)
            3. Formaldehyde ( known carcinogen)
            4. Aluminum (associated with alzheimer’s)
            5. Thimerosal (form of mercury, can cause brain injury)

            • They also contain small amounts of dead virus. Lest we forget.

              • They are not ‘dead’ – since viruses are not ‘alive’ to begin with.

                They are ‘degraded’ – the question is, have they been degraded to a point that they are destroyed by your immune reaction before they ‘reactivate’.

                It is a biological race – and one that I refuse to participate in.

              • Hope you’ve stocked up on cough medicine.

                I’ll share a secret with you: the only cure for the flu is Matzoball soup. Find your nearest kosher deli and have them deliver you a quart. Trust me, it’s worth it. You’ll be up and pillaging in a day or two.

              • The best cure is prevention.

                Vitamin D – which is almost every Northern Hemisphere person is suffering from severe deficiency, has very compelling evidence that shows it to be key in preventing virus infections and a huge number of cancers and other disease.

                It is not a vitamin (though labeled as such) but a hormone that is key to many body functions.

                5,000 IU (about 10x what the FDA suggests) seems to be required for health, and up to 15,000 IU for remedial actions.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              If people only knew. Sounds like a bunch of car products, not to mention you can be embalmed at the same time.. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I know it’s not that much formaldehyde.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Try reading a MSDS(Material Safety Data Sheet) on any of the above mentioned five chemicals.

          • Bottom Line says:

            According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD – The worlds leading authority on immunogenetics…if a person has 5 consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980( yrs. of the study) his/her chance of developing alzheimers is 10 times greater than if they had 1,2, or 0. Dr. Fudenberg stated that it is due to the mercury and aluminum buildup that is in every flu shot and almost all childhood shots. The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. Alzheimers is now expected to quadruple.

            • AND!!

              The inventory of the swine flu shot has said, quoted, that the vaccine has “very low probability in preventing the swine flu”.

              His own studies, as he himself admits, demonstrated a very low effectiveness.

              Whoho!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                So ,why bother getting it then?

                I haven’t heard anything lately about side effects, or is there any?

              • Adjuvanted H1N1 compound, which is designed to accelarate the immune response, is molecular-ly very close to the compound that sheathes your nerves.

                There is a current and credible theory that suggests that the immune system confuses these two compounds, and begins to attack the bodies own nerve sheath – causing the appearances of auto-immune diseases

                There have been rare cases of permanent paralysis and neurological dysfunctions.

                However, long term afflictions are, obviously, hard to determine. Some studies have shown an indication that it causes micro-strokes – which may also explain assorted other effects such as finger tingling (a sign of slight and temporary paralysis), loss of balance, nerve damage, etc.

                The jury is still out.

                The vaccination theory disturbs me.

                It bypasses 3 out of 5 of the bodies natural auto-immune system’s protections – a holistic system which nature designed to prevent, protect and guard against disease.

                People forget that the vaccination theory is based on Edward Jenner and his cowpox vaccination of his son as a protection from small pox.

                What most people do not know that his son died when he was 21 from …… small pox.

                There appears to be many unknowns left in this theory….

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                What are micro-strakes?

              • They are strokes that haven’t grown up yet.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                HI G

                You’re funny.

              • Mirco-strokes – blood vessel breakage inside the brain – small and confined and usually wholly noticeable like major strokes

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Okay, but you said micro strakes, and I thought it was something different, a different kind of storoke. Damn squishy place.

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey All

    Trying to keep up with all the reading.

    Here is to all in the hopes you are having a great day.

    Judy

  22. I move for a change of venue to Puerto Rico. As his attorney I would make the motion on two grounds:

    1. That he cannot receive a fair trial in NY or in the continental US for that matter.

    2. Puerto Rico is the only place where the people, US citizens all, have experienced and still experience US imperialism. They are in aposition to judge his motives and guilt better than anyone else.

    Unless the trial is moved to PR there can be no fairness.

    #1

    • Our laws require he be tried before a jury of his peers (unless he chooses to appear before a judge instead). He is a Islamic Jihad extremist. The only way to assure a “fair” trial is to assemble a jury of Islamic extremist. LOL

      • Interesting point…… but not quite…… A jury of your peers only means your fellow citizens. It does not mean they have to be like minded. For example, a trial for a white supremacist does not have to be judged by a jury of fellow white supremacists. So they have to be peers, which I guess means (in context) citizens. Though he isn’t a citizen, but I assume this doesn’t matter. The point is that he should be judged by normal people not by, say, judges or politicians.

      • If I was the defense for KSM, I would request a judge-only trial.

        There is no way and no how citizens of the US would come with a verdict of ‘no guilty’, even if the evidence showed him to be innocent. The people want someone to hang – they’ve slaughter hundreds of thousands of Afghan’s and Iraqi’s and more blood is demanded, no matter what.

        Theoretically, a judge would be slightly more unbiased since his name will – forever – be attached to his verdict.

        However, KSM will use this to his advantage. He will want to show the American people to be vicious, vengeful and unworthy of justice. He wants to be railroaded – heck, he will want to be lynched. It will be the proof he wants.

        It will an interesting game.

        • Bottom Line says:

          I say give him his martyrdom and take him out back with one of Patton’s pearl handled revolvers and execute him.

          • And prove his statements to the world that America is unjust and cruel.

            He wins.

            • Bottom Line says:

              &%$# what they think.

              He dies.

              • When the world sees you as a vicious and unjust, they will respond mutually.

                Be prepared to be dealt with viciously and unjustly by others.

                Darn Law of Mutuality …..

              • Bottom Line says:

                That’s what we have nukes for.

                Darn Law of Mutuality …..

              • The world has nukes.

                You will glow in the dark.

                Darn Mutuality.

              • Bottom Line says:

                We will all glow in the dark…

                or none of us will glow in the dark…

                Darn Mutuality.

              • Remember, you fired first.

                There will be no mercy.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Global Thermonuclear Warfare depends on timing vs. hit/miss ratio.

                Not that I was necessarily suggesting that we fire first, but,…

                whoever fires first and/or with the most hits loses less.

                Nobody wins.

                Which is why it is a deterrent.

                That’s where mutuality comes into play.

                M.A.D.

                They keep their mouths shut if we decide to take ’em out back with Patton’s pieces, because they know what it all eventually boils down to if they wanna get nasty.

                And we have the arsenal to back it up.

                Q: What are they gonna do really?

                A: Nothing/watch us kill KSM.

              • Sir, you dangerously confuse YOU with the nation.

                Few nations excepting Russia, China and Europe are any serious threat – and then only by nuclear war.

                However YOU as an American individual will have (and have now) a big red, white and blue target on you back, front, forehead and behind.

                The government cannot even protect its own, let alone you.

                Your government’s actions will most certainly increase the size of the bull’s eye on your butt.

              • Bottom Line says:

                If WE, as a nation decide to punish KSM by burrowing one of Patton’s pearl handled beauties from the museum in Ft. Knox, and using it on KSM behind the courthouse…

                Then nobody is gonna do jack. Any one or more entities powerful enough to present a challenge is ultimately faced with M.A.D.

                Hence, they keep their mouths shut. It isn’t worth bitching about.

                Terrorists, by your own description, are the weaker side, thus presenting little overall threat.

                I’m not scared.

                I say bring it.

              • Bottom Line says:

                I think I have your booger on the end of my spear.

                lol

              • ..”then bring it”…

                Hubris has destroyed more nations and empires …..

              • Bottom Line says:

                I think you’re confusing hubris with justice.

                It’s not about what they think.

                It’s about righteously punishing those who have attacked us.

                &%$# what the world thinks.

                If we wanna take ’em out back and shoot ’em, that’s our prerogative, and none of their business.

                If they wanna get nasty…

                I say bring it.

  23. Judy Sabatini says:

    I would like to share this poem with all of you.

    BLACK NOVEMBER ( A Turkey’s View )

    When I was a young turkey, new to the coop
    My big brother Mike took me out to the stoop

    Then he sat me down, and he spoke real slow
    And he told me there was something I had to know

    His look and his tone I will always remember
    When he told me of the horror of…..Black November

    ” Come about August, now listen to me
    Each day you’ll get six meals instead of just three ”

    ” And soon you’ll be thick, where once you were thin
    And you’ll grow a big rubbery thing under your chin

    ” And then one morning when you’re warm in your bed
    In’ll burst the farmer’s wife, and she’ll hack off your head.

    ” Then she’ll pluck out of all your feathers so you’re bald and pink
    And scoop out all your insides and leave ya lyin in the sink

    ” And then comes the worst part ” he said not bluffing
    ” She’ll spread your cheeks and pack your rear with stuffing

    Well, the rest of his words were too grim to repeat
    I sat on the stoop like a winged piece of meat

    And decided on the spot that to avoid being cooked
    I’d have to lay low and remain overlokked

    I began a new diet of nuts and granola
    Hugh-roughage salads, juice, and diet cola

    And as they ate pastries, chocolates and crepes
    I stayed in my room doing Jane Fonda tapes

    I maintained my weight of two pounds and a half
    And tried not to notice when the bigger birds laughed

    But’twas I who was laughing, under my breath
    As they chomped and they chewed, ever closer to death;

    And sure enough when Black November rolled around
    I was the last turkey left in the entire compound

    So now I’m a pet in the farmer’s wife lap
    I haven’t a worry, so I eat and I nap

    She held me today, while sewing and humming
    And smiled at me and said ” CHRISTMAS IS COMING “

  24. Hi Ya’ll!

    Just some thoughts about the H1N1 vaccine. Today I declined to get one, as employee health members were innoculating my department at the hospital I work at. Many people would say I was nuts, since I work at a hospital, but I have very good reasons. The H1N1 vaccine and the antrax vaccine have alot in common. First, neither was tested properly. The antrax vaccine given to troops in 1990 was considered experimental, as i believe the H1N1 will be called at a later date. Both vaccines have something in common, that is a compound that is used to allow for more vaccines and speed up the autoimmune system, in the H1N1, that compound is called MB59. The primary ingerdient is squaline, which happens to be the very ingredient many VA doctors blame for cause Desert Storm Syndrome.

    So, I’m with Black Flag on this one. I hope everyone researches the vaccine and determines whether it is for you or not. Knowledge is golden.

    Now, back to you regularly scheduled program!

    G!

    • Thanks G!

      Yes, squaline is the compond that is nearly molecular-identical to your nerve-sheath protein.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi G

      If I’m not mistaken here, I think when Matthew went to Iraq the first time, he went by boat, he got that shot, and said he was sick for 4 days after wards, never been sick like that before, he thought he was going to die from that shot.

      Just wanted to share that.

      • I know a lot of people that got sick because of those shots. I made sure I had something to do far away, so I never got one!

        G!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          You’re lucky they didn’t find you .

          By the way, how you doing today? Hope all is going good.

          • It’s been a good day. Going to watch the Dolphins game tonight, I’m a big NFL fan. So for three hours I can forget all the other BS going on in this world. Got a big vacation coming up, so I’m getting excited about that.

