[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
we can debate these issues all day, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t know more about the law than eric holder and his legal team, nor do you know more of the specific facts of the case. [/quote]
HAHAHAHAHA
[quote]John S. wrote:
HAHAHAHA, you are too much fun. Now go run away from PWI for a few weeks and return so I can chase you off yet again.
[/quote]
I can’t camp out here all day, like you. Once you get out into the real world, you’ll understand.
[quote]John S., aka Henny-Penny, wrote:
The Terrorists are coming!!! The Terrorists are coming!!! OMG! The Terrorists are coming!!! I’m so scared they might say something mean, what can I ever do!!![/quote]
Calm down and allow the justice system that we rely on to work to do it’s job. Trust that the jury that gets selected is rational, intelligent and not subject to the hysteria that you and those that you get your talking points from constantly spew.
Right, pusshy, cause the federal prosecutors and judges in NY are no more competent than Judge Ito and the prosecution idiots who blew the OJ trial. gotcha. Never mind that the stupid fuckers were all too busy working on book and movie deals to bother trying the case. Just blame it on the jury, cause in our judicial system the jury’s job is supposed to be to say “guilty as charged, yer honner!”, right?
That’s the most intelligent thing you’ve said on PWI in months.
Do you pusshy? Why are you and the other chicken littles so absolutely sure that those defense attorneys in NY are so much better than the prosecutors? Why are you so afraid of our judicial system?
[quote]John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
Its basically vandalism and murder on a grand scale.
Also, your executive branch has the authority to defend the country during an immediate attack but not to take the war to the enemy, that is expressis verbis the job of the legislative branch and for very good reasons.
I know that that makes it very hard for a president to go to war for inane reasons and to strut around as a “war time president” but that is exactly why the branch of government that benefits far less from war is the only with the authority to declare war.
Look at your recent history and you see exactly what they were trying to avoid.
Whatever they are, POWs they are not, because there is no war.
I must be mistaken, I could have sworn they declared a Jihad on us. They wanted to play war so they should get to visit our fine war time military trials.
[/quote]
What they do is entirely irrelevant.
Not every dolt that declares a “war” can and must be taken seriously and when you take the “war” to them it is still congress´ job to declare it.
[quote]orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
Its basically vandalism and murder on a grand scale.
Also, your executive branch has the authority to defend the country during an immediate attack but not to take the war to the enemy, that is expressis verbis the job of the legislative branch and for very good reasons.
I know that that makes it very hard for a president to go to war for inane reasons and to strut around as a “war time president” but that is exactly why the branch of government that benefits far less from war is the only with the authority to declare war.
Look at your recent history and you see exactly what they were trying to avoid.
Whatever they are, POWs they are not, because there is no war.
I must be mistaken, I could have sworn they declared a Jihad on us. They wanted to play war so they should get to visit our fine war time military trials.
What they do is entirely irrelevant.
Not every dolt that declares a “war” can and must be taken seriously and when you take the “war” to them it is still congressÃ?´ job to declare it.
[/quote]
We may have taken the war to them without congress declaring it that much is true, but this guy was behind the attack. Again he wanted to play war so they should have to face a military tribunal.
Where are they going to find anyone in New York that will give this man a fair trial? A Civilian trial makes no sense.
[quote]John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
Its basically vandalism and murder on a grand scale.
Also, your executive branch has the authority to defend the country during an immediate attack but not to take the war to the enemy, that is expressis verbis the job of the legislative branch and for very good reasons.
I know that that makes it very hard for a president to go to war for inane reasons and to strut around as a “war time president” but that is exactly why the branch of government that benefits far less from war is the only with the authority to declare war.
Look at your recent history and you see exactly what they were trying to avoid.
Whatever they are, POWs they are not, because there is no war.
I must be mistaken, I could have sworn they declared a Jihad on us. They wanted to play war so they should get to visit our fine war time military trials.
What they do is entirely irrelevant.
Not every dolt that declares a “war” can and must be taken seriously and when you take the “war” to them it is still congressÃ??Ã?´ job to declare it.
We may have taken the war to them without congress declaring it that much is true, but this guy was behind the attack. Again he wanted to play war so they should have to face a military tribunal.
Where are they going to find anyone in New York that will give this man a fair trial? A Civilian trial makes no sense.[/quote]
Where will you find a military tribunal giving him a fair trial?
Does this or the last administration strike you as being overly concernced with legal restrictions?
What about Timothy McVeigh?
He considered himself to be at war with the federal government and he got a relatively decent trial.
Democrats and common sense don’t go together.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Democracy and common sense don’t go together.[/quote]
Fixed
This is why they should have been taken down at the point of encounter.
[quote]orion wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Democracy and common sense don’t go together.
Fixed[/quote]
Point taken, haha!