Moussaoui wins another ruling

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The issue, which I've stated about fifteen times in a row, is that US Citizens are being denied their right of a trial by jury. You're a reprehensible human being, Marney, and we can only be glad that your choice of lifestyle would prevent YOU from breeding as well; God can only tolerate so many bile-filled bullshitters, I suppose.

Wow, somebody's panties are in a knot tonight.

 

Oh, I was responding to your last post, Tyler...

Not really, it just pisses me off when people utterly ignore and skew my basic argument in an attempt to make me seem less correct.

[Guest JMA]

I think we all know where this is going... These "back-and-forth" arguments in CE are getting kind of annoying. I sometimes wish we could find some common ground. Oh well.

[Firestarter 0]

Your hysteria aside, allow me to suggest that you examine the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (United States Code, Title 18, 3141–50 and 3156). In the case of capital crimes committed by persons whom no combination of factors can prevent from flight or the endangerment of others, pretrial detention is perfectly constitutional.

 

I'd rather be called "reprehensible" by a left-wing lunatic who wants to let all the good little terrorists out of their cages than be suicidally and homicidally ignorant.

It sure is, and that, again, isn't my argument. I'm arguing that they're being put up in front of military tribunals and being denied a trial by jury of their peers. I've said that at least five times in this thread. You've ignored it every time. Instead, you proceed with pointless, stupid, and hateful ad hominem attacks against me and then argue other points in an effort to change the subject from what I'm trying to argue. Case in point: asking me to back up sources when you KNOW what I'm saying is true. You've simply got a massive fucking ego and you can't admit that you're wrong.

No; what you're saying is simply not true. Name one American citizen who has in fact been judged and executed by a military tribunal. That is your "issue," right? Well, it seems you're arguing a hypothetical, because I still haven't heard of even one actual person to whom this has happened. Extended pretrial detentions HAVE occurred, but these violate no law in the specific case of terrorism - as you yourself admitted. You can't be talking about Walker, because he's in jail after having been tried in a federal court. You can't be talking about Padilla - you can't really, can you? - because I remember perfectly clearly that the Department of Justice told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would never be brought before a tribunal. Both HR 3564 and SR 1941 (currently before the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services, and the House Committee on the Judiciary) clearly specify that the tribunals are to be used for non-citizens only. The President's Military Order of 11/13/01 clearly specifies that the tribunals are to be used for non-citizens only. Even the title of the order itself makes that explicit assurance: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism."

 

So whose case are you pleading? Give me a name.

 

Don't say "some reports say this" and then try to dismiss your own claims as irrelevant. Maybe I do have a "massive ego," but at least I'm not a liar. I don't make up shit and then pass it off as an "aspect of my rhetoric." And your lies are central to this argument, Tyler, because without your lies you don't have even a rhetorical leg to stand on. I don't "KNOW what [you're] saying is true" at all. Quite the opposite. I KNOW what you're saying is a lie.

 

Stop lying. Give me a name.

 

One US citizen who has been tried by a military tribunal without having been found guilty of treason first. Just one.

 

It isn't that hard, Tyler. Give me a name. Just one name.

 

One.

Edited August 31, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'm not claiming ANY US Citizen has been executed, and again, you're skewing my words. When I said executions, I was referring to GENERAL executions taken place at Guantanamo, and I never said "US CITIZENS ARE BEING EXECUTED LOLOMGWTF@!!!@!#%&*)(fL;KJNADSL;KFJSADDF"

 

I posted an article that chronicled a US Citizen that is being held in Guantanamo before his MILITARY TRIBUNAL. There was no treason trial for that individual. You have more access to the names of people at Guantanamo than I do, so look up the others.

 

The name was Jose Padilla.

[Firestarter 0]

I'm not claiming ANY US Citizen has been executed, and again, you're skewing my words. When I said executions, I was referring to GENERAL executions taken place at Guantanamo, and I never said "US CITIZENS ARE BEING EXECUTED LOLOMGWTF@!!!@!#%&*)(fL;KJNADSL;KFJSADDF"

(emphasis added)

 

Another lie, as we can see in one of your own posts:

 

In most of these military tribunals, citizens of the United States are being tried and, by some reports, executed without the benefit of a trial by a jury of their peers

(emphasis added)

 

Either you're a liar or you're a subliterate idiot, and you don't understand that when you refer to US citizens being tried, add a conjunction, and then say "executed," your sentence structure clearly points to the execution of US citizens. There is no other subject in the clause. You said that US citizens were being executed.

