PDA

View Full Version : Bin Laden's former driver guilty in terror trial



red states rule
08-06-2008, 10:43 AM
Another terrorist has had his trial, and was convicted of some of the charges

He could get life. The poor little terrorist cried as the decison was made


Bin Laden's former driver guilty in terror trial

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (CNN) -- A U.S. military jury found Osama Bin Laden's former driver guilty of five counts of material support to a terror organization in the September 11, 2001, attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/06/hamdan.trial/index.html

Noir
08-06-2008, 02:18 PM
how horrid, is this how you really want your justice system to work? With kangaroo courts? Disgusting.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 02:21 PM
how horrid, is this how you really want your justice system to work? With kangaroo courts? Disgusting.

He is not entitled to US Constitutional rights

I am glad the way he was tried. He is a fucking terrorist and should get the death penalty

Kathianne
08-06-2008, 02:23 PM
how horrid, is this how you really want your justice system to work? With kangaroo courts? Disgusting.

I see nothing unfair with the process since Congress wrote the law to overcome the SCOTUS problem. I much prefer it to the suggestions of Sharia law in both UK and Canada.

Kangaroo courts as you suggest are not that easy to come by, though a fine example can be found in Canada's "Human Rights" Courts (http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/article/374060).

red states rule
08-06-2008, 02:25 PM
I see nothing unfair with the process since Congress wrote the law to overcome the SCOTUS problem. I much prefer it to the suggestions of Sharia law in both UK and Canada.

Kangaroo courts as you suggest are not that easy to come by, though a fine example can be found in Canada's "Human Rights" Courts (http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/article/374060).

I loved it when the big bad terrorist cried like a baby when he heard the verdict

He will spend the rest of his life in a cell

I hope he is kept in isolation until he goes to meet Allah

Noir
08-06-2008, 02:35 PM
He is not entitled to US Constitutional rights

I am glad the way he was tried. He is a fucking terrorist and should get the death penalty

exactly... The have no rights...bit who cates they're terrorists, they don't deserve rights, right? Sickenning

red states rule
08-06-2008, 02:39 PM
exactly... The have no rights...bit who cates they're terrorists, they don't deserve rights, right? Sickenning

You are right

They have no US Constitutional rights and are tried by the military. That is what happens during a war

Noir
08-06-2008, 03:10 PM
except this is a war like no other n will never end...but sure...who cares about rights and libberties and freedoms...we don't need em right?

It's amazes and disturbs me that you have no problems with this system that defies international law.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 03:12 PM
except this is a war like no other n will never end...but sure...who cares about rights and libberties and freedoms...we don't need em right?

It's amazes and disturbs me that you have no problems with this system that defies international law.

What rights do terrorists have?

Many who have been released have ben picked up again on the battlefield

Some ended up being homicide bombers and killed innocent people

How many people have to die before you people "get it"?

Noir
08-06-2008, 08:58 PM
What rights do terrorists have?

Erm...i don't know...maybe basic human rights?..erm the right to a fair trail...the right to have there trail herd by equal peers...the right to hear all of the evidence that is being used to prosecute them...the right not to be tortured, to name but a few...but guess what, the driver did not receive any such rights....


Many who have been released have been picked up again on the battlefield.
Some ended up being homicide bombers and killed innocent people.
How many people have to die before you people "get it"?

And what does that have to do with having a free and fair trail? I'm not saying let them all go, i'm saying put them in a free and fair trial, with the basic human rights that we all have, if they are found not guilty they are as free as you and i, but if they are found guilty then they can be punished and we can still have the dignity of being better than them...you do want that right?

Kathianne
08-06-2008, 09:15 PM
Erm...i don't know...maybe basic human rights?..erm the right to a fair trail...the right to have there trail herd by equal peers...the right to hear all of the evidence that is being used to prosecute them...the right not to be tortured, to name but a few...but guess what, the driver did not receive any such rights....



And what does that have to do with having a free and fair trail? I'm not saying let them all go, i'm saying put them in a free and fair trial, with the basic human rights that we all have, if they are found not guilty they are as free as you and i, but if they are found guilty then they can be punished and we can still have the dignity of being better than them...you do want that right?

What rights do you think they should have beyond what Hamdan received?

Noir
08-06-2008, 09:51 PM
What rights do you think they should have beyond what Hamdan received?

Nothing special... just the right to a fair trail...the right to have there trail herd by equal peers...the right to hear all of the evidence that is being used to prosecute them...the right not to be tortured.

Kathianne
08-06-2008, 09:55 PM
Nothing special... just the right to a fair trail...the right to have there trail herd by equal peers...the right to hear all of the evidence that is being used to prosecute them...the right not to be tortured.

Again, what rights do you see as missing?

Noir
08-06-2008, 10:15 PM
Them all.

Right to a fair trail- Generalized by the lack of the following.

the right to have there trail herd by equal peers- The jury was made up of US military officers, not equal peers.

the right to hear all of the evidence that is being used to prosecute them- The prosecution was given the right to tell the jury 'secret evidence'...not too fair is it?

the right not to be tortured- The man is claiming that he was tortured, the US says he wasn;t...but the man was not held under the protections of the geniva convenction, so legaly he couldn't be tortured.

manu1959
08-06-2008, 10:16 PM
Them all.

Right to a fair trail- Generalized by the lack of the following.

the right to have there trail herd by equal peers- The jury was made up of US military officers, not equal peers.

the right to hear all of the evidence that is being used to prosecute them- The prosecution was given the right to tell the jury 'secret evidence'...not too fair is it?

the right not to be tortured- The man is claiming that he was tortured, the US says he wasn;t...but the man was not held under the protections of the geniva convenction, so legaly he couldn't be tortured.


how are those trials of the freedom fighter going in london....

Kathianne
08-06-2008, 10:21 PM
Them all.

Right to a fair trail- Generalized by the lack of the following.

the right to have there trail herd by equal peers- The jury was made up of US military officers, not equal peers.
That was addressed by Congress. Are you saying you should have the right to name US law?
the right to hear all of the evidence that is being used to prosecute them- The prosecution was given the right to tell the jury 'secret evidence'...not too fair is it?Ok, what is this? You mean that the jury heard things you and I didn't? This IS a terrorism case, which is why congress rewrote the law.

the right not to be tortured- The man is claiming that he was tortured, the US says he wasn;t...but the man was not held under the protections of the geniva convenction, so legaly he couldn't be tortured.So he'll bring that in a civil suit. Seriously, I can claim torture, one needs to be able to prove it. I think it even works that way in Europe? Pretty lame.

Noir
08-06-2008, 10:24 PM
how are those trials of the freedom fighter going in london....



A British jury has said it has failed to reach verdicts in the case of three men accused of helping to plan the London subway and bus bombings in 2005 - the worst attack on Britain's capital since World War II.

Prosecutors said they would consider whether to seek a retrial and they would make a decision within a week. Judge Peter Gross ordered the men held in custody pending a decision on whether to hold a second trial in the case.

More here.
http://news.smh.com.au/world/uk-jury-fails-to-reach-77-case-verdict-20080802-3or0.html

Noir
08-06-2008, 10:30 PM
That was addressed by Congress. Are you saying you should have the right to name US law?

I'm saying he should have the right to a free and fair trail. Can you see nothing wrong in the way of bias if the jury are US officers?


Ok, what is this? You mean that the jury heard things you and I didn't? This IS a terrorism case, which is why congress rewrote the law.

Ofcourse we won;t hear some of it, the point is the DEFENCE didn't hear some of it...


So he'll bring that in a civil suit. Seriously, I can claim torture, one needs to be able to prove it. I think it even works that way in Europe?

Yeah, and the yanks will say he wasn't tortured, and as he didn;t have the protections of the geniva convention i'll bet he doesn't even have teh right to bring a claim for torture.

manu1959
08-06-2008, 10:31 PM
More here.
http://news.smh.com.au/world/uk-jury-fails-to-reach-77-case-verdict-20080802-3or0.html

you all are classic...they had them on video and still you morons can't convict them.........

manu1959
08-06-2008, 10:32 PM
I'm saying he should have the right to a free and fair trail. Can you see nothing wrong in the way of bias if the jury are US officers?
Ofcourse we won;t hear some of it, the point is the DEFENCE didn't hear some of it...
Yeah, and the yanks will say he wasn't tortured, and as he didn;t have the protections of the geniva convention i'll bet he doesn't even have teh right to bring a claim for torture.

terrorists don't get a fair trial....and spys are shot not tried under the geneva convention.....

Kathianne
08-06-2008, 10:33 PM
I'm saying he should have the right to a free and fair trail. Can you see nothing wrong in the way of bias if the jury are US officers?



Ofcourse we won;t hear some of it, the point is the DEFENCE didn't hear some of it...



Yeah, and the yanks will say he wasn't tortured, and as he didn;t have the protections of the geniva convention i'll bet he doesn't even have teh right to bring a claim for torture.
Seriously, if the jury heard 'secrets' so did the defense.

You are making an assumption that the accused is telling the truth regarding torture, while the US is just guilty of such. Funny we don't criticize on the same page. Oh yeah, there's been waterboarding, which instances have been made public, I don't think this was one of them.

retiredman
08-06-2008, 10:41 PM
Seriously, if the jury heard 'secrets' so did the defense.

You are making an assumption that the accused is telling the truth regarding torture, while the US is just guilty of such. Funny we don't criticize on the same page. Oh yeah, there's been waterboarding, which instances have been made public, I don't think this was one of them.

and you honestly believe that the only instances of waterboarding are the ones that the administration has owned up to? THAT is a pretty big assumption.

*deleted for discussing moderation*.

Noir
08-06-2008, 10:47 PM
you all are classic...they had them on video and still you morons can't convict them.........

Had who on video?
These men were charged of helping the bombers, nothing else.

Kathianne
08-06-2008, 10:47 PM
and you honestly believe that the only instances of waterboarding are the ones that the administration has owned up to? THAT is a pretty big assumption.

edited by moderator

I'm going to delete it because of your crack on moderation. Again it will be noted to admins, who are free to over turn. If there were another staff member able to deal with, I wouldn't.

I undeleted the post and deleted the part on moderation.

Noir
08-06-2008, 10:51 PM
Seriously, if the jury heard 'secrets' so did the defense.

In fairness i am not sure to what level these secrets went..but surely they could not have been said infront of the accused...cus if he was then to be found not guilty he'd have this information, therefore he did not hear all the information that the prosecution used against him.


You are making an assumption that the accused is telling the truth regarding torture, while the US is just guilty of such. Funny we don't criticize on the same page. Oh yeah, there's been waterboarding, which instances have been made public, I don't think this was one of them.

I'm not saying he has been tortured, what i am saying is he does not have the protection of the Geneva convention, protecting him from torture, hence he does not have the right to not be tortured.

manu1959
08-06-2008, 10:58 PM
Had who on video?
These men were charged of helping the bombers, nothing else.

did they help the bombers......yes....

Dilloduck
08-06-2008, 11:03 PM
except this is a war like no other n will never end...but sure...who cares about rights and libberties and freedoms...we don't need em right?

It's amazes and disturbs me that you have no problems with this system that defies international law.

SCREW international law.

retiredman
08-06-2008, 11:04 PM
SCREW international law.


do you say the same thing about all treaties?

Noir
08-06-2008, 11:08 PM
did they help the bombers......yes....

Well no, obviosly their wasn't enough proof, and you're innocent until proven guilty, and to be guilty you must be beond resonable doubt, so there must have been reasonable doubt as to if they helped or not.

Btw that was decided by a jury of equal peers, during which the men saw the evidence that was being used against them, and they where protected by law from torture. That's how you run a free and fair trail.

This case was all over the news today, groups talking about how unfair the trail has been ect. And yet i can't memo seeing on group protest at how we carried out our trails, how odd no?

Noir
08-06-2008, 11:09 PM
SCREW international law.

:laugh2:

is that the best you can muster?...fair play.

Dilloduck
08-06-2008, 11:11 PM
:laugh2:

is that the best you can muster?...fair play.

I can do better but that prety much sums it up. :laugh2:

manu1959
08-06-2008, 11:12 PM
Well no, obviosly their wasn't enough proof, and you're innocent until proven guilty, and to be guilty you must be beond resonable doubt, so there must have been reasonable doubt as to if they helped or not.

Btw that was decided by a jury of equal peers, during which the men saw the evidence that was being used against them, and they where protected by law from torture. That's how you run a free and fair trail.

This case was all over the news today, groups talking about how unfair the trail has been ect. And yet i can't memo seeing on group protest at how we carried out our trails, how odd no?

equal peers.....i doubt it.....you aren't english are you......

Noir
08-06-2008, 11:14 PM
I can do better but that prety much sums it up. :laugh2:

Gawd, treat us better than that dillo, treat us like you would a fine women, don't just skip the foreplay, you may see it as pointless but it adds to the fun no end :)

Noir
08-06-2008, 11:15 PM
equal peers.....i doubt it.....you aren't english are you......

No, i'm British and Northern Irish, what does that have to do with equal peers?

manu1959
08-06-2008, 11:17 PM
No, i'm British and Northern Irish, what does that have to do with equal peers?

your use of english would indicate it is not your mother tounge.....and no self respecting northeren irishman would refer to themselves as british....

