It's war stupid!

[miles]

The DNC wouldn't give him access to their database.

It's just the Clintons being the Clintons.

She'll be the most transparent president in history.

 

[kbate]

I say KILL LezBeenz, they are dangerous




once again

let us note

since 9/11

I have AXED

how can we tell

the difference between

good or bad

muslims

no answer

ever!

attempts at answers have always been proved WRONG with real life events



the only answer ever given is

BUSYBODY IS AN IDIOT

yes, BUSYBODY is and idiot, but that DOESNT ANSWER TEH QUESTION

KILL EM ALL

You asked an idiotic question.

 

[Palamino19]

You're arguing with an actual idiot. You're not likely to get anywhere.

I know.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The DNC wouldn't give him access to their database.

It's just the Clintons being the Clintons.

She'll be the most transparent president in history.

After 16 years of Bush and Obama I think we know that transparancy is a bad plan for a president. They should treat us like children, kiss our boo boos, send us to bed and tell us everything is completely under control. The alternative just produces stupid people.

 

[putzpotus]

You asked an idiotic question.

*Views yet again the fucking inane post*
I know

You cant, no one can answer teh question so you attack ME

 

[phrodeau]

*Views yet again the fucking inane post*
I know

You cant, no one can answer teh question so you attack ME

That's because you're an anti-American bigoted idiot who thinks he should be allowed to murder any person who looks at him funny.

 

[putzpotus]

You asked an idiotic question.

so tell us again,

how can you tell the GOOD from the BAD??????????????????????????

American MUSLIM on AMERICAN TV admits, all MUSLIMS are TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DON’T THINK THAT HELPS: Muslim in Face The Nation focus group: If Trump keeps talking, number of Muslim terrorists in America “will skyrocket. . . . He’s driving and fueling anger.”

So Muslims will turn to TERROR because of WORDS?

and

yet WE cant turn anti MUSLIM cause of TERROR ACTS??????????????


http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/muslim...-stereotyping/

 

[Sean Renaud]

You can't. And thus you don't worry about it.

 

[kbate]

so tell us again,

how can you tell the GOOD from the BAD??????????????????????????

American MUSLIM on AMERICAN TV admits, all MUSLIMS are TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DON’T THINK THAT HELPS: Muslim in Face The Nation focus group: If Trump keeps talking, number of Muslim terrorists in America “will skyrocket. . . . He’s driving and fueling anger.”

So Muslims will turn to TERROR because of WORDS?

and

yet WE cant turn anti MUSLIM cause of TERROR ACTS??????????????


http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/muslim...-stereotyping/

Can't I be anti-white male because one blew up Americans? Can I be anti-white male because of the Unabomber? How do I tell the Good White American Men from the Bad ones?

I'll wait.

Or maybe we can only tell who is bad by the bad act they commit?

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Can't I be anti-white male because one blew up Americans? Can I be anti-white male because of the Unabomber? How do I tell the Good White American Men from the Bad ones?

I'll wait.

Or maybe we can only tell who is bad by the bad act they commit?

I'm sure there were a few really nice Nazi's if you only took the time to get to know them.

 

[Ishmael]

Can't I be anti-white male because one blew up Americans? Can I be anti-white male because of the Unabomber? How do I tell the Good White American Men from the Bad ones?

I'll wait.

Or maybe we can only tell who is bad by the bad act they commit?

Another 'false flag' post 'bater?' Get back to me when you can show that they acted as a matter of philosophical doctrine, a doctrine embraced by millions.

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

Another 'false flag' post 'bater?' Get back to me when you can show that they acted as a matter of philosophical doctrine, a doctrine embraced by millions.

Ishmael

Why is that necessary? Why you want to kill me stops mattering the exact second you attempt to kill me. Doesn't matter if it's embraced by millions or inspired by my embrace with your sister.

 

[kbate]

Another 'false flag' post 'bater?' Get back to me when you can show that they acted as a matter of philosophical doctrine, a doctrine embraced by millions.

Ishmael

It is just as valid as his moronic "How can you tell good Muslim from Bad Muslim".

And you have no idea what a false flag is, do you?

 

[Ishmael]

Why is that necessary? Why you want to kill me stops mattering the exact second you attempt to kill me. Doesn't matter if it's embraced by millions or inspired by my embrace with your sister.

It's the difference between war and nutters.

Ishmael

 

[putzpotus]

Can't I be anti-white male because one blew up Americans? Can I be anti-white male because of the Unabomber? How do I tell the Good White American Men from the Bad ones?

I'll wait.

Or maybe we can only tell who is bad by the bad act they commit?

*Chastizes self for viewing post*

Yes, they are all teh same

 

[putzpotus]

Can't I be anti-white male because one blew up Americans? Can I be anti-white male because of the Unabomber? How do I tell the Good White American Men from the Bad ones?

I'll wait.

Or maybe we can only tell who is bad by the bad act they commit?

*Chastizes self for viewing post*

In the end, you always devolve to lunacy

Vote CuntClinton

 

[Ishmael]

It is just as valid as his moronic "How can you tell good Muslim from Bad Muslim".

And you have no idea what a false flag is, do you?

No it isn't. Not even close girl. Loner's vs mass movements.

Ishmael

 

[putzpotus]

and ole (semi senile) Ish falls into the trap set by Batty

and if he doesnt see the PILE of shit, he walks right in

well done, Batty

 

[Ishmael]

and ole (semi senile) Ish falls into the trap set by Batty

and if he doesnt see the PILE of shit, he walks right in

well done, Batty

LMAO, and you are turning sooooooooo many minds. You've become an embarrassment. You've abandoned all pretense of logic and reason.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Yeah, yeah, law enforcement problem...right.

Let's start with the concept of war. Col. Hogan, early in this thread, made a strong argument that the AUF is, in fact, a declaration of war. I don't consider it to be strong enough, but for the sake of this discussion let's roll with the Col's opinion. That being the case these 'terrorists' fall into the category of "illegal combatants" (spies, saboteurs, etc.). The primary job of hunting those people down falls on the backs of the FBI. Other agencies, federal, state, and local, are involved but it is the primary responsibility of the FBI to track them down and the crimes fall under federal jurisdiction.

Once you catch them, then what? As per Presidential Order 2561 (FDR 2 July 1942) these illegal combatants are to be tried by military tribunal, whether they are US citizens or not is of no consideration. Incarceration and/or execution may take place at any federal or military facility regardless of location. That's as it should be. Swift trial, swift justice without any of the general constitutional protections commonly extended our common criminals.

The current administration seems to be of the mind that these people, still "illegal combatants", are to be treated in the same manner as the common criminal. This action/decision seems to contradict the notion that the AUF is a de facto declaration of war. In effect they're trying to 'divide the baby.'

Add to that the utter insanity of this administrations immigration policy and procedures. This news report on testimony before congress should give every citizen pause to consider these policies.

Ishmael

The following year old article is the most recent reporting of the military tribunal proceeding against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that I could find. While I certainly support the legal authority and appropriateness of the United States to try him by this procedure, it is patently erroneous to believe that trial by military tribunal represents "swift justice without any of the general constitutional protections commonly extended our common criminals." The facts dramatically demonstrate otherwise.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/06/will-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-and-other-11-terrorists-ever-be-tried.html

There is certainly no guarantee and every reason to believe that the same procedure in a civilian court might suffer similar delays IF the attorneys were intent on employing similar tactics. That's not the point. The point is that the military system does not afford a super-streamlined approach for avoiding procedural delays as is commonly believed.

The circumstances and experience attendant to the comparatively expeditious handling of the 1942 case of Ex Parte Quirin and the Nuremberg Trials following World War II speak to a social and legal environment long passed no matter how much one may mourn its passing.

And regardless of the "appropriateness" of civilian criminal prosecution of combatants captured on foreign soil, the following table seems to argue for a more efficient/effective process in so doing. Note that the vast majority of these prosecutions took place under the Bush administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-convictions-in-us-courts/2013/03/30/2174b072-9983-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_graphic.html

Furthermore, a companion article makes the case that current administration policy is pursuing extended detention and interrogation FIRST while maintaining evidence and protecting the prospects of a successful SUBSEQUENT criminal prosecution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/somalis-case-a-template-for-us-as-it-seeks-to-prosecute-terrorism-suspects-in-federal-court/2013/03/30/53b38fd0-988a-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

If actionable strategic intelligence AND swift, just disposition of crimes of war by captured combatants is what we, by all rights demand, then the option to use either civilian courts OR military tribunals is one which the United States should reserve and employ as it sees fit.

There is no common law precedent that would undermine the war powers authority conferred by the AUMF based upon whether criminal acts committed by combatants detained under AUMF authority were adjudicated under civilian or military jurisdiction.

 

[Ishmael]

The following year old article is the most recent reporting of the military tribunal proceeding against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that I could find. While I certainly support the legal authority and appropriateness of the United States to try him by this procedure, it is patently erroneous to believe that trial by military tribunal represents "swift justice without any of the general constitutional protections commonly extended our common criminals." The facts dramatically demonstrate otherwise.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/06/will-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-and-other-11-terrorists-ever-be-tried.html

There is certainly no guarantee and every reason to believe that the same procedure in a civilian court might suffer similar delays IF the attorneys were intent on employing similar tactics. That's not the point. The point is that the military system does not afford a super-streamlined approach for avoiding procedural delays as is commonly believed.

The circumstances and experience attendant to the comparatively expeditious handling of the 1942 case of Ex Parte Quirin and the Nuremberg Trials following World War II speak to a social and legal environment long passed no matter how much one may mourn its passing.

And regardless of the "appropriateness" of civilian criminal prosecution of combatants captured on foreign soil, the following table seems to argue for a more efficient/effective process in so doing. Note that the vast majority of these prosecutions took place under the Bush administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-convictions-in-us-courts/2013/03/30/2174b072-9983-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_graphic.html

Furthermore, a companion article makes the case that current administration policy is pursuing extended detention and interrogation FIRST while maintaining evidence and protecting the prospects of a successful SUBSEQUENT criminal prosecution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/somalis-case-a-template-for-us-as-it-seeks-to-prosecute-terrorism-suspects-in-federal-court/2013/03/30/53b38fd0-988a-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

If actionable strategic intelligence AND swift, just disposition of crimes of war by captured combatants is what we, by all rights demand, then the option to use either civilian courts OR military tribunals is one which the United States should reserve and employ as it sees fit.

There is no common law precedent that would undermine the war powers authority conferred by the AUMF based upon whether criminal acts committed by combatants detained under AUMF authority were adjudicated under civilian or military jurisdiction.

That is NOT erroneous, it is merely current opinion as found by some attorney, somewhere. While that finding may salve your sensibilities, it does nothing to protect the citizenry or the Republic.

The argument that "it only serves to recruit more" is so inane as to gag a maggot. I WANT them to react, to self-identify so as to exterminate them as soon as possible. So as to recruit more to our side by their insane behavior. I DON'T want to 'get along' with them. There is no room for them in a world based on liberty. They are the antithesis of liberty.

They are illegal combatants, deal with them as such.

Ishmael


Once you deviate from the constitution into case law, then any law will do. Law by precedent is bad law, degenerative as you will.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That is NOT erroneous, it is merely current opinion as found by some attorney, somewhere. While that finding may salve your sensibilities, it does nothing to protect the citizenry or the Republic.

The argument that "it only serves to recruit more" is so inane as to gag a maggot. I WANT them to react, to self-identify so as to exterminate them as soon as possible. So as to recruit more to our side by their insane behavior. I DON'T want to 'get along' with them. There is no room for them in a world based on liberty. They are the antithesis of liberty.

They are illegal combatants, deal with them as such.

Ishmael


Once you deviate from the constitution into case law, then any law will do. Law by precedent is bad law, degenerative as you will.

I made not one representation whatsoever about "recruitment" or "getting along" with enemy combatants.

What is this obsession you seem to have with arguing points that are not even made in the posts which you respond to?

I provided factual information about the "progress" of the military trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the convictions of terrorists by civilian prosecutions. The only "opinion" responsible for any undue delays in KSM's trial would be that of the presiding judge granting any defense motions made during that trial. I have no doubt he would be fascinated as to why your particular analysis and expertise regarding the procedural rules in criminal trials under the UCMJ is superior to his.

You should drop him a note or give him a call.

I also provided an interesting article about how authorities are pursuing intelligence gathering interrogations while preserving the integrity of potential future criminal prosecutions. I would think any reasonable person would support achieving BOTH objectives upon capture and detention of an illegal combatant.

Why don't you?

I simply provided information that most reasonable people would probably find of some possible valuable. It was not intended for blithering idiots who believe "case law" necessarily represents a "deviation" from the constitution.

 

[putzpotus]

LMAO, and you are turning sooooooooo many minds. You've become an embarrassment. You've abandoned all pretense of logic and reason.

Ishmael

IGGY ME

 

[putzpotus]

oh boy

2 old fossils hurl a buncha words around

YAWN!

 

[putzpotus]

LMAO, and you are turning sooooooooo many minds. You've become an embarrassment. You've abandoned all pretense of logic and reason.

Ishmael

tell me where teh MINDS are at LIT?