 

So which is it, Tyler? Are you an idiot or a liar?

 

a US Citizen... is being held in Guantanamo before his MILITARY TRIBUNAL... The name was Jose Padilla.

Jose Padilla is being held at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. He has never been tried by a military tribunal, and according to the Department of Justice, he never will be. This is a matter of public record. So, once more, you're lying.

 

my argument... was... against the general use of Military Tribunals against US Citizens.

US Citizens... will be tried by a military tribunal

 

The President, the House, the Senate, and the Department of Justice have all explicitly stated that US citizens will not be tried by military tribunals in the war against terrorism. Again, are you a subliterate idiot or a liar? HR 3564, SR 1941, and the President's Military Order clearly specify that the tribunals will try non-citizens exclusively. What's the matter? Can't you read? Are you having trouble with all the big words? Or is it just easier for you to lie in order to manufacture your phony outrage at anything and everything the President does?

 

My argument has nothing to do with the executions

First there are "some reports" that US citizens are being executed, now your argument has nothing to do with that, because such executions cannot be substantiated. And for a very good reason: they are not occurring. They have not occurred and they are not going to occur. No one has ever said otherwise. Except you.

Until you were called on the carpet to answer for your barefaced lie. And then you backed down like the whining cur you are. Why did you lie, Tyler? Don't answer that. We all know why, don't we? Because you hate the President.

 

My argument... has everything to do with the fact that US CITIZENS... are being tried in front of MILITARY TRIBUNALS

Yet another lie. I've lost count of them by now. Not one US citizen has yet been tried before a military tribunal. Not one. No pending legislation provides for such tribunals to try a US citizen. None. In fact, as I've stated over and over again, all existing Presidential orders and all pending legislation clearly and specifically exclude US citizens from trial by military tribunals. So, again, why did you lie, Tyler? Because you hate the President?

 

I'm sure you do. You've proven your hatred countless times in countless threads. However, that's not an argument. That's simply your personal petty spite coming into play as you continue to act out your ungrateful, one-sided, and utterly ineffective farce of a vendetta against a very great man whose resolve, vision, intelligence, courage, skill, leadership, and wisdom are pretty much the only things keeping your worthless skin in one piece. Still, summa petit livor, perflant altissima venti; I expect little more from your kind.

 

But I'm tired of the psychodrama, Tyler. Go act it out somewhere else.

Edited August 31, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You're a reprehensible human being, Marney, and we can only be glad that your choice of lifestyle would prevent YOU from breeding as well; God can only tolerate so many bile-filled bullshitters, I suppose.

This one line made my day because I find it funny how you have claimed so many people to be ignorant, etc. in this folder (including me a few times, but hey it's all good) yet you make a statement like this.

 

I'm sure Howie wouldn't approve...

[Guest MikeSC]

You're a reprehensible human being, Marney, and we can only be glad that your choice of lifestyle would prevent YOU from breeding as well; God can only tolerate so many bile-filled bullshitters, I suppose.

This one line made my day because I find it funny how you have claimed so many people to be ignorant, etc. in this folder (including me a few times, but hey it's all good) yet you make a statement like this.

 

I'm sure Howie wouldn't approve...

Hmm, didn't he call me an ass or something once?

 

Shameful.

-=Mike

[BX 0]

Wait..

 

You're not an ass?

 

Colour me befuddled

 

-=B-X-__-===_+_+_=-=-__==-=-+_=

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

What I want to know is why people are getting all bent out of shape about Moussaoui having access to these people in the first place. He's going to get convicted in the end regardless, and all these motions are doing is delaying his date with a needle, which, while frustrating, is not that big a deal because in the mean time he's not going anywhere. And once this whole thing is over, the government can say "look, we gave him a fair trial and he was still convicted", giving them some deserved moral superiority they might not be able to claim if they sent him to a military tribunal. I really hope no one here is actually afraid he might go free. Even if he did, the CIA would have him lying in a pool of his own blood by sundown.

[Guest SideFXs]

You're a reprehensible human being, Marney, and we can only be glad that your choice of lifestyle would prevent YOU from breeding as well; God can only tolerate so many bile-filled bullshitters, I suppose.

 

I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant of other peoples lifestyles? And look, he professed a belief in God.

 

Marney, I commend your post!!! It took some time to read things since I posted last. But, BRILLIANT , Marney!!

