A guilty plea without waterboarding!

Okay I don't know what happened to my original post... so let me try this again...

Imagine that... a guilty plea without having to check him into the Hotel Gautanamo (where you can NEVER leave) and we didn't have to waterboard him either...

GO FIGURE!

"A guilty plea without waterboarding!"

__________

Best comment of the day.

False statement there Fiesty, they do leave Gitmo and return to the battlefield to kill our Soldiers, now that's sad. Thinking you probably support that though.

Let's collect these terrorist on the battlefield and bring back here for a civilain trail. Is that the consensus? Let's teach our Soldier's to read them their Maranda Rights.....................Christ............the ROE in Afghnistan is a joke now.

If an illegal immigrant pleads guilty and serves life for murder, rape and welfare fraud.

______________________________________________________________

Does that make Obama's failure to enforce our borders a success?

I agree Pat!

Hey Paul - the reason they returned to the battlefield is precisely BECAUSE we didn't follow our own principles of the rule of law, and the other terrorists there and elsewhere were handed propaganda BY US precisely BECAUSE we didn't live up to our own principles. Then when Bush let them go (yes, that happened under BUSH), I wonder what they'd do given that we'd held them for years on no grounds whatsoever and without a trial at all? I think I'd be pretty p*ssed off at a country that did that to me too! Wouldn't you?

Does that make Obama's failure to enforce our borders a success?

I guess you've not been paying attention to the news, where Obama has actually deported more illegals than Bush did. Oh, and he's cracking down on employers that hire them (illegally), as well as beefing up border patrol and National Guard troops.

WOW, so in your logic, if Jose is nice to people that want to kill me, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE they won't hurt me and we'll be friends.

Yes, Bush let them go................your point is what?

Well Jose, unless you're going to be a terrorist I wouldn't know, but how about those hitch hikers in Iran. If they get free you think they will commit terrorist attacks towards Iran? Or the two in North Korea? They're Terrorist Jose, they want to kill you no matter if you're a Liberal or Right-Winger.......you think like Obama, you think we can take another hit. I don't want another hit.

"Hey Paul - the reason they returned to the battlefield is precisely BECAUSE we didn't follow our own principles of the rule of law,"

Paul... I thought you were laying off the Corona's for a while...???

What's the matter? Polls tightening causing you some anxiety? lol

You're starting to sound as unhinged as CFU and the rest of the merry band of misfits lurking around here...

Don't make me use my 'ignore author button' ;0)))

Fiesty, no Coronas cutting back a bit, broke my foot yesterday, so maybe a Vodka and Tonic..................see I don't really care about the polls here in the Panhandle.........I really don't care who wins in California, CT, Ill., KY and so on. Doesn't effect me like you others. who ever wins, wins...........

This is such a stupid tread. I'm 100% happy that piece of **** is sentenced, but it shouldn't be a political matter. To turn into one is really sad.

Wow our court system works...just as it has for over 200 years. Just as it has in England going back to the Magna Carta.

And Conservatives still won't agree because it has nothing to do with what works. It's about making noise and trouble for Democrats.

Paul - Sorry to hear about the foot... guess that would explain your 'sunny' disposition... lol

Anyway - politics aside I hope you're back on BOTH feet soon!

so he pleaded guilty and said he was proud of his attempt, and the White House is touting this as a great example of our 'justice system' at work?

What is he had plead 'not guilty', and some liberal judge threw out much of the evidence? Would they be proud then?

LOL

Paul - Florida,

Are you saying George W Bush set a known terrorist free and he returned to the American Killing Fields? Wow, I thought W could do no wrong; but here you have it folks.

But my REAL comment on this story is, how close was this decision handed down from Ground Zero and is anyone else OUTRAGED? Or does the outrage come later, when people are TOLD how to feel about it?

Just askin'.

Jose Von Hussein

Does that make Obama's failure to enforce our borders a success?

I guess you've not been paying attention to the news, where Obama has actually deported more illegals than Bush did. Oh, and he's cracking down on employers that hire them (illegally), as well as beefing up border patrol and National Guard troops.

I can care less about your thoughts comparing Obama to Bush. It was completely useless. The fact of the matter is our border is NOT secure with large scale human trafficking taking place by the cartels. The border wasn't secured during Bush, and is NOT secure now under Obama. Obama isn't interested in securing our borders. If he did, there would be a lot more then 1,200 troops on the ground. In fact, do you really think 1,200 troops will make a significant difference when 20,000 border agents can't secure our border currently? You, my friend, has fallen for the typical Democratic propaganda spewed by the progressive thinking Obama administration.

Yes the justice system worked well in this case, but then again he plead guilty. The problem is the justice system didn't charge him with treason and they should have. He just took an oath when sworn as an American citizen during which he admittedly he had no intention of following. Then he attempts to attack the country he has just sworn allegiance to, if that isn't treason I don't know what is. In regard to your comment on Gitmo and water boarding, your comparing bad apples to a potato head. This man is not a true terrorist, he's had all of a week of training, which obviously he didn't take to seriously, and a bad temper. He is a pawn used by the likes of those that were rounded up and taken to Gitmo or lost in the "Secret CIA Prison System" rumored to be in eastern Europe. Most of these are terrorists that were caught in the act of actively fighting our troops and have shown much higher levels of understanding, commitment and training. I am not upset at all that he was tried in the normal justice system for his case was pretty much straight forward and he did confess. The Tribunal system is reserved for those whose cases would reveal to many methods and sources of how information is gathered and in turn endanger those sources if released to the world through the press.

I can care less about your thoughts comparing Obama to Bush. ...Obama isn't interested in securing our borders. If he did, there would be a lot more then 1,200 troops on the ground. - DUD-857416

Actually you should care that Obama has deported more illegals in any year than any admin in the past. Because it is a choice between Obama and someone and other Republican someones have not done as well. Also, the job of securing our borders is actually that of border patrol agents. And they are not 20,000 but 150,000+, a number Obama increased 7% also.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html
Deporting more

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/19/obama_signs_600m_bill_to_increase
Militarized the border

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130369998
Fewer crossing successfully

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/accomplish/fy09_typical_day.xml
US Border patrol and what they do

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/arra/
Even the stimulus boosted border patrol (but then border enforcement is bigger government)

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/who_we_are.xml
US Border patrol website

Those are things the Australian-born owned Fox will never feature - the truth. It will hurt their pockets and their agenda but it will not help us destroy ourselves by voting in the real enemy that actually does nothing and has given amnesty in the past for votes (Reagan). Note that the last Republican President needed 40% of Latino votes to win. Guess how the Republican party will get this back when they gain legislative control again? Paying hefty $3,000, learning English, and returning to the back of the legal line lasting decades, getting a valid ID and paying taxes and soc as currently proposed will look like capital punishment compared to what would be coming (extreme hatred aside, fines have always been a part of our justice system for criminal infractions, misdemeanors, and non-felony offenses).