            Tell Jim and your boys I said HI!

            G!

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Football, a game of dog pile I call it. Not into that at all, except for our home team the Wolf Pack.

              Another vacation. Oh yeah, you’re going to your dad’s right? Hope you get one this time. How long will you be on vacation this time?

              I will tell the boys hi for you when I see them.

              • Be at Dad’s hunting for 8 days. Hope it snows, a lot!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                For what he told me today, he said the same thing.

                We were suppose to get snow here a couple days ago, but nothing, although a couple ski resorts are open.

                For what the weather man said, looks like we might be getting something this weekend.

              • Good luck hunting G-Man. Hunting season started here on the 15th. I’ve had no luck so far. I’ll be going out again this Saturday and Sunday. I’d go today but have to run my daughter to a college visit in Grand Rapids.

    • Thanks G!

      We have already decided against getting the vaccine, feel better about that decision now.

    • Glad to be of assistance. I haven’t had a flu shot since 1988, which happens to be the last year I had the flu, go figure!

      G!

  25. I am having serious problems getting worked up over the justice or injustice for these murderers of thousands while those who would GUT an entire Nation of over 300 million walk free among us.

    Make sure you read the entire article to get a sense of my anger at the moment. Then go back to picture of Jackass #1 with his hand over his heart.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/senate-health-price-tag-rosy-deficit-estimate-assailed-fantasy/

    • JAC, I really agree with you here. These jerkoff’s in D.C. are going to kill the American dream, and finally bury it. I certainly have no idea as to how to stop these people from doing this, maybe action is not needed, they may destroy themselves in the not to distant future. They are f@#$kin blind to whats going on outside of their little power utopia.

      G!

  26. Back on topic, an interesting article:

    As a former federal prosecutor and a participant in some of the Department of Justice’s conventional investigative efforts in the days after 9/11, I am sure the government’s case at trial will be overwhelming. Therefore, I doubt that Mohammed’s viable defenses include a claim that he did not conspire in the 9/11 attacks.

    Nor is Mohammed likely to accomplish much in arguing that evidence should be excluded because it is tainted by his treatment in U.S. custody. The prosecutors would never have pursued this case without confidence they can win solely with evidence gathered prior to Mohammed’s capture. His treatment at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere gives him no legal basis to suppress evidence gathered before he was in custody.

    The prosecutors’ problem is to avoid outright dismissal of this case before trial when Mohammed asserts the “outrageous government misconduct” defense.

    This defense is based on the theory that, regardless of evidence of guilt, the Constitution prohibits prosecution of a person after government agents engage in behavior that “shocks the conscience.” The Supreme Court has not considered this defense for a long time, but neither has the court rejected it. The argument stems from a 1952 decision authored by Justice Felix Frankfurter. In that case, the court ruled that the state of California violated the Constitution when it arrested a drug suspect, took him to the hospital and directed a doctor to pump his stomach. The state then seized drugs the man vomited and used them to prosecute him.

    This was not an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. It was outrageous conduct that violated the guarantee of due process because, Frankfurter wrote, the government’s methods were “too close to the rack and the screw” for the Constitution to tolerate. Prosecution dismissed.

    In the years since this decision, the federal appellate courts have divided over the continued viability of the “outrageous government misconduct” defense. But several have squarely said it exists, including the influential District of Columbia circuit court, which has said such an outright dismissal of a case should be reserved for instances of “coercion, violence or brutality to the person.”

    The application of this defense to the prosecution of Mohammed is obvious following repeated waterboarding, among other official acts. Given that the government used methods “close to the rack and screw,” it would seem that a court could avoid dismissing the prosecution only by ruling that the defense of “outrageous government misconduct” no longer exists.

    The Supreme Court has never said this, the appellate courts are divided on the question, and the current Supreme Court has been anything but reluctant to address major legal questions flowing from the government’s war with al Qaeda.

    Mohammed’s case would seem bound for the Supreme Court, maybe before he can be tried.

    On its way there, the federal courts will be forced to confront the central questions in the debate about torture. The unavoidable issues include whether what was done to Mohammed “shocks the conscience” because it was indeed, by anyone’s sensible definition, torture, and whether the government thereby forfeited its right to call him to account for his role in the murders of the victims of 9/11.

    • Why not just file for summary judgment and dismissal. That is what I would do. It would show two things. (1) if the verdict is a duck shoot and (2) if it is intended for show.

      • Colonel, Read your posts throughout the day, I can understand your emotions on this. All of want to see these people brought to justice. While you have stated that they are enemy combatants and POW’s, some would say they are just murdurers. I’m not sure the legallities of it all, after all I’m not anywhere near being a lawyer.

        These people are evil, and deserve the worst of punishments our laws allow, if in fact they are convicted.

        The decision to do this in Federal Court is quite controversial and I think the same would have been said about a military tribunal. My biggest concern, in the back of my little mind, is that this was done to get them aquitted, for whatever legal reason. IMHO, this administration , through and through, sympathize with the Muslims and want to try and make amends for what they feel was done wrong by Bush/Cheney. Hope I’m wrong, but I do not trust these people any farther than I can throw them.

        That’s my conspiracy theory of the day.

        Hope today finds you healthy!

        G!

  27. Judy Sabatini says:

    Cartoon of the day, and since a lot hear think BO turns his back on America, then this one fits.