 

I just learned on Drudge, after bin Laden was considered a threat to the United States, Mr. Clinton had 12 opportunities to capture the mastermind of Sept 11. Two times, intelligence to the prez. showed exactly where binny was, from real-time information from drones and satellites. Would we even be having this conversation about Moussaoui, had it not been for our impeached President? Maybe he missed the reports, because he was playing golf or getting his dick sucked.

[Guest JMA]

This "Clinton is responsible for 9/11" stuff is bullshit. Clinton did PLENTY to fight terrorism. He was even commended on it by two members of the Reagan administration.

[Guest JMA]

The issue is examined

[Firestarter 0]

JMA is correct. (Please put a paper bag over your head if you have begun to hyperventilate.) President Clinton was in no way directly responsible for 9/11. However, he did preside over crippling intelligence and defense budget cuts, and he did issue the order to withdraw from Somalia, which indirectly contributed to bin Laden's confidence pertaining to the presumed effectiveness of 9/11. One must also remember that despite individual warnings (however prescient in hindsight), prior to 9/11, terrorism was still institutionally regarded as a small-scale threat which could be addressed by small-scale measures. It galls me to admit this, but even if we had been given the funding we requested, our intelligence services would (probably) not have been able to prevent 9/11. The institutional impetus simply did not exist, and (again, individual warnings aside) we did not admit the broader state-based origin of terrorist activities. Broadly, defense activities were focused in the wrong direction, and no President could have changed that in the amount of time it turned out we had.

 

In sum, it is my professional opinion that 9/11 would have occurred sooner or later, regardless of anything President Clinton might have done differently. That doesn't mean I don't consider many of his decisions ill-advised; I simply don't think that revisiting history teaches us much in this particular case.

Edited September 1, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest MikeSC]

Wait..

 

You're not an ass?

 

Colour me befuddled

 

-=B-X-__-===_+_+_=-=-__==-=-+_=

Ah --- such wit and biting sarcasm.

 

Well, it DID bite, anyway.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

Well, it DID bite, anyway.

Sadly, so did that.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, it DID bite, anyway.

Sadly, so did that.

You don't really show all of your best stuff for a warm-up session, do you?

-=Mike

[Guest SideFXs]

despite individual warnings (however prescient in hindsight), prior to 9/11, terrorism was still institutionally regarded as a small-scale threat which could be addressed by small-scale measures. It galls me to admit this, but even if we had been given the funding we requested, our intelligence services would (probably) not have been able to prevent 9/11. The institutional impetus simply did not exist, and (again, individual warnings aside) we did not admit the broader state-based origin of terrorist activities. Broadly, defense activities were focused in the wrong direction, and no President could have changed that in the amount of time it turned out we had.

 

In sum, it is my professional opinion that 9/11 would have occurred sooner or later, regardless of anything President Clinton might have done differently.

Well Marney, I have to disagree with you. After the WTC bombing in 1993, attacks on the US Embassy in 1998, killing over 200, and the attack on the USS Cole, I don't see how terrorism, institutionally could have still been concidered a small scale threat. The institution impetus had to exist, in light of these attacks. I contend that Mr. Clinton had many opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. Clinton was too concerned about himself and did not sign orders to do such, because he felt he needed courtroom like details to justify such an action.

 

Clinton cared too little about foreign policy. He was distracted by personal scandal in 1998, at a time when bin Laden was making strides. He lacked the guts to used sustained military muscle. He allowed the Taliban to take over Afghanistan. And he ignored Sudan in 1996, when they offered to turn over bin Laden.

 

Clinton's was a presidency of loose ends and scandals. He crippled intelligence. He weakened the national defense. All of this lead to an unchecked growth in terrorist organization and an emboldened bin Laden. The fact that Clinton's half-ass attempts at killing bin Laden, after the 1998 US embassy attack, and Clinton's refusal to act at all due to concerns about how it might impact his legacy, only fueled plans of an attack of terrorism on US citizens.

 

Yeah, yeah, to those who would say President Bush was President, on 9/11. But, the ground work had already been laid. I believe 9/11 could have been prevented, had we a different President, during the 1990's, that would have spured our intelligence institutions into action and focus, rather than hinder them.

[Firestarter 0]

All your criticisms of President Clinton are on target. However, that doesn't change the fact that intelligence in the past had never been used to contain terrorist threats - only to deal with them afterwards. The impetus to predict and prevent did not exist. Anywhere. Our policy was one of reaction and reaction alone.