WOW Clara, that's what I said eh? hmmmmmmm.........ok, Bush did set them free and...............................????

To respond to this comment, I refer to the SNL skit "REALLY?"

"But my REAL comment on this story is, how close was this decision handed down from Ground Zero and is anyone else OUTRAGED? Or does the outrage come later, when people are TOLD how to feel about it?"

Many in the media are guilty as well. Supposed mainstream media. How gullible they have become over the years.

In this case where the man is a naturalized American citizen, it is proper for him to be read his Miranda Rights. In the case of a foreign national, non US citizen then Miranda doesn't apply. The constitution protects our citizens, not enemies, terrorists, and foreign nationals. We extend by choice these rights to those that are not intending to cause us harm even though they may not be citizens, but nowhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights says we must.

That's a generalization. The Constitution speaks in some places of "citizens", in which case that's exactly what it means. In other places it speaks of "persons", in which case it means all persons whether citizens or not.

??? "Choke on that, Tea Partiers", lol, what does that mean? Are you saying that the Tea Party want this guy to be set free or just a stupid comment that you had to make to prove you're an idiot?

The guy got what he deserved, no doubt about that. For a victory lap, well that's pretty sad that a WH official had to say that. Let me ask you if that guy wasn't an American citizen then what? Does he get the same rights? Maybe, Maybe not.

Justice was served and you have people on this site claiming victory over a policital party, now that's the sad part of this topic. The Left takes a so called victory and wants to slam the rest of the country-pitty..........

Gee Paul, given that Republicans and conservatives are rooting so badly for this President to fail all the time, why is it so hard for you to understand that they'd want to take a little credit for once?

I mean, we now have health care reform, a war winding down in Iraq, an economy that is not losing 750,000 jobs per month anymore, and showing signs of growing again, a stock market up 50% since the President took office, more protection for women in the workplace.... shoot, the list goes on and on of wonderful accomplishments that this Administration had done.

As I recall, the politicans (read: REPUBLICANS) that were all up in arms over reading this guy his Miranda rights were saying "Oh no - we can't do that! He'll go free! He'll try to blow something else up!" In other words, they wanted to completely IGNORE the RULE OF LAW and just do what THEY did to the guys in Guantanamo, creating a legal morass. The Obama Administration did this right - I think they deserve just a tad of credit for following the RULE OF LAW and getting the job DONE.

Don't you think?

It was to prove I am an idiot!

The Sad part Paul, is You equating the author of the Thread as WH. The authors said VictoryLap, not the WH. Pay Attention!

It's also sad that the GOP wanted to Camera Hunt when this happened,trying to UpStage the Actual Happening'TimeSquare Attempted Bombing".

Not so much Now, that a Conviction was obtained.

Jose,

It should be a victory for EVERYBODY..............By bashing one side just makes that person an idiot like the people that want to see Obama fail. You have the Right and the Left, that will never change, but for a WH to,"take a victory lap" over an American citizen that became a terrorist, well that's the sad part.

If you're not an American citizen and commit or attempt to commit a crime why should that person be read their rights? Do they deserve our justice? What about the shoe bomber? Do you think he deservers rights? I bet he as rights like others citizens.

Don't know how HC is involved in this, but it's just another tax imposed on the American people, by the way what's the approval rating for HC? Just wondering.

What is the Rule of Law there Jose? Who does that apply too? People that want to kill you and me? Your Rule of Law is much different than mine.If you want to support their needs, by all mean more power to you.

Camera hunt?

LOL. OK...........and the commits about the victory lap was for what purpose? To get you Liberals fired up and say commits like:

"A guilty plea without waterboarding!"

"Choke on that, Tea Partiers!!!"

He's guilty.............that should be good enough..................not turn into a political issue you make to be.

Oh...so NOW it shoudn't be turned into a political issue?

Sorry, the G-NO-P, the Neo-Cons and the Tea Baggers passed that 5 miles back on the right.

Thus, why we have been subjected time and again to "Terrorism Expert" and Chickenhawk Broken Record Liz Cheney.

Thanks Da Noid, for pointing out that the only time Conservatives object to something being politicized is when it works against them.

They have a strange sense of what's "fair".

Well, Paul in Florida, yes, I think everyone has the same rights as I do under this constitution when we (the USA) are dealing with them. The founding fathers indicated that all men are created equal, not just those that are citizens of this country.

But John and Matthew, Paul from Florida is doing SUCH a nice job of playing the victim like conservatives just LOOOOOVE to do when something isn't on their side.

"Oh no! This shouldn't be POLITICAL!!!"

Gee, you mean like when Bush made 9/11 all about politics?

Like when Rudy Giuliani based his whole campaign on terrorism?

Like when pretty much every other Republican candidate turned terrorism into a political football?

Like when the flunkies from the Bush Administration tried to float the LIE that NO terrorism occurred on Bush's watch? (Remember it was 9/11/2001, and Bush had been President for nearly 9 months.)

Yeah, NO politics there, eh Paul? LOL!! You're hysterical. "Shouldn't be political." Yeah, when conservatives STOP making terrorism political, let's talk. Until then, get a life and stop whining.

Jose Von Hussein

You know your pretty good at running off at the mouth, but there is little substance to back it up. It is easy to play armchair quarterback, but if this trial had ended up in anything less than the life imprisonment verdicts it would have been a total sham. Enemy combatants,(let's get this straight, are people apprehended in battles or have been declared as such by congress or the president. It is an important distinction because the majority of enemy combatants are not US citizens.) This man was a naturalized citizen and as such was afforded protection under the constitution. The constitution does not protect non US citizens. The president or congress could have classified this man an enemy combatant in effect stripping him of his constitutional rights. The reason that Tribunals were created, and Gitmo was selected as the site of the detention center was very apparent to most people with an IQ over 10. It was to avoid even the remotest possibility of these terrorists ever going free because of legal technicalities. Remember, the people that apprehended these men are not trained investigators, they are soldiers. The captures are made on the battlefield, usually during or immediately after a combat action. Some of the higher value detainees apprehensions were planned based on intelligence that had been gathered by non public means and if revealed would forever make those sources useless. Each type of prosecution has a place in the system, each is a tool to make you safe. Even the incidents of water boarding served a specific purpose, which was mainly on uncooperative prisoners who may have had intelligence of operations that were time sensitive. Did George Bush do everything right? No he certainly did not. Did he do his best given the circumstances? Yes I think he did. Is Obama right to discount the tribunal system? No he is not, and he has more or less seen the value and reality that caused the detention center at Gitmo. In this case justice worked, there was a ton of forensic evidence and a solid trail to be tracked. This will not always be the case. If we know and are certain the person who is not a citizen has committed a crime against the US and he comes to be in our custody, are you saying he should be set free if there isn't proof that can be released to the public? I think that is a foolish thing to do.