  28. Ray Hawkins:

    Ray, take a look at the following article. Now we are supposed to get an “understanding” about issues and people from just “word clouds”. I think this will make a good test of our theories regarding manipulation and how bad it might be. The trick now is to watch for “connections” made between “conclusions by pundits and the word clouds”. I don’t want to give any examples as it would ruin our test.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34042064/ns/politics-more_politics/

    I hope yer dog is doing well.
    JAC

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    pdated November 19, 2009
    The Trouble With Harry’s Health Care Bill

    by Phil Kerpen

    What does Senator Reid’s health care bill mean for patients and doctors? It means, fundamentally, a loss of control for all of us over our own health care.

    In the fantasy-world that is Washington, D.C., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will claim today that his proposed health care legislation will actually save the country money. He’ll do this with the imprimatur of Congressional Budget Office and despite the fact that his legislation creates a vast new middle-class health care entitlement that will add 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls and create a bureaucratic army to micromanage every decision made by every doctor in the United States. Reid will no doubt make his claim with a straight face and even tout the supposed deficit reduction as a benefit of the bill. Don’t be fooled. It’s a farce. This bill is an enormous budget-buster and it’s coming at a time when the American economy is still reeling.

    Here are the three biggest gimmicks in the proposed Senate bill:

    1.The Reid bill still starts hiking taxes and cutting Medicare immediately, while the new spending programs are delayed until January 2014. That’s 6 months later than the last version of the bill, which seems like a strange way to go about addressing what we’re told is the most urgent crisis the country faces. Costs escalate dramatically in the later years, with spending of $196 billion in just 2019 alone. Without this gimmick, the fully phased in 10-year cost would be not the much-touted $848 billion is about $2.5 trillion.

    2.The so-called “doctors fix” provision of repealing the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism of limiting Medicare payments to doctors is only included for 2010. So the Reid bill pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 23 percent in 2011 and stay at that low-level. That’s totally dishonest, because it would drive most doctors out of Medicare. That raises the real price-tag of the bill another $247 billion.

    3.The bill includes yet another new entitlement program, a long-term care insurance program called the CLASS Act. This new federal entitlement program will supposedly reduced the deficit. That’s because the CBO counts the programs 10-year revenues of $72 billion as deficit reduction to help pay for the Reid bill, even though it will cost far more than it raises once benefits start being collected in the future. This is another new entitlement time-bomb, when Social Security and Medicare already have staggering multi-trillion dollar unfunded liabilities. But the Democrats and their supporters claim it reduces the deficit.

    Aside from these gimmicks, the general Washington political culture and the CBO in particular, are notoriously inept at forecasting the deficit impact of health care bills. As Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell demonstrates in his excellent new paper and explains in this video, the tax revenues are likely to be much lower than projected and the spending is likely to be much, much higher — making the Senate bill a sure-fire budget buster.

    Most of the American people know that this health care bill will be enormously expensive — no matter what politicians and budget officials in Washington claim. China knows it too, recently telling President Obama it would prefer not to finance yet another massive U.S. government new spending program. But with the staggering multi-trillion dollar debts we already have, many of us simply feel numb to big numbers. These days it feels like the repeated use of the word “trillion” amounts to just so much Monopoly money. And such a feeling might not be so far-fetched because our unsustainable borrowing is already depressing the value of the dollar. It’s also quite possible that galloping inflation could be on the horizon — possibly even without the additional trillions of reckless spending in the health care bill.

    So what about the non-fiscal costs? What does this bill mean for patients and doctors? It means, fundamentally, a loss of control over our own health care. The bill is riddled with vast new bureaucracies and enormous new grants of power to federal officials. Doctors will be supervised for compliance with “performance measures.” Central planners will designate which areas of the country doctors should practice in, and penalize them if they practice elsewhere. All of our medical information will be transmitted to the government, so that physicians can make their treatment recommendations.

    Perhaps most amazing of all, this bill — which uproots hundreds of millions of Americans from insurance plans and doctors that they like and subjects them to unprecedented government control — does little to solve the problem of the uninsured. At the end of the first 10 years, the CBO says there would still be 24 million uninsured in the United States. And about 15 million more people would be on Medicaid, a welfare program whose costs fall partially on the states. The CBO also estimates 5 million people would lose the employer-based coverage they have now. Everyone will be subject to new regulations, restrictions and requirements that mean they won’t really be keeping the coverage they have now.

    If that’s not insane enough, think about this: we are in an economic crisis. Unemployment stands at 10.2 percent, and it’s at 17.5 percent if you include people who have given up looking for a job and those working part-time who wish they weren’t. One of the only bright spots in our struggling economy is health care, which created 597,000 new jobs since the recession began. It’s almost like Washington, which already owns stock in so many dogs like the financials and the autos, wants to diversify its portfolio by taking over health care. We can’t let them.

  30. Judy Sabatini says:

    Who’s On Trial –KSM or George W. Bush?

    by Liz Peek

    Team Obama’s lofty liberal ambitions lie in tatters. So why not make the previous president the issue all over again?

    President Obama badly needs to remind Americans how much they disliked George Bush. With soaring unemployment, ballooning budget deficits, ugly wrangling over health care, failure on climate change, indecision on Afghanistan, rising trade wars, churlishness from China, and dead-end diplomacy efforts in Iran, Honduras, Israel and Palestine, a case could be made that things aren’t going too well for our young president. — It was so much easier when Americans were content with just toppling the last guy.

    This may be why Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed aka “KSM” in New York’s federal court. Putting the Bush administration on trial by reigniting the outrage over torture will come at a good time, perhaps distracting the public from Obama’s sinking poll numbers. Much as they have tried to push off the day, this administration is now perilously close to having to take responsibility for our monstrous unemployment and grotesque deficits. What better time to rev up the horror of waterboarding among the anti-Bush contingent? Or, to allow KSM a platform for some effective anti-Bush rhetoric all on his own?

    In the transcript of his military tribunal, Mohammed took some shots at Bush. “You know the President he … makes his oath and he lied.” Undoubtedly there will be more where that came from. He also roundly condemned the United States, which he claims has “oppressed” Muslims and has treated detainees unfairly. He describes the U.S. as clueless about the involvements of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. “When America invaded Afghanistan, they just arrive in Afghanistan cause they hear there (sic) enemy. They don’t know what it means Al Qaeda or Usama or Taliban.” Some of us might be inclined to agree with him, but these kinds of accusations will doubtless again have us looking backward as a nation, blaming the Bush administration for, well, nearly everything.
    The administration has suggested that they are eager to showcase the even-handedness of our legal system. Since President Obama has already reassured the nation that KSM will be convicted and executed, it’s a little hard to trumpet our adherence to the “innocent til proven guilty” notion. New Yorkers are worried (rightly) about the security implications of hosting such a high-profile trial, disgusted with the estimated $75 million price tag for the trial and many are concerned that attempting to deliver justice to this fanatic will become a circus, causing yet more anguish for the families and friends of those killed in the Twin Towers.

    Most worrisome is that this terrible person — who has confessed to having orchestrated the murder of thousands of Americans and has begged to executed — may well go free. By deciding to try KSM in a federal civilian court, Holder has committed to the rule of law that governs criminal proceedings. He has, in effect, guaranteed this terrorist’s civil rights. That may turn out to have been a great error. Considering that KSM was taken prisoner by soldiers unconcerned with the niceties of Miranda Rights and rules of evidence and that he is accused of crimes planned in a foreign country and actually performed by others, there is a distinct possibility that crucial evidence will be tossed and that the case will falter. In his tribunal statement, Mohammed claims to have been responsible for nearly every terrorist act since he was born – a list of 29 different events or undertakings that span the globe and that include the attempted assassination of several former presidents, including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Seriously, the list could well lead a defense attorney to claim that KSM is delusional.

    The judge in this case and KSM’s legal team will likely press issues of evidence, of appropriate legal counsel and about the impossibility of receiving a fair trial in New York. For all these reasons, this monster could walk.

    Why take this chance? Team Obama clearly weighed the political pros and cons of unleashing this nightmare on New York. What is to be gained? Do we really think that by parading the messiness of our legal system before the world we will make converts to our way of life? The more likely answer is that President Obama decided that the time was right for another wave of Bush nausea. The Obama team is exhausted from their push to pass health care legislation, worn down by opposition from Americans and by dissension in the president’s own party. Their lofty liberal ambitions — for gays, for climate change, for card check — lie in tatters. They sorely need a shot of adrenaline. You can just hear the charge from the Oval Office: Bring Back George Bush!

  31. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

    Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

    Baffled?? Baffled??

    The crux of the article is “Scientists know why it should be warm but Earth climate is doing something wrong”

    Arrgg!

    There is no mystery! The AGW theory is NUTS is the reason!

    • BF,

      I’d like to join you here: AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

      These people are the reason stupid people should just be shot in the head. Don’t worry, they’d live, it would only be a minor flesh wound as there is nothing substantial between their ears!

      G!

    • Flat earther! (snicker)

  32. Couple Busted for Refusing to Pay Tip
    Patrons claim service was so bad, they had to get napkins and silverware for themselves
    By DAVID CHANG

    Print Email Share Buzz up! TWITTER FACEBOOK

    If you’re frustrated by poor service at a restaurant, think twice before you decide to not tip. You may be in for a bit more than just a dirty look from the waiter.

    “Nobody, nobody wants to be forced to pay a tip or be arrested for terrible service,” Leslie Pope said when her happy hour ended in handcuffs.

    Pope and John Wagner were hauled away by police and charged with theft for not paying the mandatory 18 percent gratuity totaling $16 after eating at the Lehigh Pub in Bethlehem, Pa. with six friends.

    Pope claimed that they had to wait nearly an hour for their order and that she had to get napkins and silverware for the table herself.

    “At this point I became very annoyed because I had already gone up to the bar myself to have my soda refilled because the waitress never came back,” Pope said.

    After the $73 bill came, the group paid for food, drinks, and tax but refused to pay the tip. After explaining the bad service to the bartender in charge, Pope claimed he took their money and called police. The couple was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car.

    “I understand that, you know, we didn’t pay the gratuity, but it was a gratuity, it wasn’t something that was required,” said Wagner.

    The owner admitted that the group waited unusually long for their food, but said the pub was extremely busy that night. He said managers offered to comp the food, a claim the couple denies ever happened.

    “Obviously we would have liked for the patron and the establishment to have worked this out without getting the police involved,” said Deputy Police Commissioner Stuart Bedics.

    Police charged them with theft since the gratuity was part of the actual bill. However, it is doubtful that the charges will hold up in front of a judge. The couple is scheduled to appear in court next month.

    ………..

    The law requires paying a tip!!! What will the stupidity of government do next??

    • Bottom Line says:

      What has the world come to?

      Sigh —

    • v. Holland says:

      “He said managers offered to comp the food, a claim the couple denies ever happened. ” They offered to comp the whole meal but they had them arrested for refusing to pay the tip-sounds fishy-in other words an outright lie.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      I’m sorry, but that has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. If you’re going to be arrested for not leaving a tip, then there is something seriously wrong there.

      I noticed it didn’t say anything about the attitude of the waiter either and how he performed his services, and that can have a big affect on whether he was left a tip or not. If we have bad service from any waitress or waiter, you can bet, they don’t get a tip. Been there, done that.