Dilloduck
08-06-2008, 11:18 PM
Gawd, treat us better than that dillo, treat us like you would a fine women, don't just skip the foreplay, you may see it as pointless but it adds to the fun no end :)

Fine women ???? Where ?? :laugh2:

I find international law to be a joke right up there with the Geneva Convention etc. bla bla. Who pays any attention to them and why?

retiredman
08-06-2008, 11:20 PM
your use of english would indicate it is not your mother tounge.....and no self respecting northeren irishman would refer to themselves as british....

and your spelling of tongue and northern would indicate it was certainly YOUR second language...or that you were illiterate.


and I think that many self respecting (protestant) northern Irishmen would consider themselves BRITISH, but certainly not ENGLISH.

retiredman
08-06-2008, 11:21 PM
Fine women ???? Where ?? :laugh2:

I find international law to be a joke right up there with the Geneva Convention etc. bla bla. Who pays any attention to them and why?

so you would piss on all of our treaties, is that correct?

Dilloduck
08-06-2008, 11:23 PM
so you would piss on all of our treaties, is that correct?

Dude--we've been through all this shit before.

Noir
08-06-2008, 11:23 PM
your use of english would indicate it is not your mother tounge.....and no self respecting northeren irishman would refer to themselves as british....

I know, i am dyslexic and have trouble reading and writting even some basic sentences, especialy when i get into a debate as i am normally to busy trying to get my thoughts down before i lose them than anything else, and then when i read over it i only read over what i know i meant so its hard to see mistakes. (that is also why allot of my posts will have edits, just some errors i see after the post has been made)


Also, i am a british citizen with a british passport, i say with the utmost self respect that i am british.

retiredman
08-06-2008, 11:43 PM
Dude--we've been through all this shit before.

so you would support and defend only those sections of our constitution that you agreed with and blithely piss on the rest? I see.

Kathianne
08-06-2008, 11:46 PM
I see nothing unfair with the process since Congress wrote the law to overcome the SCOTUS problem. I much prefer it to the suggestions of Sharia law in both UK and Canada.

Kangaroo courts as you suggest are not that easy to come by, though a fine example can be found in Canada's "Human Rights" Courts (http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/article/374060).

A bit more on these courts, with lots of links:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/08/punished-first-acquitted-later.html



Punished first, acquitted later
By Ezra Levant on August 6, 2008 10:34 AM

My lawyers have just received a copy of a letter from the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissing the complaint of “discrimination” filed against me by the radical Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities. They had complained that by publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the Western Standard in February 2006, I had engaged in an illegal act.

Their complaint was identical to the one filed earlier by an anti-Semitic imam named Syed Soharwardy. Soharwardy abandoned his complaint this spring. You can see Soharwardy’s complaint here; it named both me and the magazine. The Edmonton complaint named just the magazine. My initial legal response is here.

The two complaints cost Alberta taxpayers in excess of $500,000 and, according to access to information documents, involved no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats. What a scam – on the part of the complainants, who were able to wage “lawfare” against an infidel without paying a cent; and on the part of the HRC, as a make-work project.

Fire. Them. All.

You can see the Notice of Dismissal here..

You can see my press release on the subject here.

I’ll have an Op-Ed in the National Post, and it should be available here.

Is this a victory? I suppose, in a narrow technical sense, it is. I’m off the hook now for both of the HRC complaints. That’s two legal battles done – though I’m still up to my eyeballs fighting defamation suits and other legal actions that the human rights industry piled on top of these complaints.

But I’ve read the dismissal letter three times now, and each time it makes me more angry. Because I haven’t been given my freedom of the press. I’ve simply had the government censor approve what I said. That’s a completely different thing...

Dilloduck
08-06-2008, 11:47 PM
so you would support and defend only those sections of our constitution that you agreed with and blithely piss on the rest? I see.

wow--did you see that? My lips didn't even move !! :laugh2::laugh2:

Kathianne
08-06-2008, 11:52 PM
wow--did you see that? My lips didn't even move !! :laugh2::laugh2:

and you're probably a racist to boot, so there! :laugh2:

Dilloduck
08-06-2008, 11:59 PM
and you're probably a racist to boot, so there! :laugh2:

ya--I'm probably everything--oh damn.
Hit it MFM---don't worry---I won't go crying to the teacher ! :laugh2:

retiredman
08-07-2008, 12:00 AM
wow--did you see that? My lips didn't even move !! :laugh2::laugh2:

refresh my memory: do you or do you not support the Constitution of the United States?

retiredman
08-07-2008, 12:01 AM
ya--I'm probably everything--oh damn.
Hit it MFM---don't worry---I won't go crying to the teacher ! :laugh2:


don't worry...if I am too tough on one of her buddies, she'll just delete the post.

Dilloduck
08-07-2008, 12:03 AM
refresh my memory: do you or do you not support the Constitution of the United States?

Shit---I gotta back track to get you all caught up on this one ?
OK--I'll say "NO". Now what ?

manu1959
08-07-2008, 12:04 AM
wow--did you see that? My lips didn't even move !! :laugh2::laugh2:

ask him to link you up where terrorists and spies are protected by our constitution.....

Kathianne
08-07-2008, 12:05 AM
ask him to link you up where terrorists and spies are protected by our constitution.....

Damn, I have to spread it around. This is rep worthy 2X.

retiredman
08-07-2008, 06:51 AM
ask him to link you up where terrorists and spies are protected by our constitution.....

everyone on earth is protected by UN treaties on torture and inhumane treatment. Our government has signed those treaties. Until they are abrogated, they are the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND as per Article VI(2) of our constitution.

midcan5
08-07-2008, 07:37 AM
how horrid, is this how you really want your justice system to work? With kangaroo courts? Disgusting.

It is sad, fear corrupts the mind of many people.

http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/159315481X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218108999&sr=1-1

"In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bugliosi presents a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq. Bugliosi sets forth the legal architecture and incontrovertible evidence that President Bush took this nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses—a war that has not only caused the deaths of American soldiers but also over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children; cost the United States over one trillion dollars thus far with no end in sight; and alienated many American allies in the Western world."

red states rule
08-07-2008, 07:45 AM
The comments form the left are perfect examples as to why they can't be trusted with national security and national defense

They are more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists then locking them up and and winning the war on terror

Dilloduck
08-07-2008, 07:55 AM
everyone on earth is protected by UN treaties on torture and inhumane treatment. Our government has signed those treaties. Until they are abrogated, they are the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND as per Article VI(2) of our constitution.