Which is why the entire Enemy Combatant concept has been a usurpation of Constitutional authority from the very beginning, designed specifically to apply different standards of justice just because someone in authority said so.

Jody

I would rather see Terrorism as a political issue, than for it top be swept under the carpet by well meaning but ignorant people who just want reality to go away. These terrorists have an agenda, they wish to dictate where we can or cannot go and what we can or cannot do. They will do so by any means necessary. They are not reasonable men open to compromise, they are absolute in their beliefs and see themselves as modern day profits of Islam. To ignore them, or to treat them as common criminals, does not take them with the seriousness their acts deserve. If such were the case, the 9/11 families should have closure and justice already because the hijackers were all killed in the attacks. Ask them if they received justice or feel closure. So this trial had a correct out come, congratulations to the justice department and good job to the investigative team that ran down all the evidence. What happens however when the information that convicts the terrorist is bought from a less than upstanding source, say another terrorist groups or leader? What happens if the information comes from an infiltrated agent that remains undercover? What happens when the proof is less than concrete, even though we know for a fact that the person is responsible? The are rules that apply to evidence that the legal system uses for admissibility. If there were ways around them Al Capone would have been hung or in the gas chamber, rather than dieing of syphilis in prison for tax evasion.

Pietro,

So terrorist that are captured overseas have the same rights as an American citizen that's becomes a terrorist? Is this you're logic?

Soldier's should act like the police?

Why shouldn't we follow the rule of law Paul? Why are you so afraid of the justice system not working? Why do you feel the need to constantly argue for circumventing it and acting in a LAWLESS manner?

Why do you hate the American principle of JUSTICE? (You know, "freedom and JUSTICE for ALL")? Justice means bad guys get their due, and good guys go free. I guess you're not for all that "rule of law" stuff, eh?

I have to agree with Paul on this,

there is absolutely no reason why foreign terrorists should be given the same constitutional protections that you or I get. They are not citizens of this country, so they should not be treated as such. They should be tried under the laws of their own country or international governing prisoners of war, and in this case war criminals (As they do not wear a uniform or follow any rules of engagement).

So terrorist that are captured overseas have the same rights as an American citizen that's becomes a terrorist? Is this you're logic?

Soldier's should act like the police?

Paul, isn't the American military already known as the 'World's Police'?

Even if it is, you miss the point of my post. my point was that because we did NOT follow our OWN policies when it comes to terror crimes, we are being hung by our own petard in the court of world public opinion.

With this conviction, we can start the process of letting everyone around the world know that our justice system works and if you mess with us, you will be subject to it.

Period.

I have always thought that bringing out the shadowy world of terrorists out of of the shadows would be the BEST method of combatting terrorism.

Hell YES if we catch a terrorist, he should be tried here. That way we can determine, using our laws, if he really IS a terrorist or not (there were cases where people were rounded up and detained by were NOT terrorists. Ask Canada how they felt when we did that to one of their citizens).

Once the terrorist ties are established, then we apply OUR law and punish (or exonerate) as necessary.

I find it fascinating tht you are so AFRAID of terrorists, Paul. I am not.

Jose,

What's the Rule of Law? LOL, you don't EVEN know what it means!! You don't know what it is do you?

I NEVER said the Justice system is not working!! Where did I say that? WOW really!! If you're not an American citizen you get American rights, why you think that's so hard to understand is beyond me.

Pietro,

Pretty brave of you living in middle Ohio talking smack. From that statement I take it you never served in the Military. I retired two years ago there Stud and that was stupid remark you post. Was I affraid in 05/06, yup sure was and not affraid to say it. Affraid of my men not coming home and myself too. Whatever you say on this subjust is moot. Don't say WE when it comes to catching anything...............you just sit there on the side lines and wish our Military well and complain about whatever you're going to complain about.

"I find it fascinating tht you are so AFRAID of terrorists, Paul. I am not."

Paul, you were there - all well and good. I am glad for you.

the whole purpose of terrorism is to DISRUPT people's lives - create TERROR - so that their cause(s) can be articulated.

I REFUSE to let people terrorise me in any way, shape or form.

Although I live in Ohio now, slick, I have been and lived in a lot of places before I lived here.

The post was about trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts (which, by the way, have a better track record than military tribunals). I am saying that I SUPPORT having suspected terrorists tried so we know everything about them on the PUBLIC RECORD.

Once exposed, then it is hard to be a 'terror' to someone if everyone knows who you are and what you do, isn't it?

Paul in Florida, you are not the only one who served so don't even go there, it neither makes you smarter nor automatically endows you with superior knowledge about the war on terror. There are plenty of stupid people serving.

The position staked out by most of you on the right has been that by reading someone their rights, we risk losing them or their going free. That is an implicit indication that you believe that the justice system will not work correctly and successfully prosecute a terrorist. In other words, the terrorist has made you fearful that our system will not work. That is 'mission accomplished' for them.

Now, as I mentioned in another post, the founding fathers did not indicate that you had to be a citizen to be subject to our laws. They did not say that you had to be a citizen to have the same rights under our laws. In fact, their exact words were, ". . . that all men are created equal . . ." (emphasis added) without qualification.

Because you argue against the above, it seems as though you are afraid of the terrorist, do not trust our justice system and do not understand our Constitution. Does that explain why Jose said those things?

What's the Rule of Law? LOL, you don't EVEN know what it means!! You don't know what it is do you?

I NEVER said the Justice system is not working!! Where did I say that? WOW really!! If you're not an American citizen you get American rights, why you think that's so hard to understand is beyond me.

Paul, I agree with you when you say, "...If you're not an American citizen you get American rights." that's true. You're not an American, you do get American rights. Thanks for making my point. But I'll elaborate on that.

But what you fail to comprehend is that despite your protestations that this shouldn't be "political," you just hate the fact that when I throw the "rule of law" back at your conservative mind, you can't quite comprehend what to do with that.

However, since you brought it up and accused me - falsely, I might add - of not knowing, let's discuss it. Miranda rights ARE THE LAW. Miranda does not discriminate between Americans and non-Americans. You are arrested on U.S. soil, regardless of nationality, you are read Miranda rights. That is the rule of law.

Now, the Bush Administration wanted to ignore this, and conservatives have HATED Miranda since the Supreme Court ruled on it, and have done everything they can to water it down, and keep anyone - even innocent people - from having more rights. But the fact is, that is the rule of law. And the court system - even with all it's flaws - should be allowed to work. That is a NATION of laws at work. Doing things in an extrajudicial fashion merely undermines our own American principles, and hands the terrorists a propaganda tool with which to recruit and twist minds. By following the rule of law, and meting out justice in the fashion that we did in this case, the terrorists ALL LOST.