Of course Clinton's presidency and his half-assed military actions, coupled with his defense and intelligence cuts, enabled or at least encouraged bin Laden to go ahead with 9/11. But practically any president would have done the same. Perhaps for less sordid reasons, but the end result would have been the same. Clinton didn't establish a reactionary policy towards terrorism. He just didn't change it.

[Vyce 0]

I think we all know where this is going... These "back-and-forth" arguments in CE are getting kind of annoying. I sometimes wish we could find some common ground. Oh well.

I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight either.

[Guest SideFXs]

...that doesn't change the fact that intelligence in the past had never been used to contain terrorist threats - only to deal with them afterwards. The impetus to predict and prevent did not exist. Anywhere. Our policy was one of reaction and reaction alone.

I guess it takes exploding Ford Pintos to change the car industry. It takes Hitler taking over Europe and Pearl Harbor to change National Defense initiative. It takes a Polio epidemic to cause a revolution in the understanding of viruses. Its takes a crippling computer virus to improve Windows security. It takes a threat to our survival to change. Conversely, when we are having fun, our priorities change too. Think of the events that took place, after the roaring twenties, after the happy days of the fifties, after the days of disco and cocaine, and after the fun and irrational exuberance of the nineties. Perhaps the leaders our majority chooses reflect our own national character and priorities of that specific time.

[Guest JMA]

I don't think there was anything Clinton could have done to stop 9/11. Blaming him for the greatest terrorist attack ever on American soil is, IMO, just trying to push an agenda. It's something Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh would claim. That alone reduces its credibility.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Using your reasoning for blaming Clinton, one could just as easily blame Reagan and Bush for not doing anything about the terrorist threat post-hostage crisis, and in fact equiping and training people like Bin Laden during the 1980s. Not that I agree with that, but it's the same thing.

[Firestarter 0]

It is indeed, which is why I don't subscribe to the dangerously complacent idea that Clinton "caused" 9/11 in any way. It was a combination of a lot of factors, but simple institutional inertia was the biggest one.

[Vyce 0]

I don't think there was anything Clinton could have done to stop 9/11. Blaming him for the greatest terrorist attack ever on American soil is, IMO, just trying to push an agenda. It's something Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh would claim. That alone reduces its credibility.

I agree.

 

I also think this applies to people on the other side of the spectrum who blame Bush for 9/11 (and they do exist).

 

I think Marney's correct when she says that it was virtually inevitable that something like it was going to happen sooner or later.

[Guest SideFXs]

...easily blame Reagan and Bush for not doing anything about the terrorist threat post-hostage crisis, and in fact equiping and training people like Bin Laden during the 1980s.

Hogan and JMA, I think Marney and I have found a middle ground. We have shared different points of view and I learned from this. I simply do not want to go another three rounds, defending Reagan’s actions or other conservatives. But, given my unfortunate choice of words, in my first post about Clinton, I don’t blame you. Sorry.

 

I can’t help but feel how lucky I am, we all are, that we live in countries capable of such great things. Where we all have a chance to be happy and prosper and then help others. How lucky I am that I am not sitting in a jail cell, blinded by hate and anger and disdain for life, like Moussaoui. Federal court or military tribunal, he is in jail and we are all perhaps safer.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

...easily blame Reagan and Bush for not doing anything about the terrorist threat post-hostage crisis, and in fact equiping and training people like Bin Laden during the 1980s.

Hogan and JMA, I think Marney and I have found a middle ground. We have shared different points of view and I learned from this. I simply do not want to go another three rounds, defending Reagan’s actions or other conservatives. But, given my unfortunate choice of words, in my first post about Clinton, I don’t blame you. Sorry.

 

I can’t help but feel how lucky I am, we all are, that we live in countries capable of such great things. Where we all have a chance to be happy and prosper and then help others. How lucky I am that I am not sitting in a jail cell, blinded by hate and anger and disdain for life, like Moussaoui. Federal court or military tribunal, he is in jail and we are all perhaps safer.

I'm not trying to blame Reagan for anything, I'm just pointing out that if you want to start pointing fingers for 9/11 at Clinton then they can just as reasonably be pointed even further back. No one is at fault for 9/11 except insane psychos like Bin Laden and his followers.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

But I'm tired of the psychodrama, Tyler. Go act it out somewhere else.

Tick, tock Tyler.

 

Tick, tock.