Then I assume the UN is planning on arresting China. :laugh2:

red states rule
08-07-2008, 07:58 AM
Then I assume the UN is planning on arresting China. :laugh2:

The UN? LOL!!!


http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaoun500.gif

retiredman
08-07-2008, 08:21 AM
Then I assume the UN is planning on arresting China. :laugh2: stupid obfuscation.
what the UN does has absolutely no bearing on whether or not treaties are sacrosanct under OUR constitution.

don't like it? abrogate it. until then, obey it. that is what the constitution demands.

red states rule
08-07-2008, 08:24 AM
stupid obfuscation.
what the UN does has absolutely no bearing on whether or not treaties are sacrosanct under OUR constitution.

don't like it? abrogate it. until then, obey it. that is what the constitution demands.

Liberals always demand the US seek a permission slip from the UN before we defend ourselves

Where in the US Constitution are the rights of terrorists listed? Probably right next to the constitutional right of abortion

red states rule
08-07-2008, 08:33 AM
How can anyone doubt the guilt of this pig? He is lucky he will not be hanged


Guilty as sin
Thursday, August 7th 2008, 4:00 AM

The military tribunal verdict convicting Salim Hamdan of providing material support to terrorism was eminently just. The guy was, after all, Osama Bin Laden's driver, and he was, after all, arrested with two surface-to-air missiles in the back of his car.

And there was, after all, the video of a 1998 Al Qaeda news conference for Pakistani journalists that at one point showed Hamdan with a machine gun and at another juncture captured him smiling at Bin Laden.

And there were, after all, the undisputed facts that Hamdan fell in with Bin Laden in 1996 and worked with him through 9/11 as terror plot after terror plot unfolded. However low he may have been on the terror food chain, Hamdan abetted the murders of 2,751 people here in New York City.

No part in such a heinous crime against humanity can be dismissed as small enough to excuse. The jury was dead-on in refusing to let Hamdan off as the hapless, ill-educated flunky portrayed by his defense lawyers, and it was equally right in recognizing that he was not an Al Qaeda mastermind.

Hamdan was the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried for war crimes. Throughout the proceedings, the beyond-question certainty of his guilt was overshadowed by claims that the U.S. government had run roughshod over his legal and human rights. His lawyers succeeded brilliantly in putting the military tribunal system itself on trial.

But the facts are that the courts - up to the U.S. Supreme Court - the Congress and the President of the United States all weighed what protections America owed to this fourth-grade-educated Yemeni, who was captured in the Afghanistan war zone a couple of months after 9/11.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/07/2008-08-07_guilty_as_sin.html

bullypulpit
08-07-2008, 12:33 PM
Another terrorist has had his trial, and was convicted of some of the charges

He could get life. The poor little terrorist cried as the decison was made


Bin Laden's former driver guilty in terror trial

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (CNN) -- A U.S. military jury found Osama Bin Laden's former driver guilty of five counts of material support to a terror organization in the September 11, 2001, attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/06/hamdan.trial/index.html

Guess what? It took 7...count 'em 7...years to "convict" Salim Hamdan of what he already admitted to. Being a chauffeur. Despite the use of 'coerced', as in obtained through torture, testimony and hearsay evidence as well as barring Hamdan's attorney from access to evidence against him, all they could convict him of was what he'd already admitted to. He was acquitted of any conspiracy charges. Not what the Bush administration had hoped for.

red states rule
08-07-2008, 12:40 PM
Guess what? It took 7...count 'em 7...years to "convict" Salim Hamdan of what he already admitted to. Being a chauffeur. Despite the use of 'coerced', as in obtained through torture, testimony and hearsay evidence as well as barring Hamdan's attorney from access to evidence against him, all they could convict him of was what he'd already admitted to. He was acquitted of any conspiracy charges. Not what the Bush administration had hoped for.

Another lib defending another terrorist. What a shocker

This pig got justice. More justice his ilk shows their victims

Go vist your buddy on visting day BP. Hold a sign outside the jail bashing America and Pres Bush. it will make you feel better

retiredman
08-07-2008, 12:43 PM
Guess what? It took 7...count 'em 7...years to "convict" Salim Hamdan of what he already admitted to. Being a chauffeur. Despite the use of 'coerced', as in obtained through torture, testimony and hearsay evidence as well as barring Hamdan's attorney from access to evidence against him, all they could convict him of was what he'd already admitted to. He was acquitted of any conspiracy charges. Not what the Bush administration had hoped for.


last I knew, being a chauffeur is not a "war crime" regardless of who is in the back seat.

red states rule
08-07-2008, 12:44 PM
last I knew, being a chauffeur is not a "war crime" regardless of who is in the back seat.

Oh yea, still another lib defending another terrorist. You clowns hate Bush and America so much, you are reduced to leaping to the defense of a terrorist cught red handed

It took 7 years, after all the court proceeding and the ACLU lib dragging things out

eE got justice, you hate it because it is a win for the US and Pres Bush. Get over it. Go visit him with BP on visiting day

Kathianne
08-07-2008, 12:46 PM
last I knew, being a chauffeur is not a "war crime" regardless of who is in the back seat.

So you agree with the other poster who claims the military jury would convict him regardless?

red states rule
08-07-2008, 12:47 PM
So you agree with the other poster who claims the military jury would convict him regardless?

and MFM ignored post # 58 which laid out his guilt very well

retiredman
08-07-2008, 12:54 PM
So you agree with the other poster who claims the military jury would convict him regardless?

Please quit trying to herd my opinions in with other people's. My statement stands. I think that an appeals court may very well find that the war crimes tribunal found this man guilty of something other than a war crime. I do not believe that driving a vehicle - in and of itself - is a crime, unless traveling in the vehicle was a part of a larger crime - i.e. the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery. Simply being the chauffeur of a very bad man is not a WAR crime, in my opinion. It is apparent that the military jury was thoughtful and not merely a rubber stamp for the administration, seeing as how they found him not guilty of all the conspiracy charges, but nonetheless, I do not understand the "war crime" in driving.

red states rule
08-07-2008, 12:56 PM
Please quit trying to herd my opinions in with other people's. My statement stands. I think that an appeals court may very well find that the war crimes tribunal found this man guilty of something other than a war crime. I do not believe that driving a vehicle - in and of itself - is a crime, unless traveling in the vehicle was a part of a larger crime - i.e. the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery. Simply being the chauffeur of a very bad man is not a WAR crime, in my opinion. It is apparent that the military jury was thoughtful and not merely a rubber stamp for the administration, seeing as how they found him not guilty of all the conspiracy charges, but nonetheless, I do not understand the "war crime" in driving.

Did you read post #58? He was caught red handed, or are you saying the poor misunderstood terrorist was framed by Karl Rove because he is a Muslim?

Dilloduck
08-07-2008, 04:07 PM
everyone on earth is protected by UN treaties on torture and inhumane treatment. Our government has signed those treaties. Until they are abrogated, they are the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND as per Article VI(2) of our constitution.

ya ya ya--well we gto laws we pay attention to and soem we don't. I suggest we just ignore the UN, World Court and goofy stuff like that.

red states rule
08-07-2008, 04:09 PM
ya ya ya--well we gto laws we pay attention to and soem we don't. I suggest we just ignore the UN, World Court and goofy stuff like that.

Fox News reported a dew minutes ago he was sentenced to 5 1/2 years. He may get credit for the 5 years he has already served

So the pig might be free in 6 months

So much for a conspiracy crap and racist BS being spread around

manu1959
08-07-2008, 04:15 PM
Fox News reported a dew minutes ago he was sentenced to 5 1/2 years. He may get credit for the 5 years he has already served

So the pig might be free in 6 months

So much for a conspiracy crap and racist BS being spread around

see that worked out well for everyone..............

red states rule
08-07-2008, 04:16 PM
see that worked out well for everyone..............

The libs will still find something to whine about. They always do

hjmick
08-07-2008, 04:17 PM
Wait for it.... Wait for it...

red states rule
08-07-2008, 04:17 PM
Wait for it.... Wait for it...

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/8860.jpg

bullypulpit
08-07-2008, 04:19 PM
So you agree with the other poster who claims the military jury would convict him regardless?

Convicted or not, he would have remained at GITMO. The Bush administration maintains its right to hold indefinitely ANYONE it has deemed and "enemy combatant" whether they have been acquitted or found guilty on lesser charges and given a short sentence.

The military commissions do not meet any standard of US jurisprudence, as hearsay evidence and testimony acquired through what is euphemistically known as "coercive interrogation methods" (also known as TORTURE) is allowed. To call the verdict justice turns the notion of justice on its head.

manu1959
08-07-2008, 04:21 PM
Convicted or not, he would have remained at GITMO. The Bush administration maintains its right to hold indefinitely ANYONE it has deemed and "enemy combatant" whether they have been acquitted or found guilty on lesser charges and given a short sentence.

The military commissions do not meet any standard of US jurisprudence, as hearsay evidence and testimony acquired through what is euphemistically known as "coercive interrogation methods" (also known as TORTURE) is allowed. To call the verdict justice turns the notion of justice on its head.

we have a winner........

at least we didn't cut his head off and post the video on you tube.....

red states rule
08-07-2008, 04:21 PM
Convicted or not, he would have remained at GITMO. The Bush administration maintains its right to hold indefinitely ANYONE it has deemed and "enemy combatant" whether they have been acquitted or found guilty on lesser charges and given a short sentence.

The military commissions do not meet any standard of US jurisprudence, as hearsay evidence and testimony acquired through what is euphemistically known as "coercive interrogation methods" (also known as TORTURE) is allowed. To call the verdict justice turns the notion of justice on its head.

I was right. The libs are still whining about the "rights" of terrorists.

bullypulpit
08-07-2008, 04:23 PM
Another lib defending another terrorist. What a shocker

This pig got justice. More justice his ilk shows their victims

Go vist your buddy on visting day BP. Hold a sign outside the jail bashing America and Pres Bush. it will make you feel better

Your comments on the issue of justice are irrelevant as your understanding of the concept and its underpinnings as they pertain to the rule of law is nonexistent. Go waste bandwidth with your fellow freepers. The cacophony of that echo chamber will drown out any voice of reason.

red states rule
08-07-2008, 04:25 PM
Your comments on the issue of justice are irrelevant as your understanding of the concept and its underpinnings as they pertain to the rule of law is nonexistent. Go waste bandwidth with your fellow freepers. The cacophony of that echo chamber will drown out any voice of reason.

Dems have a long history of smearing the troops, defending the terrorists, and undermining the war effort

You are your ilk like MFM are doing it for political reasons only

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/129737.jpg

manu1959
08-07-2008, 04:34 PM
Your comments on the issue of justice are irrelevant as your understanding of the concept and its underpinnings as they pertain to the rule of law is nonexistent. Go waste bandwidth with your fellow freepers. The cacophony of that echo chamber will drown out any voice of reason.

can you you link me up to the "rule of law" where it protects the rights of spies and terrorists....because under the geneva convention they can be shot....

red states rule
08-07-2008, 04:35 PM
can you you link me up to the "rule of law" where it protects the rights of spies and terrorists....because under the geneva convention they can be shot....

or hanged

red states rule
08-07-2008, 08:15 PM
Oh my, the liberal media is in a tizzy over the decision


Media Predictably Condemn Hamdan Terrorism Conviction
By John Stephenson (Bio | Archive)
August 7, 2008 - 17:34 ET

Update: After all the MSM ranting of an unfair trial, Hamdan gets 66 months including five years and a month time already served.

As soon as Salim Ahmed Hamdan was convicted Wednesday, July 6, there were several things expected

The ACLU and other leftist organizations would pitch hissy fits. Mission accomplished
Many liberals/progressives would tell us the decision was bad and would take the opportunity to rail at Bush. Mission accomplished
The Credentialed Media would release editorials against the decision. Mission accomplished!
Starting with CBS News, who had theirs out late Wednesday

So the tiny little fish in the barrel was indeed shot. In the least surprising verdict of this or any other year, a panel of U.S. soldiers Wednesday convicted former Osama bin Laden chauffeur Salim Hamdan of supporting al Qaeda operations before and shortly after the terror attacks on America. (snip)

And so a trial that changed the face of American constitutional law (and may yet do so again) ends precisely as it was designed to end by the people in power who designed the legal war on terror. With a conviction. With the White House and Pentagon boasting of the efficacy of the process. And with a model now set for the much more important trials of Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, two truly bad guys. This round goes to the government in a fight that was rigged from the beginning. What happens in the next few rounds is anyone’s guess.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/08/07/msm-lines-against-usa-hamdan-case

bullypulpit
08-07-2008, 09:11 PM
It comes as no surprise to me that the apologists and slavish supporters of the Bush administration continue to defend the indefensible action taken by said administration in the name of protecting America and American values. The truth of the matter would cause their pointy little heads to implode as the vacuum occupying the space where their brains should be finally becomes too great for their craniums to bear.

The actions of the Bush administration have less to do with securing America than they do with establishing precedent...As in the precedent that the POTUS can do whatever he/she wants in the name of keeping America secure. The odd thing is that there already exists an historical precedent. Remember, please, that once Hamdan's 5.5 year sentence is finished, he will remain in custody indefinitely. Provided, of course, that Grampy McCain winds up in the Oval Office. If one reads the history of the twentieth century one finds precedent for such indefinite detention. It was common practice for the Gestapo, in Nazi Germany, to gather up those who were being released from prison and take them off to concentration camps. It didn't matter that they'd served their sentences on whatever the charges were...whether they were real or trumped up. So long as the Great Leader considered them a threat to the security of the Fatherland they went straight from prison to a concentration camp.

Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer, Y'all

red states rule
08-07-2008, 09:14 PM
It comes as no surprise to me that the apologists and slavish supporters of the Bush administration continue to defend the indefensible action taken by said administration in the name of protecting America and American values. The truth of the matter would cause their pointy little heads to implode as the vacuum occupying the space where their brains should be finally becomes too great for their craniums to bear.

The actions of the Bush administration have less to do with securing America than they do with establishing precedent...As in the precedent that the POTUS can do whatever he/she wants in the name of keeping America secure. The odd thing is that there already exists an historical precedent. Remember, please, that once Hamdan's 5.5 year sentence is finished, he will remain in custody indefinitely. Provided, of course, that Grampy McCain winds up in the Oval Office. If one reads the history of the twentieth century one finds precedent for such indefinite detention. It was common practice for the Gestapo, in Nazi Germany, to gather up those who were being released from prison and take them off to concentration camps. It didn't matter that they'd served their sentences on whatever the charges were...whether they were real or trumped up. So long as the Great Leader considered them a threat to the security of the Fatherland they went straight from prison to a concentration camp.

Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer, Y'all

Look little MFM Jr, when you compare anyone to Nazi's you are showing what a little twit you really are

Your contempt for the troops and the people risking their lives to keep your sorry ass safe is really disgusting

Your terrorist bud got off lightly, and you still bitch

retiredman
08-07-2008, 09:16 PM
the military tribunal obviously agreed with the Bush administration about this case....they basically let him off with time served!:laugh2:

nearly seven years.... and all we got to show for it is a limo driver who gets a slap on the wrist and time served!

you wonder why they led off with this!!!!????

red states rule
08-07-2008, 09:17 PM
the military tribunal obviously agreed with the Bush administration about this case....they basically let him off with time served!:laugh2:

nearly seven years.... and all we got to show for it is a limo driver who gets a slap on the wrist and time served!

You should be very happy. Your terrorist buddy got off easy so now he can go back and kill some more infidels

red states rule
08-07-2008, 09:49 PM
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/123585.jpg

retiredman
08-07-2008, 09:52 PM
the military tribunal obviously agreed with the Bush administration about this case....they basically let him off with time served!:laugh2:

nearly seven years.... and all we got to show for it is a limo driver who gets a slap on the wrist and time served!

you wonder why they led off with this!!!!????\

I wonder if the Buss asslickers will start dissing the military now that this tribunal of military officers has basically kicked the Bush administration squarely in the balls?

red states rule
08-07-2008, 09:54 PM
\

I wonder if the Buss asslickers will start dissing the military now that this tribunal of military officers has basically kicked the Bush administration squarely in the balls?

Yea, a conviction of a terrorist is a defeat for Pres Bush? More like defeat for Dems since one of their supporters has a record now

bullypulpit
08-08-2008, 06:06 AM
Look little MFM Jr, when you compare anyone to Nazi's you are showing what a little twit you really are

Extralegal judicial systems are a hallmark of totalitarian governments. Joe Stalin did the same thing. If the shoe fits...


Your contempt for the troops and the people risking their lives to keep your sorry ass safe is really disgusting

The only contempt I have is for those who continue to utter apologia for the Bush administration in its utter disregard for the rule of law.


Your terrorist bud got off lightly, and you still bitch

I have no sympathy for terrorists. If they are found guilty in a court of law, as was done in the first WTC bombing, they can rot in hell. The military commissions, on the other hand operate under rules dictated by the POTUS, and with little or no oversight...At least until the SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

As for Hamdan...Until being a chauffeur is made a war crime under international law and the Geneva Conventions...His conviction is a sham. This was recognized by Capt. Keith Allred in his sentencing of Hamdan.

You, your fellow travelers, the Bush administration and its supporters continue to advocate policies which belittle the sacrifices made by those who have given their lives in defense of this country, from its founding to the present day. If anyone has cause for shame, it is you.

bullypulpit
08-08-2008, 06:07 AM
the military tribunal obviously agreed with the Bush administration about this case....they basically let him off with time served!:laugh2:

nearly seven years.... and all we got to show for it is a limo driver who gets a slap on the wrist and time served!

you wonder why they led off with this!!!!????

'Cause it's the best they got, and it ain't good.

red states rule
08-08-2008, 06:25 AM
Extralegal judicial systems are a hallmark of totalitarian governments. Joe Stalin did the same thing. If the shoe fits...



The only contempt I have is for those who continue to utter apologia for the Bush administration in its utter disregard for the rule of law.



I have no sympathy for terrorists. If they are found guilty in a court of law, as was done in the first WTC bombing, they can rot in hell. The military commissions, on the other hand operate under rules dictated by the POTUS, and with little or no oversight...At least until the SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

As for Hamdan...Until being a chauffeur is made a war crime under international law and the Geneva Conventions...His conviction is a sham. This was recognized by Capt. Keith Allred in his sentencing of Hamdan.

You, your fellow travelers, the Bush administration and its supporters continue to advocate policies which belittle the sacrifices made by those who have given their lives in defense of this country, from its founding to the present day. If anyone has cause for shame, it is you.

No MFM Jr, the wacko left has done everything possible to undermine and smear the troops

Libs like you and MFM have indeed put your party ahead of your country by the constant drumbeat of terrorists rights, and access to Federal Courts

Both of you are consumed with hate for Pres Bush all because he won 2 elections and denied you clowns your power

red states rule
08-08-2008, 01:39 PM
Damn, is MFM now writing copy for DNCTV? This is taken right out of his rants for terrorist rights and how rotten America is


Olbermann: Bin Laden’s Driver Is ‘Victim’ of Bush Admin ‘Urinating’ on Constitution
By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
August 8, 2008 - 02:40 ET

On Thursday’s Countdown show, one night after accusing President Bush of not doing enough to protect America from Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization before the September 11th attacks, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann seemed sympathetic to the plight of bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Hamdan, during the show’s regular "Bushed" segment which purports to update viewers on what the Countdown host sees as Bush administration scandals. Following Hamdan’s sentencing in a military court during which the judge expressed an apology to the bin Laden aide as he handed down a sentence that would make Hamdan eligible for release in six months, the American military indicated Hamdan may still be kept prisoner at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely in spite of the ruling, prompting Olbermann to accuse the Bush administration of "urinating" on the Constitution, and making Hamdan one of the "victims" of its "medieval" justice system. Olbermann: "So, besides urinating on the Constitution and the rights and freedoms every American soldier has ever fought to win and protect, the Bush administration has now decided that when its victims have actually served their sentences, doled out under its own medieval, quote, "justice," unquote, system, it still might not choose to set them free, thereby giving that Constitution and our country a second pass on the way out." (Transcripts follow)

Ironically, just the day before on Wednesday’s show, the Countdown host marked the seventh anniversary of a Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001, which has previously been hyped by the media as having been a warning that the 9/11 attacks were about to happen. During Wednesday’s "Bushed" segment, Olbermann claimed that the President was given a report "which he either did not read, did not understand or did not believe." And, although the report’s reference to surveillance of buildings in New York City was later found to be just the tourist activities of a group of Yemenis, Olbermann deceptively quoted a portion of the PDB which referred to "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Claiming that the PDB contained "all the information you could have wanted," Olbermann charged that President Bush "slept": "The President’s daily briefing seven years ago today, August 6th, 2001, entitled ‘Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.’ mentions bringing the fighting to America, retaliating in Washington, wanting to hijack a U.S. aircraft, preparations for hijackings, surveillance done in New York, groups of supporters in the U.S. planning attacks – all the information you could have wanted. All of it in George Bush`s hands, seven years ago today, with 36 days left to interrupt or alter 9/11. So when you rhetorically ask, as Mr. Posner did in his exceptional book, ‘Why America Slept,’ the answer is actually a correction. America did not sleep, George Bush slept."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/08/08/olbermann-bin-laden-s-driver-victim-bush-admin-urinating-constitution

bullypulpit
08-09-2008, 09:30 AM
No MFM Jr, the wacko left has done everything possible to undermine and smear the troops

Please provide documentation of this to the Department of Justice. I'm sure they'll want to prosecute those guilty of undermining our troops for treason.


Libs like you and MFM have indeed put your party ahead of your country by the constant drumbeat of terrorists rights, and access to Federal Courts

The law MUST apply to all or it applies to none. This is the message the Bush administration has consistently ignored in its pursuit of unlimited executive power. You and your fellow travelers have consistently supported the undermining of the Constitution in pursuit of some small measure of perceived security. It is your own petty fears...fears which the Bush administration has masterfully played upon since 9/11...which have helped lay the foundations for a fascist state in America.


Both of you are consumed with hate for Pres Bush all because he won 2 elections and denied you clowns your power

Bush is not worth the emotional energy hatred...real hatred...requires. He is worth little more than the energy would expend in spurning a bit of offal with ones shoe. Oh, and it wasn't the democrats that engaged in voter caging in '04.

red states rule
08-09-2008, 09:35 AM
Please provide documentation of this to the Department of Justice. I'm sure they'll want to prosecute those guilty of undermining our troops for treason.



The law MUST apply to all or it applies to none. This is the message the Bush administration has consistently ignored in its pursuit of unlimited executive power. You and your fellow travelers have consistently supported the undermining of the Constitution in pursuit of some small measure of perceived security. It is your own petty fears...fears which the Bush administration has masterfully played upon since 9/11...which have helped lay the foundations for a fascist state in America.


Bush is not worth the emotional energy hatred...real hatred...requires. He is worth little more than the energy would expend in spurning a bit of offal with ones shoe. Oh, and it wasn't the democrats that engaged in voter caging in '04.


MFM Jr, I have posted the video of the Dems smearing the troops you give the lame excuse of "they were taken out of context". Libs like you and MFM have turned your backs on the troops, smeared the men and women trying to keep your sorry ass safe; and defended the rights of terrorists

All you are concerned about is political power and if the troops get in the way you walk over them

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k48/AlmightyT/LiberalAntiWarSocialistScum.jpg

red states rule
08-09-2008, 09:43 AM
Harry "the war is losr" Reid at his best

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb224/dbarsne/reid4za3.jpg

bullypulpit
08-09-2008, 12:47 PM
Ya know, Red, if you didn't actually believe the crap the right-wing noise machine vomits forth on a daily basis your posts would be funny. Instead, you're simply a tragic and saddening figure. Like the kid in school who doesn't quite measure up cognitively, you grasp at whatever straw passes by in an attempt to fit in and seem something more than what you are. in your case, a frightened, pathetic figure unable and unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions...Let someone else think for you, its their fault if something goes wrong. But having abdicated your rational faculties to others, you'll never see where these authority figure have gone wrong. Or, if you do, you will deny it.

Poor boy.

semi liberal girl
08-10-2008, 10:46 AM
Ya know, Red, if you didn't actually believe the crap the right-wing noise machine vomits forth on a daily basis your posts would be funny. Instead, you're simply a tragic and saddening figure. Like the kid in school who doesn't quite measure up cognitively, you grasp at whatever straw passes by in an attempt to fit in and seem something more than what you are. in your case, a frightened, pathetic figure unable and unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions...Let someone else think for you, its their fault if something goes wrong. But having abdicated your rational faculties to others, you'll never see where these authority figure have gone wrong. Or, if you do, you will deny it.

Poor boy.

I have seen my once proud party that did what was needed to defend America, to a party of worthless cowards, smear merchants, and political hacks

You sir, and I use that term loosly, are a perfect example of why I am leaving the Democrat party that I have been a member of for my entire life. You trun away when high ranking Democrats insult and smear the brave men and women fighting in Iraq

You look away as the progress is being reported, and instead of cheering the results, you move the goal posts further back

You dismiss the success surge you opposed and call it a waste of resources (like another well known liberal hack who posts here and runs away from people who humilate him with facts) I guess this is as close to a thank you the troops will get from you

You still support surrender in Iraq, even though the troops have crushed AQ and other terrorists. Is your desire for political power so intense you would lose a war and give a victory to AQ to secure that power?

You, and MFM are a sick twisted political hacks of the worst kind; and an embarassment to the party I am still a member of

Both of you say you served, but something happened to both of you that caused you to lose your manhood and first loyality to your country

retiredman
08-10-2008, 10:50 AM
I have seen my once proud party that did what was needed to defend America, to a party of worthless cowards, smear merchants, and political hacks

You sir, and I use that term loosly, are a perfect example of why I am leaving the Democrat party that I have been a member of for my entire life. You trun away when high ranking Democrats insult and smear the brave men and women fighting in Iraq

You look away as the progress is being reported, and instead of cheering the results, you move the goal posts further back

You dismiss the success surge you opposed and call it a waste of resources (like another well known liberal hack who posts here and runs away from people who humilate him with facts) I guess this is as close to a thank you the troops will get from you

You still support surrender in Iraq, even though the troops have crushed AQ and other terrorists. Is your desire for political power so intense you would lose a war and give a victory to AQ to secure that power?

You, and MFM are a sick twisted political hacks of the worst kind; and an embarassment to the party I am still a member of

Both of you say you served, but something happened to both of you that caused you to lose your manhood and first loyality to your country same exact post you did in another thread. cut and paste spam.

and please feel free to get the hell out of the democratic party immediately!

semi liberal girl
08-10-2008, 10:52 AM
same exact post you did in another thread. cut and paste spam.

and please feel free to get the hell out of the democratic party immediately!

You must have trouble reading - last paragraph was added

Come November you may se alot of people leaving the Democrat party. You will wish you acted more in the best interest of the nation then your cravings for power and control

bullypulpit
08-10-2008, 12:08 PM
I have seen my once proud party that did what was needed to defend America, to a party of worthless cowards, smear merchants, and political hacks

Both parties are populated by "...worthless cowards, smear merchants, and political hacks...". It's the nature of politics. Unfortunately they vastly outnumber the men and women of integrity, character and good sense.


You sir, and I use that term loosly, are a perfect example of why I am leaving the Democrat party that I have been a member of for my entire life. You trun away when high ranking Democrats insult and smear the brave men and women fighting in Iraq

No need to call me 'sir', I work for a living. You and your alter ego, Red, swallow and regurgitate the agitprop from the Administration and its right wing noise machine in an almost Pavlovian fashion, never making the effort to critically analyze exactly what it is you're being fed. Think for yourself. If you are able that is.


You look away as the progress is being reported, and instead of cheering the results, you move the goal posts further back

The only ones who have moved the goal posts are Bush and his syncophants...with their vague and poorly defined objectives. No commander in the field can succeed with such idiots giving them orders. Our troops have performed magnificently in carrying out orders which defy reason from the Administration. One cannot credit them enough.


You dismiss the success surge you opposed and call it a waste of resources (like another well known liberal hack who posts here and runs away from people who humilate him with facts) I guess this is as close to a thank you the troops will get from you

I will gladly give credit where credit is due. Given that most of the troops wound up in Baghdad, it is easy to see why violence decreased there. It is also worth noting than Muqtada al Sadr declared a cease fire during the term of the Surge. Also of note is the "Awakening" in Anbar province was due more to Sunni militiamen being paid $10 a day by the US to keep AQI incheck rather than any real animus towards Al Qaeda.


You still support surrender in Iraq, even though the troops have crushed AQ and other terrorists. Is your desire for political power so intense you would lose a war and give a victory to AQ to secure that power?

Getting our troops out of the middle of a civil war which the Bush administration helped spark is surrender? Hardly. And now, Nouri Al Maliki has asked that US troops be withdrawn by a date certain. It's time for us to leave.


You, and MFM are a sick twisted political hacks of the worst kind; and an embarassment to the party I am still a member of

Your ignorance is surpassed only by your cheekiness. You are an empty-headed little poppet who couldn't reason her way out of a wet paper bag. You and your ilk are an embarrassment to the species. Do have yourself sterilized as you are dragging the rest of the gene pool down with you.


Both of you say you served, but something happened to both of you that caused you to lose your manhood and first loyality to your country

The ability to think and reason does not equate to the loss of one's "manhood". Such anti-intellectual clap-trap is the stock-on-trade of the GOP in general and the Bush administration in particular. Save your puerile, silly insults for those who will be impressed by them.

In short...Piss off dearie.

semi liberal girl
08-10-2008, 12:21 PM
Like so many who blindly support the party, you put your thirst for power ahead of your contry, reason, logic, and truth

You and your alter ego MFM are the reason the party is now looked at as a joke. We have damn terrorists endorsing our candidates. He have dictators praising our choice for President.

And why not? I see Democrats stand up for the rights of terorists. I see them go around the world ands smear America. The speech a Hugo Chavez makes bashing Amercia, and attacking Pres Bush can easily be mistaken for a specch Sen Obam would make. They are identical

Is is so damn sad to see what has happened to the party. It has been taken over by surrender monkeys and appeasers. Hacks who will do anything for power. Hachet men who will cut anyone off at the knees who dares to disagree with the days talking points

And then people like you BP and MFM who have sold their honor, integrity, and loyalty to the party - and forgot you are Americans first; Democrats second

retiredman
08-10-2008, 12:30 PM
You must have trouble reading - last paragraph was added

Come November you may se alot of people leaving the Democrat party. You will wish you acted more in the best interest of the nation then your cravings for power and control


so you cut and paste one hate filled diatribe from one thread to another, add a few sentences and try to pass it off as something NEW and different?:lol:

bullypulpit
08-10-2008, 01:24 PM
Like so many who blindly support the party, you put your thirst for power ahead of your contry, reason, logic, and truth

I have no thirst for power dearie. Just a good, cold lager every now and then. As for truth, you wouldn't know it if it bit you on the ass, got lock-jaw and died.


You and your alter ego MFM are the reason the party is now looked at as a joke. We have damn terrorists endorsing our candidates. He have dictators praising our choice for President.

Please...provide specific references from reliable, independent sources as to just where a 'terrorist' or dictator has 'endorsed' any candidate.


And why not? I see Democrats stand up for the rights of terorists. I see them go around the world ands smear America. The speech a Hugo Chavez makes bashing Amercia, and attacking Pres Bush can easily be mistaken for a specch Sen Obam would make. They are identical

No, dearie. Not 'terrorists' rights...human rights as laid out in US and international law and US treaty obligations...You know, the rule of law. Something which the Bush administration has only a nodding acquaintance with. PLease cite speeches By Caesar Chavez which is 'identical' with ANY speech made by Barack Obama. Provide links please.


Is is so damn sad to see what has happened to the party. It has been taken over by surrender monkeys and appeasers. Hacks who will do anything for power. Hachet men who will cut anyone off at the knees who dares to disagree with the days talking points

Indeed, the McCain campaign and the Bush administration do tend to get a bit testy with anyone who fails to toe the party line or strays from their talking points. Te 'surrender monkey' and 'appeaser' labels are as dated as they are they are utter BS put out by the right wing noise machine.


And then people like you BP and MFM who have sold their honor, integrity, and loyalty to the party - and forgot you are Americans first; Democrats second

Having never put yourself in harm's way for your country, you really don't know what you're talking about. I am an American citizen and a citizen of the world. These are not mutually exclusive, a fact which you fail to realize. As I am not a member of any political party, your assertion that I somehow sold anything is as false as it is uninformed, as are the great bulk of those wastes of bandwidth you call posts.

BTW...turn on your spellcheck.