Oh yes, and conservative whiny-pants like you lost too, because you hate that the "rule of law" was applied and actually worked, instead of just shipping someone off to Guantanamo and torturing them. (You assumed crap about me, I figure turn around is only fair play. You retract your statement, I'll gladly retract mine.)

And incidentally, I never said that you said, "The justice system isn't working." I simply asked why you were AFRAID of it not working. That's not saying you said it. It's asking why you're so scared. Try reading what I actually wrote next time, and you won't make such silly protestations again.

Matthew in Houston:

Your Quote: Now, as I mentioned in another post, the founding fathers did not indicate that you had to be a citizen to be subject to our laws. They did not say that you had to be a citizen to have the same rights under our laws. In fact, their exact words were, ". . . that all men are created equal . . ." (emphasis added) without qualification.'

This is a quote (as you may or may not know) from the Declaration of Independence....you followed this with a note about understanding the Constitution (Your quote: Because you argue against the above, it seems as though you are afraid of the terrorist, do not trust our justice system and do not understand our Constitution.). Non-sequitir on your part?

No question that the founding fathers included this....however, look at the culture of the time and tell everyone that ALL men are 'created' equal in each era. Were ALL men free? Were women the property of men (through marriage)? Did the 'Justice System' treat ALL men as equals? Do not confuse the Constitution with the historical interpretations of the Justice System (also do not confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence).

Within the Declaration of Independence, I am also interested in the word 'created'....the first thought is 'created' by whom? I believe a large number of lefties must choke on this word as well as the word 'Creator' (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...) and the words 'Divine Providence' ...(And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence....)....who is this DIVINE one?

My point is you appear to attribute the words of the Declaration of Independence to the US Constitution. You have taken a historical period in time (1776-) and believe that everything has remained constant in our culture/society. You indicate your belief that EVERYONE who lives or comes to the US should be provided the same protection under the US laws as a US citizen (yet we take exception to this for Senators and Congressman under the Constitution). You may not understand that in the real world there exists countries and individuals who could give a rats butt about our laws -other than to use them against us. All you have to do to understand this is to go for a walk at night through some of our US high crime districts in Newark or Patterson or New York or Miami or Atlanta or Detroit or Cleveland or Los Angeles or a multitude of other cities. When someone or a group of individuals starts beating the hell out of you, make sure you tell them that they have equal protection under the laws of the US. The real world has bad guys who could care less about US law....although they look forward to the liberal's interpretation of the law when they are brought to trial.

Well, Bill in AZ, you have made some erroneous assumptions and logical fallacies about my post.

Even though you used ever so polite language to say it, you have indicated that you think I do not understand the world as it exists today. I did not indicate that I thought everything had ". . . remained constant in our culture/society." And I did not say that the quote I used was from the Constitution. All of these misinterpretations are your attempts to try and make me look ridiculous without actually addressing the point with fact based counterpoints.

Because you obviously missed the point, I will state it again, just for you: Yes, I believe that EVERYONE in the ENTIRE WORLD deserves to be treated with the rights and privileges that we, as American citizens, have by our government. Period. NO exceptions. Period.

Clear enough for you or will you use ad hominem attacks and try to spin that, too.

Pietro

Using a straight forward case where the suspect confessed and incriminated himself give little justification for your statements. You are a fool to believe that all terror cases can have this out come in normal courts. The circumstances around them are each unique just as the information used to apprehend the terrorists. Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, the government of the US needs to keep some things secret for a very long time if not indefinitely. It is a delicate balance between what can be released, what the people will think, and how the world might react. Times and attitudes change and what might seem reasonable today could be considered tomorrows holocaust. Gitmo was and is necessary for a number of reasons. First and foremost is public safety. Would you think it was a very good idea to keep the detainees at a prison near your home? How about add to that a terrorist operation to free their brothers which resulted not only in their freedom, but the release of the murderers, child molesters, drug dealers, rapists, and the other violent types confined in our prisons? How would you feel about it then? Gitmo for as terrible as you've been made to believe it is, is still 100% better than any detention facility any of our soldiers, or civilians might see in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan or Pakistan. They are not denied their prayer rugs, or their Korans. They are not starved or beaten to death. They are provided with the means to bath regularly and the food while maybe not the tastiest in the world is certainly as or more nutritious than many of these men have to eat while free. Just ask the recently released hikers from Iran, or the Iranian dissidents how their prison stays were.

archangel 3:16 - I stand steadfast by my post.

Your defence of Gitmo still holds no water. There is NO REASON why we need to have - or fund - Gitmo when it comes to dealing with terrorists. If your logic was valid, then EVERY country that deals with terrorists would have a 'Gitmo'. They don't. The terrorists that are caught are dealt with in the CIVILIAN court(s) of that country.

Gitmo is a blight because it is a POLITICAL tool to make Americans 'feel' safer. If it worked, we would have no terrorist problem, no? The mere fact that it HASN'T worked is evident in the increase in recruitment of terrorists, with Gitmo being a major factor in the uptick in recruitment. Now we have 'enemy combatants' that are in legal limbo in Gitmo. If those 'enemy combatants' were Americans held in Saudi Arabia by the Saudis, you would be the FIRST one to want to go 'invade' that country.

The canard you are trying to foist upon us that these terrorists CANNOT be in our prisons is silly bordering on the ridiculous. A public safety issue? We have criminals in THIS country that i would worry more about. I have NO PROBLEM with these terrorists, if indeed guilty, being housed in our prisons. At least we know where they are. At least we know that they have had due process. At least we know that they had a fair trial.

I cannot believe the FEAR that permeates posts like yours. The terrorists have definitely done a number on you because you are walking around SCARED worrying about when the terrorists are going to hit you next. They have got you right where they want you. You will spend your last dime and give up your rights as an American citizen in the name of 'security'.

It seems to be effective too, as evidenced from your post.

You may choose to be scared all of the time, but I do not. Let the courts do what they do - take the bad guys off the streets so they are not a menace to OUR society.

The fact we are taking them off the street of the WORLD society is an added bonus.

Mathew

It would be a beautiful world if everyone were subject to the same laws, rights, and privileges that we enjoy in the US. You are to be commended for your belief. You are wrong however to criticize Bill for his statement. No matter how we wish things to be, reality is often different. Not everyone subscribes to your beliefs here, let alone in the rest of the world. We enjoy the rule of law but we see it abused everyday in our courts. The spirit and intent of a law is just as important, even more so than it's actual wording. The same is true for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration was just that, a statement to the world that we would no longer be subject to the tyranny of the English Crown. The Constitution laid the ground rules for how we proceed as a nation and the basis for the laws we would make to follow. It is vaguely worded intentionally to be adaptable as our society changes. It establishes the Supreme court to interpret the Constitution in context of today's realities. Reality has changed since 1776 and 1787. Reality now provides us with a group with the idea that everything we stand for is evil even when we believe it is not. Believing in something does not necessarily make it true, truth all to often is determined by the victor in a struggle and I don't know about you but I would rather not lose this struggle.

Matthew in Houston:

(Your text): Yes, I believe that EVERYONE in the ENTIRE WORLD deserves to be treated with the rights and privileges that we, as American citizens, have by our government. Period. NO exceptions. Period.

Wonderful words of entitlement by a lib. By your own words you state that EVERYONE in the world should be able (rights and priviledges) to vote in US elections; receive free insurance; receive free education; receive welfare; run for political office; etc.

You most certainly have the right to believe your statement; I hope you can afford it come implementation and tax time.

Pietro

I ask you these questions regarding your points. How many criminals that are locked in our prisons have thousands of radical supporters prone to violence that would think it was an honor to die freeing those in our custody? Prisoners 0 terrorists?. How many countries have a legal system so sensitive to the rights of criminals? Even in the most civilized of European countries, criminals have no where near the rights or privileges that we have here. How many of our prisons have overcrowding problems and budget problems that have put them in imminent danger of violence inside their walls? Now add people to that powder keg that would love nothing more than to stir up further trouble. Let's go one step more, let's say you were an American of strong Arabic, Pakistani, or Afghani descent. You worked for an intelligence agency here and were recruited to infiltrate a terrorist organization. Or you were a national of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen that was against terrorist acts and volunteered to help the US out. One of the people you help take into custody with information is brought to trial and now due to rules of evidence, your name becomes associated with the evidence used to convict the man. How safe would you feel knowing that the organizations you've been fighting against in secret now new who you are and where you family is now located? Would you be ok with that? It is easy to turn a blind eye based on limited information, but you have to consider all possibilities not just your own.

archangel 3:16 - I see nothing but FEAR in your post. You are AFRAID of terrorists because you do not want them to strike here on our soil. Here is what I am talking about:

I ask you these questions regarding your points. How many criminals that are locked in our prisons have thousands of radical supporters prone to violence that would think it was an honor to die freeing those in our custody? Prisoners 0 terrorists?.

Here you exhibit your FEAR of 'radical supporters'. SO WHAT if they have 'radical supporters'? We are Americans here... I have 300 million supporters that will support me in a beat down if a terrorist decides to pull his crap.

OK, since you will not be one of my supporters because you are scared, 299 milliom.

How many countries have a legal system so sensitive to the rights of criminals? Even in the most civilized of European countries, criminals have no where near the rights or privileges that we have here.

Here you exhibit your FEAR of OUR legal system. It seems to me that the CIVILIAN Justince System, when dealing with terrorists, is batting 1.000. Your FEAR may be exacerbated by Conservative talking points. The fact is that our Justice System is working very well for us, thank you.

How many of our prisons have overcrowding problems and budget problems that have put them in imminent danger of violence inside their walls?

Here you exhibit your FEAR of prison overcrowding and prison violence. There has been violence behind prison walls before, and there will be again. Just because YOU FEAR that it will happen is inconsequential.

Now add people to that powder keg that would love nothing more than to stir up further trouble.

Again you exhibit a fear that is unwarranted. we ALREADY HAVE people in this country that would 'love to do nothing more than stir up further trouble'. Go to any major city and ask the people there about the gang problems that exist. If we are dealing with gang problems - and they LIVE HERE - why on earth would we be concered about terrorists if we put them away for crimes against America?

Let's go one step more, let's say you were an American of strong Arabic, Pakistani, or Afghani descent. You worked for an intelligence agency here and were recruited to infiltrate a terrorist organization. Or you were a national of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen that was against terrorist acts and volunteered to help the US out. One of the people you help take into custody with information is brought to trial and now due to rules of evidence, your name becomes associated with the evidence used to convict the man. How safe would you feel knowing that the organizations you've been fighting against in secret now new who you are and where you family is now located? Would you be ok with that?

I have never been an 'intelligence asset', so I would not be qualified to answer the question that you have posed. With that being said, I am sure that intelligent assets know the risks and dangers of what they do, and CERTAINLY don't need - or care about - your 'concern' about what they do.

It is easy to turn a blind eye based on limited information, but you have to consider all possibilities not just your own.

I am not turning a blind eye toward anything. i can only use the information that is available to me, and that information states that terrorists caught and tried in American Courts have been convicted more than not. We have not seen ONE conviction by military tribunal.

I have chosen NOT to be scared of terrorists; you have. I am living my life as i see fit and going where I want to go because I am TRULY free. You have decided to limit yourself worrying about what terrorists MIGHT do.

That is your call and your problem.

Me, I am moving on. As a FREE American citizen, I can do that, terrorists or not. If I see something suspicious, I alert the authorities. If a terrorist decides they want to 'dance' with me, then I pity them.

Pietro

Yes I am scared of terrorists, not because of what they have done, but of what they might do. So far they have been restrained by their need for media attention. Attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, etc are highly visible and highly accessible to the media. They are screaming at the world for legitimacy and attention. It is when they no longer feel the need for legitimacy or attention that I worry about, or the revelation that a small town in Iowa or New Mexico being wiped out by biological or chemical attack would gain them as much press and increase the level of unease in our country. We for better or worse are at war with an Idea. Al Queda believes that our society and our culture is destroying the world. Remember it is they who attacked us. Not just in 2001, but in 1993 in Lockerbie, and WTC, at US embassy's in the middle east and north Africa. You may not connect all the dots, and feel righteous in what you believe, but you are selling the terrorists short. We are at war, and if you let your opponent dictate the rules and the battlefields you will lose. That is a lesson we should have learned in Korea and Viet Nam. One that a lot of people wish to blame on someone else. Each time we fight any conflict, there are always reasons valid at the time for the resulting actions. Just because time has passed, don't discount the original reasons,just because they are dated they still may be valid.

archangel 3:16 - look, we will not agree on this issue. I think that the powers that be are hyping this issue so that people like you will vote to give them more power to do what they want. They are using this 'issue' as a means toget what they want.

I am not buying it.

You may not connect all the dots, and feel righteous in what you believe, but you are selling the terrorists short.

Actually, I am not. You are giving them too much credit.

We are at war, and if you let your opponent dictate the rules and the battlefields you will lose. That is a lesson we should have learned in Korea and Viet Nam.

First of all, your declaration of 'war' does NOT mean that we are. The mere fact we have 'enemy combatants' and NOT 'prisoners of war' prove that fact. The designation 'enemy combatant' can be assigned by ANYONE without proof.

As far as terrorists are concerned, we have intelligence agencies that are well suited to handle that threat. The only way we are letting THEM dictate the rules is for us to be AFRAID of what 'they' are 'going to do'. I refuse to let 'them' interrupt MY life because of their 'cause'.

You can continue to cower in FEAR if you want. I choose not to. I choose to do what Americans do - move on and live life to the fullest.

Pietro

I applaud your boldness, but I pity your foolishness. I am only being prudent in my judgments and not willing to take on more trouble than it is worth. Why invite a two rival street gangs to a party when you know there will be trouble. I grew up in the inner city and have seen the stupidity of which you speak, but comparing a street gang to a terrorist organization is folly on the verge of criminal. There is nothing wrong with civilian courts, but the tribunal system is equally valid as a tool for sorting out terrorists. After WWII tribunals were held in this country and abroad to bring war criminals to justice with great effect. They still persist today in cases like Croatia, Somalia, and the like. These are international tribunals, not courts. The rules are a bit different but the goals are just the same. You point of funding Guantanamo Bay detention facility is a non argument. Whether here or there we are paying the cost of support and guarding these people. Guantanamo was a military base before and will continue to be a base after the detention facility is gone so why bring trouble home when you can keep it at arms length? It is even more secure then a supermax here because not only are our troops guarding it, you have the Cuban military making sure that nothing seeps out or gets close enough to get in. Not to mention the 90 plus miles of open gulf between here and Cuba. In my opinion why bother capturing Terrorists at all? We could do the same as France, Israel, and others simply by making sure none make it back alive. That would certainly save us time, trouble and cost. I believe in using every tool at our disposal to eliminate or minimalize a threat. I believe that one civilian lost to terrorist attack in this country is one too many. I believe the best defense is a good offense and that fighting someone on foreign soil is much preferable than to fighting at home. You can be free and have all the confidence you want, i rather be prudent and protect the lives of those that I can with whatever means is at my disposal.

Pietro

Whether I declare war on them or not isn't the issue, it is they that have declared war on us. Don't be blinded by semantics, or arrogance. We live in the greatest country in the world, but even the strongest rocks can be worn down by water over time. Once again I applaud your spirit, but your fear of terrorists runs far deeper than mine. I give my opponent the respect they deserve for the danger they present, and they have shown many times how dangerous they can be. I am not concerned about their propaganda, or their recruiting as you seem to be preoccupied with. I just want to see them ended. It would be wonderful if that could be accomplished without the loss of another life, but unfortunately they don't subscribe to that particular wish. Arrogance in our culture, by viewing things through our logic is what has gotten us into this predicament. Our perception of the world is oft time colored by our way of doing things with the assumption that no one thinks differently. Your bravado and behavior is typical of that flaw. I am proud to be an American, but I am also smart enough to know the limitations of who and what we are. I wish for this to be over, not out of fear but from sadness knowing that because of attitudes like yours only more will die.

archangel 3:16 - OK, let's throw in a new wrinkle in this discussion.

You desire this whole 'situation' would just 'go away'. I am afraid that is not going to happen. We will have this 'issue' for some time to come. The question is this - do we go on doing what we do and be mindful of who we are dealing with, or do we curl up into a ball in a fetal position because someone 'may' do something to harm us?

I am not saying that we should NOT be vigilant; I am saying that we cannot let these jokers DICTATE how our lives are to be lived or led. If wer see something suspicious, then we deal with it.

There is NO REASON whatsover that we should be FEARFUL; to get rid of this issue, we need to make the message of terrorism ineffective. That CANNOT be done if we have a 'bunker' mentality.

The mere fact that people will die from terrorist attacks is probably why you are so FEARFUL. I think that most Americans would be like those that were on the 9/11 plane that FOUGHT back. They KNEW they were going to die; they took out the terror 'cell' on that plane anyway, making the operation ineffective.

THAT is how you combat terrorism. make their methods - and their message - ineffective. They will try and figure another way to make their message known.

Unfortunately for America, there are more like YOU than like me. You would use your last dollar to keep the fight 'over there'; well, the fight is where the fight will be, and we need to be ready for it, no matter what. You would sign away your rights as an American citizen to 'feel' safe. This is evident when you do and deal with the TSA before getting on a plane. Why can't the airlines protect their own damn planes?

They were too cheap to do it so to make people 'feel safe', a whole new bureaocracy was formed. Are the methods the TSA use effective? Possibly, but look at the price we pay. Is the price worth it?

I say NO.

We have given up too much of our freedoms already because of terrorism. We have become 'bitchy little girls' as a country and we cringe and 'run to mommy' when the word 'terrorism' is used.

No more.

I am sick of that. Instead of always being on defense, let's go on offence for once. Part of being on offence is to be VIGILANT but don't let these jokers disrupt your life.

Pietro....interesting response to Archangel. Questions for you as you indicate we can take care of things here at home.

1) How many inter-city gangs have you confronted and, through your 'militant' efforts, brought to justice?

2) With your 'vigilant' monitoring of your world, how do you establish who is a terrorist as opposed to a common criminal?

3) We have continuously given up civil liberties through FedGov interference. Who do you believe establishes the interpretation for protection of individual rights versus national (US) protection/interests?

4) What is the distance (in miles, yards, feet, or inches) to our US borders that you believe should be protected against terrorism? And when do 'we' react to their proximity?

5) What method will you use to counter terrorists once they are in the US? a) Will you 'arm' yourself? What weapons?

b) Will you rely on government agencies for your personal protection?

6) If you live in Maine and the 'incursion' is in Oregon, should you be concerned? How close to your location before you become active for the defense of your location?

7) You are correct when you note that the most effective terrorist has only to intimate that an 'act' will occur. What if historical evidence exists that states a high degree of probability for a terror act will occur within a specified period of time? Do you:

a) Sit and wait?

b) 'Arm' yourself?

c) Contact local law enforcement and ask what you should do?

d) Other

I am in awe of those of you who can pontificate on your bravery and willingness to act upon confronting an enemy. I don't anticipate a vast influx of terrorist masses infiltrating the US. I do not let fear of terrorist activity prevent me from enjoying my normal daily life. I understand that the probability is extremely low that I will be involved with any form of terrorist activity -but I also understand that the areas of opportunity have been defined by terrorist organizations...I avoid these areas much as I avoid dark streets in high crime areas. Not out of fear but common sense. If you have never been involved in an armed conflict, you will never understand the difference between true bravery and bravado. It takes a huge set of cajones to admit you are afraid of certain occurences.

Bill N AZ - my response to Archangel 3:16 is that I am not going to let terrorists change what i do or how I live my life. I have successfully pointed out in Archangel's posts that he is AFRAID. That's fine for Archangel, but I choose NOT to be afraid of terrorists. Now let's answer your questions:

1) How many inter-city gangs have you confronted and, through your 'militant' efforts, brought to justice?

I was born and raised in the Bronx in New York. I had many dealings with 'gangs', and the weak get picked on if they don't fight back.

2) With your 'vigilant' monitoring of your world, how do you establish who is a terrorist as opposed to a common criminal?

I don't because I would report something suspicious to authorities. In my mind, there is no difference between a common criminal and a terrorist.

3) We have continuously given up civil liberties through FedGov interference. Who do you believe establishes the interpretation for protection of individual rights versus national (US) protection/interests?

I believe that Americans need to know what their rights are (first) and then protect them from WHOMEVER is trying to take them away, no matter who it is.

4) What is the distance (in miles, yards, feet, or inches) to our US borders that you believe should be protected against terrorism? And when do 'we' react to their proximity?

Silly question. I think we should be be vigilant no matter where we are in the United States. If there is something odd or out of place, report it.

5) What method will you use to counter terrorists once they are in the US? a) Will you 'arm' yourself? What weapons?

b) Will you rely on government agencies for your personal protection?

This depends on the situation, and if you mean the Police or other investigative agencies, I would. As far as arming myself, only if it was a last resort, and my weapon may be anything, including my belt.

6) If you live in Maine and the 'incursion' is in Oregon, should you be concerned? How close to your location before you become active for the defense of your location?

It would depend on the 'incursion', wouldn't it?

7) You are correct when you note that the most effective terrorist has only to intimate that an 'act' will occur. What if historical evidence exists that states a high degree of probability for a terror act will occur within a specified period of time? Do you:

a) Sit and wait?

b) 'Arm' yourself?

c) Contact local law enforcement and ask what you should do?

d) Other

Love the questions, it would depend on the situation. Terrorism works best when it is in secret; expose the terrorist and the jig is up.

I am pretty amused that you think I 'pontificate', but this is what Americans do to protect America. Common Sense does prevail, so no, i do not go out LOOKING for a fight, but if I encounter one, I do what I can to resolve it peacefully. If not, then I pity the person who steps to me.

Is that so wrong? Why is it OK to be AFRAID of terrorists?

Finally, let me tell you something. I could care less about bravado or bravery. if there is a threat to my family or me, I will do whatever it takes to neutralise that threat. I may win, or I may lose. That is the risk I take.

However, I REFUSE to live in FEAR because of terrorism or what 'they may do'. It is my choice and Iwill live or die by that choice.

I hope that other Americans do too.

Pietro, I appreciate your candor. The only exception I take to your comments is (your text):'Terrorism works best when it is in secret; expose the terrorist and the jig is up'.

This may be a matter of intent versus interpretation.

(My opinion) Terrorism works best when at least one act of terrorism has provided demonstrable results and the subsequent THREAT of terrorism is extended. Terrorism can not occur in secret; there has to be an overt and documented act of terrorism to establish that 'terrorism' exists. Once an act of terrorism has been committed, infrequent releases of threat potential have a maximum effect on the public. Should one be afraid of the threat - NO. Should one monitor the potential event(s) - YES.

If a series of terrorist attacks occur within a defined area, fear is an accepted reaction. The individual reaction to that fear can not be quantified without knowing the extent of damage that occurred BUT the more extensive the damage, the greater the fear. Just normal human reactions to an extraordinary event.

Bill N AZ - I also appreciate your candor.

I must admit that your terrorism explanation was better than mine. Thank you for sharing that. i will try and be more succint in the future, and I hope you don't mind of I use part of your explanation. It was excellent.

Once an act of terrorism has been committed, infrequent releases of threat potential have a maximum effect on the public. Should one be afraid of the threat - NO. Should one monitor the potential event(s) - YES.

We are on the same page here.

If a series of terrorist attacks occur within a defined area, fear is an accepted reaction. The individual reaction to that fear can not be quantified without knowing the extent of damage that occurred BUT the more extensive the damage, the greater the fear. Just normal human reactions to an extraordinary event.

We are on the same page here as well. HOWEVER - my feeling - and the theme of my post - is that we should NOT have to live in fear of terrorism; it is a choice that we make and I choose not to.

Thank you again, Bill for your post and clarifications.

Pietro, you can use my definition it's not copywrited (LOL). Agreed: living in constant fear is foolish. By the way, I am an EXTREME Buckeyes fan - did my undergraduate there. I haven't been back in over 40 years but still turn on the tube and watch the FB games. We have a large number of fans here in AZ. I am curious - I believe you are listed as a Liberal Democrat but your views seem to point more to Libertarian (?). I am not affiliated with any party; I am a fiscal conservative but your view on individual liberties appears to parallel mine. Did I misinterpret your political point of view?

Hey Bill - It looks like you are a Buckeye for life!! Here in Columbus, Ohio State RULES. You can get Ohio State underwear and socks at the local Target or Walmart here.

For Real.

As far as my political affiliation, I am officially and independent voter. However, my proclivity is more center-left. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative (where it makes sense).

I believe that I am my brother's keeper when it makes sense.

I am not adverse to looking at or adopting good ideas from people who are center-right; I am not really inclined to agree with anything on the fringe (left or right) unless it is a GREAT out-of-the-box idea. I try and address the question(s) asked and keep the snark down to a minimum (although I have my good and bad days).

I also try and learn something from all of my encounters with people who haev differing opinions. When you responded with the definitions as you did I looked back at my post and it just looked SAD!! I also try to give credit where credit is due, and you sir, blew my definition out of the water.

As far as AZ is concerned, I was able to visit this year to take my girlfriend to the Grand Canyon, which she thoroughly enjoyed. I am NOT a fan of your Governor - at all - and I think SB 1070 was a mistake for Arizonans, as Gov. Brewer is using that as a stepping stone for retaining the Governorship and more power.

That's my opinion, and no offense is intended.

Oh yeah - i forgot - I can be pretty opinionated. I guess you figured that out already. I try not to be nasty, but I fire back when fired upon. Most of the time I am not looking for a fight, just information.

I hope that helps.

Pietro....for a leftie; you're not bad! (LOL).

I have lived in AZ for almost 30 years - took a while to start enjoying it but I am now comfortable here; with the exception of the summer!.

Yes, Brewer took advantage of 1070. I will qualify that I do support the bill and I am hopeful that it will become law. I provided time and energy for the border fence (engineering design and on-site supervision). I have tremedous sympathy for the border towns (both sides) whose peoples have lived, worked and married through the many years prior to the fence. I have been privy to first hand occurences along the border that lend credence to the necessity for closely controlling the border. No, nothing as dark as terrorist organizations infiltrating the US via the US/Mexican border BUT the traffic that illegally enters the US is enormous. I worked the area from Calexico, CA to El Paso, TX. On any given day, we encountered dozens of illegals attempting to gain entry. You must first understand the conditions along the border (I recommend taking a Google Map flight along this region ). Unless one has spent time in the extreme heat or the bare mountain areas or the high sand dunes, there is no way to describe the remoteness. Bottom line is that people are dying in the desert; people are being exploited by 'coyotes' who guide them through trails - and then will rob, rape or murder them. The garbage/trash that is left along the illegal entry corridors is a health hazard. The amount of drugs that are carried into the US is beyond belief. I am not certain I can paint a true picture for you - the financial burden to Arizona is extreme. Remember we do not have an enormous population. When Napolitano was Governor, she said it was the Federal Government's responsibility to take IMMEDIATE action to secure the border; when she went to DC, she ignored the problem. Contrary to many media reports, racism is not rampant in Arizona as the population is infused with Hispanic culture. Of the many states I have lived, Arizona ranks close to the bottom in percentage of racial discord - other than photo ops by disingenuous oppportunists, there is very little dis-harmony.

As far as opinions -I've got a few!

Buckeye for life - MOST CERTAINLY! I lived through the Woody era (I was born in Cleveland and spent approximately one week there after my birth -just a little unexpected entry into the world for my Mother. Ended back in Ohio for college as only four Universities would accept me.....something about lacking character (LOL)!

Great talking to you; look forward to future conversations.

Bill N AZ - now THIS is what I am talking about. THIS is why I post on here.

I read your account about the border fence and thank you again for sharing that. You are correct - one really has to go there to see for themselves what is going on. We cannot rely on news articles solely because of the bias of the writer, no matter how 'unbiased' the writer will try to be.

I don't pretend to know everything that goes on at the border, but posts like yours sure do paint a picture that I can use to quantify why people do what they do politically. It is not a partisan issue, but a HUMAN issue. I am sure that the terrain is pretty desolate, but the question is why are so many so willing to deal with that harsh terrain to get a low paying job here in the States?

As far as Gov. Brewer is concerned, she is no better than the 'coyotes' that lead these people IF her intention all along was to get elected as Governor. I guess time will tell in that case.

As I said, I really try to learn from people who challenge me or respond to my posts. I have learned volumes today, and I thank you again for the information.

I am sure we will cross swords at another time.

Ciao!

Pietro,

Si presentano vostre opinioni politcal estremamente bene. Ti ringrazio per le risposte!

(I confess I had to look up several words) - I haven't had too many opportunities to read/write/speak Italian since I left the East Coast (Family in NY, NJ & PA). The part of my life that I miss most is not having the different ethnic family members around. I also miss the bar fights when my Italian, Irish, German, Polish & Greek cousins all met at the same bar to say hi to me. The cops just laughed when they were called - they knew I wasn't from the neighborhood; would give me a ride to the jailhouse or hospital (whichever my cousins ended up) to get family members home. Since you are from the Bronx, you understand that the fights were nothing personal; just family members expressing their opinion (LOL)-my wife doesn't get this.

Again, thanks for the conversation!

"Why is it that some people are all for offending terrorists in one manner"

Good question, CU. Why do Republicans provide a constant stream of propaganda for the terrorists to use against us? Is it because they want more U.S. soldiers and citizens killed so they can seem like the "tough guys" on terror? I honestly can't think of any good reason, so that's the only logical one I can come up with.

I'm just glad that the Obama Administration followed the RULE OF LAW in this case, and that the terrorists got NOTHING out of it: No images of scared New Yorkers, no propaganda to use, nothing whatsoever. Pretty much a win for the American people - well, except conservatives, who want this President to fail at everything no matter what.

Jose. You're doing a great job rebutting the right's views; can't think of a thing to add to it; you've said what I've been thinking.

yeah. All they got was plenty of publicity to ensure this animal's martyr status, maybe a hostage for terrorist prisoner swap at some point in the future. He should have been tried and held someplace in secret, dragged out of his cage in the middle of the night, and hung. That way, nobody really knows what happened to him but he's dead and treated like the rabid dog he is.

yeah. All they got was plenty of publicity to ensure this animal's martyr status, maybe a hostage for terrorist prisoner swap at some point in the future. He should have been tried and held someplace in secret, dragged out of his cage in the middle of the night, and hung. That way, nobody really knows what happened to him but he's dead and treated like the rabid dog he is.

Yeah! Damn that Constitution, right, Chuckles?

DaNoid...

With the right wing nuts it's referred to as the Constitution of Convenience!

They ONLY wave it around and thump their chests when it's advantageous to their rhetoric!

All we need now is for someone to tell Jose he must be an illegal immgrant and the First Read experience is complete! :P

Oh adidas, they've already accused me of that. What they don't understand is that my pseudonym is an amalgam of Hispanic, European and Arabic names - kind of like America: A nice blend of cultures, thoughts and ideas. Of course, conservatives generally can't stand that, so they attack me with all their vitriol and hate. But that's okay - I can take it. Not a problem. You'll note that CU doesn't want the "rule of law" anymore (interesting how they want that when it's a "liberal" Supreme Court justice hearing, but not when it's a conservative), he just wants to turn civil America into a savage country that "beats people like dogs."

In other words, he wants us to become the terrorists. Why, I can't fathom. But there it is, that's what he wants, in black and white.

Pretty sad. Conservatives USED to stand for some good things. It's hard to find anything good that they stand for anymore, if they want to do things outside the the rule of law, and circumvent the Constitution entirely. I guess the Constitution only applies when it's them darn "libruls." Conservatives get to ignore the pesky, annoying parts. Kind of like when Jesus said to "love your neighbor." Most conservative Christians seem to hate gay people, brown people, Hispanic people, Arab people - basically anyone that's not lily-white and rich.

Not very Christ-like, if you ask me.

Jose and Jody

Don't you two get it? No matter what we say about, to or in reference to terrorists it will be used as a propaganda tool. If we say that they aren't a threat anymore and leave Afghanistan without ending them, then they claim victory. If we continue to pursue them, even though we are killing them as fast as they can recruit, then they claim that they are defeating the infidels by their very survival. Even if we appeased them by pulling our influence from every Muslim country in the world they would still hate us and try to kill us, after all our culture to them is the Great Satan. Your making a fatal error by thinking you can live in peace with these people. They want what Hitler wanted, What Ceaser wanted, what Kahn wanted, and that is to dominate and control the world. If it were just one man or one small group of men the battle would be easy, but it is not, it is an idea that must be stopped not a man. The only way to stop an Idea is to make it so unpopular that it just goes away. To do this we either must destroy every terrorist organization and punish it's leaders, or those that are on the periphery of the groups must raise a condemning voice against it. In this case the mainstream Muslim faithful must raise their voice against the violence perpetrated in the name of Allah. Anything less means our culture and society loses.

What is to say that Democratic organizations don't have the same means, methods or opportunities? Their motivations of removing conservatives from office are just as valid are they not?