  33. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/how-we-lied-to-put-a-killer-in-power-719407.html

    The world’s press was systematically manipulated by British intelligence as part of a plot to overthrow Indonesia’s President Sukarno in the 1960s, according to Foreign Office documents. The BBC, the Observer andReuters news agency were all duped into carrying stories manufactured by agents working for the Foreign Office…

    ….. and Cyndi’s boyfriend trust the Main Stream Media….

  34. Colonel and Birdman,

    As long as I’ve been coming to SUFA, the one thing that everyone wanted was to get back to the way our founders originally intended this country to be. We want Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and we damn sure don’t want the “CHANGES” that are occurring today. We have debated for months that we cannot allow the changes to happen. If we change one thing for pure emotional reasons, we will never have a free society that we all desire. The Liberals want to change things to fit their ideology and their emotional desires, and we have all admitted to being pissed off about it!

    Changing the meaning of POW or any other term is exactly what we detest in the Liberal actions of our current government. We don’t need to change any terms to catch up to the times, we need to change government to go back in time. To suggest we change the terms of our existance, for emotional reasons, good or bad, is wrong, and it contradicts our desires of Liberty!

    PEACE!

    G!

    • G-Man:

      After discussing this issue with JAC and Black Flag last Saturday, I now understand why KSM gets a trial and I accept it and have moved on. Perhaps the Geneva Convention and international laws are sufficient. Wikipedia (spelling?) had a long article on enemy combatant that JAC had a link to. I would have to read the entire article again to see what revisions should be made, if any.

      I am for VDLG and I recognize now more than ever why government is evil. I don’t need any convincing on the issue.

      • No offense intended! This is an emotional subject today, I’ve had to recheck my own thoughts to stay on the right track. Everyone here seems to help in that area!

        PEACE!

  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    Bowing to ‘world opinion’
    Thomas Sowell – Syndicated Columnist – 11/19/2009 10:15:00

    Thomas SowellIn the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes.

    Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Convention, nor are they among those covered by it.

    But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents. The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense — information that told the Al Qaeda international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.

    This was nothing more and nothing less than giving away military secrets to an enemy in wartime — something for which people have been executed, as they should have been. Secrecy in warfare is a matter of life and death. Lives were risked and lost during World War II to prevent Nazi Germany from discovering that Britain had broken its supposedly unbreakable Enigma code and could read their military plans that were being radioed in that code.

    “Loose lips sink ships” was the World War II motto in the United States. But loose lips are mandated under the rules of criminal prosecutions.

    Tragically, this administration seems hell-bent to avoid seeing acts of terrorism against the United States as acts of war. The very phrase “war on terrorism” is avoided, as if that will stop the terrorists’ war on us.

    The mindset of the left behind such thinking was spelled out in an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, which said that “Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, will be tried the right way — the American way, in a federal courtroom where the world will see both his guilt and the nation’s adherence to the rule of law.”

    This is not the rule of law but the application of laws to situations for which they were not designed.

    How many Americans may pay with their lives for the intelligence secrets and methods that can be forced to be disclosed to Al Qaeda was not mentioned. Nor was there mention of how many foreign nations and individuals whose cooperation with us in the war on terror have been involved in countering Al Qaeda — nor how many foreign nations and individuals will have to think twice now, before cooperating with us again, when their role can be revealed in court to our enemies, who can exact revenge on them.

    Behind this decision and others is the notion that we have to demonstrate our good faith to other nations, sometimes called “world opinion.” Just who are these saintly nations whose favor we must curry, at the risk of American lives and the national security of the United States?

    Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about “the international community” and “world opinion,” or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations. Yet this is the gallery to which Barack Obama has been playing, both before and after becoming President of the United States.

    In the wake of the obscenity of a trial of terrorists in federal court for an act of war — and the worldwide propaganda platform it will give them — it may seem to be a small thing that President Obama has been photographed yet again bowing deeply to a foreign ruler. But how large or small an act is depends on its actual consequences, not on whether the politically correct intelligentsia thinks it is no big deal.

    As a private citizen, Barack Obama has a right to make as big a fool of himself as he wants to. But, as President of the United States, his actions not only denigrate a nation that other nations rely on for survival, but raise questions about how reliable our judgment and resolve are — which in turn raises questions about whether those nations will consider themselves better off to make the best deal they can with our enemies.

  36. Judy Sabatini says:

    U.N. says the world needs fewer children
    Maria Cheng – Associated Press Medical Writer – 11/19/2009

    LONDON – The U.N. Population Fund has declared that having fewer children would help reduce so-called global warming…but added it is difficult to proof a connection between the two.

    The agency said the battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available.

    The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: “Women with access to reproductive health services … have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions.”

    “As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth’s capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic,” the report said.

    The world’s population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations.

    The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. “The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect,” the report said.

    It also said that while there is no doubt that “people cause climate change,” the developing world has been responsible for a much smaller share of world’s greenhouse gas emissions than developed countries.

    Still, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, the U.N. Population Fund’s executive director, told a news conference in London on Wednesday that global warming could be catastrophic for people in poor countries, particularly women.

    “We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster,” she said.

    In three weeks, a global conference will be held in Copenhagen aimed at reaching a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrial countries to cut heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.

    On Wednesday, one analyst criticized the U.N. Population Fund’s pronouncements as alarmist and unhelpful.

    “It requires a major leap of imagination to believe that free condoms will cool down the climate,” said Caroline Boin, a policy analyst at International Policy Network, a London-based think tank.

    She also questioned earlier efforts by the agency to control the world’s population.

    In its 1987 report, the U.N. Population Fund warned that once the global population hit 5 billion, the world “could degenerate into disaster.” At the time, the agency said “more vigorous attempts to slow undue population growth” were needed in many countries.

    According to Boin, “Numerous environmental indicators show that with development and economic growth we are able to preserve more natural habitats. There is no causal relationship between population density and poverty.”

    In this month’s Bulletin, the World Health Organization’s journal, two experts also warned about the dangers of linking fertility to climate change.

    “Using the need to reduce climate change as a justification for curbing the fertility of individual women at best provokes controversy and at worst provides a mandate to suppress individual freedoms,” wrote WHO’s Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Manjula Lusti-Narasimhan.

    • I think I could destroy much of what is said here, I could only imagine what BF, JAC USW, and many others could do in a debate with these people!

      G!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        You I’m stirring up trouble here? Just putting up what’s been talked about here today.

      • Bottom Line says:

        G,

        There’s enough “Pinkys” and “Brains” in here to take over the world.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          And who might they be?

          • Bottom Line says:

            Judy,

            Your guess is good as mine.

            I was merely attempting to use a comedic metaphore to support G’s mention of the intellectual capacity here at SUFA.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              You know BL I think I owe you an apology. WHY? Because I thought it was G who said that, and I didn’t notice who said it. SORRY! But you’re right, there are so many intelligent people here, it could be any one of them, or two, or all.

    • This reminds me of human sacrifice. Instead of virgins being sacrificed to the Earth goddess, they’ll be sacrificing babies. Disgusting.

  37. Judy Sabatini says:

    Subject: Letter to Mr. Reaper

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    > Dear Mr. Grim Reaper,
    >>
    >> So far this year you have taken away my favorite actor Patrick Swayze,
    > my
    >> favorite actress Farrah Fawcett, and my favorite entertainer Michael
    >> Jackson.
    >>
    >> Just so you know, my favorite politician is Barack Obama.
    >>
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >>

  38. Judy Sabatini says:

    Subject: OIL, NOT A JOKE:

    Drill here, drill now!
    About 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes brothers was the guest. This is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S . have in the ground.” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle East put together.” Please read below.
    The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April (’08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ’95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ….. check THIS out:
    The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
    ‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.
    ‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
    That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.
    2. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!
    U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
    Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006
    Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
    They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

    8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
    – 18-times as much oil as Iraq
    – 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
    – 22-times as much oil as Iran
    – 500-times as much oil as Yemen
    – and it’s all right here in the Western United States .
    HOW can this BE? HOW can weNOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?
    James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
    Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
    Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you’re thinking about it ….. and hopefully P.O’d, do this:
    3. Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices — because by doing NOTHING, you’ve forfeited your right to complain.
    ——–
    Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.
    By the way…this is all true. GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind.http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

  39. Judy Sabatini says:

    This was sent to me a little while ago, and I don’t know if it’s true or not, I will leave that up to you people to decide if it is or not. Will be interested to see your thoughts.

    Subject: Eye-witness at Fort Hood Account from JAG officer

    This is another good read from an eye-witness to the Fort Hood shooting.

    From: Jim Ridenour [mailto:jimr@ieway.com]
    Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:48 AM
    To: Jerry Albrecht; Gary Ridenour
    Subject: Fort Hood Account from JAG officer onsite

    > Since I don’t know when I’ll sleep (it’s 4 am now) I’ll write what happened (the abbreviated version…..the long one is already part of the investigation with more to come). I’ll not write about any part of the investigation that I’ve learned about since (as a witness I know more than I should since inevitably my JAG brothers and sisters are deeply involved in the investigation). Don’t assume that most of the current media accounts are very accurate. They’re not. They’ll improve with time. Only those of us who were there really know what went down. But as they collate our statements they’ll get it right.
    >
    > I did my SRP last week (Soldier Readiness Processing) but you’re supposed to come back a week later to have them look at the smallpox vaccination site (it’s this big itchy growth on your shoulder). I am probably alive because I pulled a ———- and entered the wrong building first (the main SRP building). The Medical SRP building is off to the side. Realizing my mistake I left the main building and walked down the sidewalk to the medical SRP building. As I’m walking up to it the gunshots start. Slow and methodical. But continuous. Two ambulatory wounded came out. Then two soldiers dragging a third who was covered in blood. Hearing the shots but not seeing the shooter, along with a couple other soldiers I stood in the street and yelled at everyone who came running that it was clear but to “RUN!”. I kept motioning people fast. about 6-10 minutes later (the shooting continuous), two cops ran up. one male, one female. we pointed
    > in the direction of the shots. they headed that way (the medical SRP building was about 50 meters away). then a lot more gunfire. a couple minutes later a balding man in ACU’s came around the building carrying a pistol and holding it tactically. He started shooting at us and we all dived back to the cars behind us. I don’t think he hit the couple other guys who were there. I did see the bullet holes later in the cars. First I went behind a tire and then looked under the body of the car. I’ve been trained how to respond to gunfire…but with my own weapon. To have no weapon I don’t know how to explain what that felt like. I hadn’t run away and stayed because I had thought about the consequences or anything like that. I wasn’t thinking anything through. Please understand, there was no intention. I was just staying there because I didn’t think about running. It never occurred to me that he might shoot me. Until he started
    > shooting in my direction and I realized I was unarmed. Then the female cop comes around the corner. He shoots her. (according to the news accounts she got a round into him. I believe it, I just didn’t see it. he didn’t go down.) She goes down. He starts reloading. He’s fiddling with his mags. Weirdly he hasn’t dropped the one that was in his weapon. He’s holding the fresh one and the old one (you do that on the range when time is not of the essence but in combat you would just let the old mag go). I see the male cop around the left corner of the building. (I’m about 15-20 meters from the shooter.) I yell at the cop, “He’s reloading, he’s reloading. Shoot him! Shoot him!) You have to understand, everything was quiet at this point. The cop appears to hear me and comes around the corner and shoots the shooter. He goes down. The cop kicks his weapon further away. I sprint up to the downed female cop. Another captain (I
    > think he was with me behind the cars) comes up as well. She’s bleeding profusely out of her thigh. We take our belts off and tourniquet her just like we’ve been trained (I hope we did it right…we didn’t have any CLS (combat lifesaver) bags with their awesome tourniquets on us, so we worked with what we had). Meanwhile, in the most bizarre moment of the day, a photographer was standing over us taking pictures. I suppose I’ll be seeing those tomorrow. Then a soldier came up and identified himself as a medic. I then realized her weapon was lying there unsecured (and on “fire”). I stood over it and when I saw a cop yelled for him to come over and secure her weapon (I would have done so but I was worried someone would mistake me for a bad guy). I then went over to the shooter. He was unconscious. A Lt Colonel was there and had secured his primary weapon for the time being. He also had a revolver. I couldn’t believe he was
    > one of ours. I didn’t want to believe it. Then I saw his name and rank and realized this wasn’t just some specialist with mental issues. At this point there was a guy there from CID and I asked him if he knew he was the shooter and had him secured. He said he did. I then went over the slaughter house. the medical SRP building. No human should ever have to see what that looked like. and I won’t tell you. Just believe me. Please. there was nothing to be done there. Someone then said there was someone critically wounded around the corner. I ran around (while seeing this floor to ceiling window that someone had jumped through movie style) and saw a large African-American soldier lying on his back with two or three soldiers attending. I ran up and identified two entrance wounds on the right side of his stomach, one exit wound on the left side and one head wound. He was not bleeding externally from the stomach wounds (though
    > almost certainly internally) but was bleeding from the head wound. A soldier was using a shirt to try and stop the head bleeding. He was conscious so I began talking to him to keep him so. He was 42, from North Carolina, he was named something Jr., his son was named something III and he had a daughter as well. His children lived with him. He was divorced. I told him the blubber on his stomach saved his life. He smiled. a young soldier in civvies showed up and identified himself as a combat medic. We debated whether to put him on the back of a pickup truck. A doctor (well, an audiologist) showed up and said you can’t move him, he has a head wound. we finally sat tight. I went back to the slaughterhouse. they weren’t letting anyone in there. not even medics. finally, after about 45 minutes had elapsed some cops showed up in tactical vests. someone said the TBI building was unsecured. They headed into there. All of a
    > sudden a couple more shots were fired. People shouted there was a second shooter. a half hour later the SWAT showed up. there was no second shooter. that had been an impetuous cop apparently. but that confused things for a while. meanwhile I went back to the shooter. the female cop had been taken away. a medic was pumping plasma into the shooter. I’m not proud of this but I went up to her and said “this is the shooter, is there anyone else who needs attention…do them first”. she indicated everyone else living was attended to. I still hadn’t seen any EMTs or ambulances. I had so much blood on me that people kept asking me if I was ok. but that was all other people’s blood. eventually (an hour and a half to two hours after the shootings) they started landing choppers. they took out the big African American guy and the shooter. I guess the ambulatory wounded were all at the SRP building. Everyone else in my area
    > was dead.
    >
    > I suppose the emergency responders were told there were multiple shooters. I heard that was the delay with the choppers (they were all civilian helicopters). they needed a secure LZ. but other than the initial cops who did everything right, I didnt’ see a lot of them for a while. I did see many a soldier rush out to help their fellows/sisters. there was one female soldier, I dont’ know her name or rank but I would recognize her anywhere who was everywhere helping people. a couple people, mainly civilians, were hysterical, but only a couple. one civilian freaked out when I tried to comfort her when she saw my uniform. I guess she had seen the shooter up close. a lot of soldiers were rushing out to help even when we thought there was another gunman out there. this Army is not broken no matter what the pundits say. not the Army I saw.
    >
    > and then they kept me for a long time to come. oh, and perhaps the most surreal thing, at 1500 (the end of the workday on Thursdays) when the bugle sounded we all came to attention and saluted the flag. in the middle of it all.

    this is what I saw. it can’t have been real. but this is my small corner of what happened.

    • Confirms other accounts that the male cop was the one who ended the shooting…. not to diminish the female’s cop role at all, though – guts to stand up in the face of gun fire….

  40. Back to the KSM trial, does anyone know exactly what charges the are going to charge him with? The reason I ask is that is that I was wondering if they are going to use one of the conspiracy charges. I would assume they would due to the fact that it is a lot easier to secure a conviction in a conspiracy case. But I don’t know, so I was hoping some one here would know.

    Stay safe,

    Displaced Okie

    • Okie:

      I do not know and have seen NOTHING on the subject. I had the same questions. Depending on the charges I may have to eat my hat on the whole alterior motive hypothesis.

      Live Free
      JAC

  41. Gimme a break people.
    Rights can be forfeited from negative actions.Walk up and smack a cop in the face if you don’t believe that.
    We are at war with these nutjob Islamic radicals.They number not in the hundreds, not in the thousands, but in the hundreds of thousands.Period.Military law should be the only law to apply to wartime activities.
    The only reason Holder wanted to turn this into a civil matter is so the defendants can subpoena interrogation documents and witnesses to try to push more negative light on the previous Bush administration.
    This trial is going to be nothing more than a mockery of American justice.

%d bloggers like this: