The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58

Thread: the bad news just keeps on coming for The Apologist

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    I guess the two yahoos don't want to comment on what was in the article posted by David. They only see what they want to see.

  2. #32
    Senior Member BrianW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Athol, North Idaho
    Posts
    885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    I loved the FOX headline that this guy "Almost walked free."

    Like 20 years to life is almost walking free!
    You aren't considering that out of 280 charges, that he was only convicted of 1?!?
    That's 'prreetty" close to "almost walked free" from my viewpoint.
    That is, if you don't consider that DOJ says they weren't going to let the terrorists go free anyway, acquittal or not.

    PBO/Holder thought these trials were sure things, "slam dunks" as it were, arrogantly confident about their ability tp prosecute these cases in civilian court. To get this guy on a "conspiracy to damage or destroy US property " is like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. Yes, it does put the guy behind bars, I'll grant that, but it's the "throw away charge", the one you use when there's nothing else! A couple of teen agers could get that for planning to throw firecrackers in a National Park outhouse but this is the guy who "allegedly" bought the explosives to blow up the embassies..

    This is the best that the President of the Harvard Law Review/graduates from Columbia can come with? Maybe they should have played a little less basketball and studied more law?
    "It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
    Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    ________________________________________
    Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
    co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

  3. #33
    Senior Member Clay Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leggett, NC
    Posts
    372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Roger Perry
    And wasn't it Bush that authorized waterboarding to get the confessions which let to the aquital on most of the charges?


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Good one Roger, what a complete surprise that you, of all people, would blame Bush!!!

    RK
    __________________


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Roger Perry


    And wasn't it Bush that authorized waterboarding to get the confessions which let to the aquital on most of the charges?



    You guys must grow some good stuff down in Florida. Our guys used the means neccesary to get useful information. It was not bush who decided to try these guys in an american court system, it was your messiah, trying to keep a campaign promise. But boy did it backfire. Bet he will be putting ice on these bruises for some time. Just proves the point that he shouldn't be where he is because of lack of experience, plain and simple.



    The truth gets easier to swallow once you start accepting it.


    __________________


    RIP SGT. David Blake Williams KIA 22 Mar 2008 Iraq




    Every day should be Veteran's day.





    Aparantly neither of you two yahoos read the whole article that David posted. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c=nl_natlalert

    But the judge ruled that the government learned of the witness only through the use of coercive interrogations at CIA prisons and that the participation of the witness would taint the process.

    He added: "The original sin here is torture. It would have haunted a military trial, too, with likely the same result. The only difference is that in this courtroom, Ghailani was convicted with legitimacy and finality."


    First, I am not a yahoo, maybe a google, but not a yahoo. Second, this judge doesn't know his a$$ from yours, because it wouldn't have haunted a military trial at all, and the finality would have been death by firing squad or hanging.

    As far as tainting the process, you are missing the big picture here Roger Rabbit, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRIED IN A UNITED STATES CIVILIAN COURT TO BEGIN WITH. The crimes he committed where not committed in the US, but africa and the middle east, so he should have been tried there. And he probably would have got the same thing your buddy Sadam got, which if I remember right was his neck stretched.
    RIP SGT. David Blake Williams KIA 22 Mar 2008 Iraq


    Every day should be Veteran's day.


    "They say War is Hell, but I have to disagree. War is easy. It's the living afterwards thats hell." Author Unknown

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stumpholehunter View Post
    First, I am not a yahoo, maybe a google, but not a yahoo. Second, this judge doesn't know his a$$ from yours, because it wouldn't have haunted a military trial at all, and the finality would have been death by firing squad or hanging.

    As far as tainting the process, you are missing the big picture here Roger Rabbit, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRIED IN A UNITED STATES CIVILIAN COURT TO BEGIN WITH. The crimes he committed where not committed in the US, but africa and the middle east, so he should have been tried there. And he probably would have got the same thing your buddy Sadam got, which if I remember right was his neck stretched.
    his neck was not just stretched - but snapped free! they all deserve that.

    what is sad to me is that thees libs on here are fellow americans, and i love them for that - but that only. i missed viet nam by one year, but i do know what i am made of because i have been tested many times in my life.

    and i know exactly who in this forum i would trust in the foxhole next to me or even sharing one.

    and ialso know exactly which ones i would NOT trust.

    no names - just sayin'......

  5. #35
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson;706056[B
    ]they were POW's[/B] but the Half Muslim Apoloist changed the rules so he could look good to the muslim world.

    i amk pretty sure he is quite happy right now, he got one of his brothers partially off and still got a sentence, so now he can claim victory on each side of his face. instead of one side applauding him for his actions and the other side raging mad.

    thats his game - appeasement. also called zero cajones. nothing new

    These guys were never classified POW's as far as I can see, in fact if I remember correctly the Bush administration did everything in it's power to assure their status would not be POW's for the simple reason that they could not be afforded Geneva Convention rights.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    These guys were never classified POW's as far as I can see, in fact if I remember correctly the Bush administration did everything in it's power to assure their status would not be POW's for the simple reason that they could not be afforded Geneva Convention rights.
    the reason for that is because they do not wear uniforms as required by the geneva convention. theyt were POWs plain and simple, call 'em what you want, but if they dont play by the rules why should we have to?

  7. #37
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
    the reason for that is because they do not wear uniforms as required by the geneva convention. theyt were POWs plain and simple, call 'em what you want, but if they dont play by the rules why should we have to?
    The fact is that there not considered POW's (you even admitted that by saying that they don't wear uniforms) but enemy combatants. The difference in classification makes a huge difference in how they are handled. The Supreme court has ruled that these guys( Guantanamo detainees) whether we like it or not have access to the Federal court system with regards to Habeus Corpus appeals. POW's would have no such right.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    The fact is that there not considered POW's (you even admitted that by saying that they don't wear uniforms) but enemy combatants. The difference in classification makes a huge difference in how they are handled. The Supreme court has ruled that these guys( Guantanamo detainees) whether we like it or not have access to the Federal court system with regards to Habeus Corpus appeals. POW's would have no such right.
    then the supreme court got that one supremely wrong. so all an enemy has to do is not wear a uniform when attacking us overseas and they get to go through civilian criminal court here? with court-appointed attys? who pays for that? that is so stupid its unbelievable. do you understand what that means? that means soldiers will be responsible for collecting evidence at the scene. they are not trained for that, and hanging around a firefight where captives are taken could put them in additional jeopardy. and if they dont collect evidence as expertly as a seasoned CSI expert then all the evidence gets thrown out.

    that is just ridiculous. no matter how much you hate bush surely you see how that just makes no sense. classifying as an enemy combatant should not give them a free ride. but then again, all you lefties just want to make sure we are fair with our enemies....

    ha

  9. #39
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
    then the supreme court got that one supremely wrong. so all an enemy has to do is not wear a uniform when attacking us overseas and they get to go through civilian criminal court here? with court-appointed attys? who pays for that? that is so stupid its unbelievable. do you understand what that means? that means soldiers will be responsible for collecting evidence at the scene. they are not trained for that, and hanging around a firefight where captives are taken could put them in additional jeopardy. and if they dont collect evidence as expertly as a seasoned CSI expert then all the evidence gets thrown out.

    that is just ridiculous. no matter how much you hate bush surely you see how that just makes no sense. classifying as an enemy combatant should not give them a free ride. but then again, all you lefties just want to make sure we are fair with our enemies....

    ha
    I actually agree with you to some degree on the first point. What I would hope you see though is that if we take someone detain them and keep them in jail for an indefinite period of time the burden is on us to prove they did something. How we do that can and should be argued.
    My point from the beginning is that I am not going to call a guy a car dealer when in fact he is a drug dealer. The difference matters

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    I actually agree with you to some degree on the first point. What I would hope you see though is that if we take someone detain them and keep them in jail for an indefinite period of time the burden is on us to prove they did something. How we do that can and should be argued.
    My point from the beginning is that I am not going to call a guy a car dealer when in fact he is a drug dealer. The difference matters
    this is war. the rules are different. does the geneva convention require we prove anything? we hold them indefinitely in a clean prison where they get sunshine and fresh air, they take our men that they capture and commit unspeakable acts.

    i can just see some of you lefties in battle. in the heat of a firefight if you see an enemy combatant carrying an ak-47 weapon across a field or a courtyard you wont shoot him because he isnt pointing his weapon directly at you, so you just wait and look until you see someone actually aiming at you before you fire - and you take a picture first so you can prove it justifiable homicide later in civilian court back home where the jury that has no clue about combat is going to judge your actions. and the rpg that just buzzed over your head and killed a fellow soldier behind you?? "well, i think it came from that bunker over there behind the guys with the guns, but i cant prove it, so i better not return fire just yet"

    now, finally three of your units better men storm the bunker where they find three enemy combatants with a cache of 30 rpgs. they are now captives, so the good guys march them out at gunpoint back to the base while under fire - but because they are overloaded with their own gear they cant carry out the 30 rpgs. ooops! no evidence! they have to be released or a jury of people that think like you would acquit them of all charges.

    this is why liberalism is a mental disorder.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •