Comments on: Exceptionally Imbecilic

By: Da King

Da King — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:36:27 +0000

I repeat, you think "virtually anyone" means terrorists and/or people we are at war against. You just confirmed that.

You have more info on those 100 people who died while we detained them ? The only place I ever heard that contention made was right here. Would they happen to have been enemies who were seriously wounded on the battlefield and then died, or what ?

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:55:23 +0000

No, not even close. When I said "virtually anyone"…I meant virtually anyone. Naive isn't a strong enough term to describe folks who believe only 3 detainees were tortured. "taken off the battlefield" is but a cartoonish characterization by neo-cons to justify tyranny. And….at least 100 detainees died while being, you know, detained. Many as a result of the torture.

Dress that pig up….but the oink still can be heard.

By: Da King

Da King — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:25:17 +0000

Your question was already answered, Rev. Several times. You are just pretending not to see the answer.

Rev says, "neo-cons are nitwits and would kill or imprison or torture virtually anyone"

And by torturing "virtually anyone," the Rev means – three high-level Al Qaeda members who had already carried out attacks, including 9/11, and who had knowledge of future attacks. By imprisoning "virtually anyone," the Rev means prisoners taken off the battlefield or terrorists attempting to carry out attacks. That's "virtually anyone."

And to think, you call neocons "nitwits."

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:42:10 +0000

I noticed no one wanted to take a shot at answering this question….

"How is it that the recently rounded up would-be terrorists who bought chemicals from hair salons for nefarious purposes are going to be tried in…wait for it….civilian courts? Shouldn't they be sent to Guantanamo?"

I realize that neo-cons are nitwits and would kill or imprison or torture virtually anyone at a second's notice….but…I thought the "battlefield" of the "war on terror" was the entire world. Recently, "terrorists" in this "war on terror" were captured on American, you know, soil. They were arrested and put in jail….and will be tried in civilian courts.

Now all you Einsteins……tell me why it is that the newly arrested "terrorists" are not being sent to Gitmo. AND….shouldn't all conservatives be shaking like bunnies, afraid that the newly arrested "terrorists", now being held on U.S. soil, will do something really, really scary…you know, while in prison?

By: StraightOuttaPripyat

StraightOuttaPripyat — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:27:50 +0000

I see no reason that they simply shouldn't be excecuted.

By: Quidpro

Quidpro — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 03:50:07 +0000

"Why is it that detainees can't be tried in civilian courts?" Because we are in the midst of a war. You are confusing a military operation with a police crackdoen on crime. To fight a war with the tools of the criminal justice system, such as writs and courts, is a recipe for defeat.

By: bzzzzp

bzzzzp — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:00:54 +0000

Everyone, knows the following things, right?

After World War II, it was not uncommon for us to hold German prisoners for 18 months or longer.

After WW2, we forced German POWs to remove landmines. This should put the pretend drowning and second hand smoke nonsense to bed once and for all.

When the hostilities have ended, that is the time for considering releasing people, not before.

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:50:57 +0000

Rev,
Have you ever fought in a war ?????

No, didn't think so, or you'd know why prisoners of war, taken off the battlefield, can't all be tried in a civilian court.

Liberals. Delusionary twits living in a fantasy, blogging from Pretend World.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:01:52 +0000

Why is it that detainees can't be tried in civilian courts? Is it because the verdict has already been determined and a fair trial can't be chanced?

How is it that the recently rounded up would-be terrorists who bought chemicals from hair salons for nefarious purposes are going to be tried in…wait for it….civilian courts? Shouldn't they be sent to Guantanamo?

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:41:29 +0000

"Da King" please don't criticize the dear leader's assistant rev.He is such a paragon of ethics and morality. Why wouldn't other nationals such as these detainees deserve to have you and me pay for lawyers to defend them.Afterall they were captured trying to kill our troops -err-impounded by those facists thugs that pose as U.S. troops.First thing this week that Dear Leader Big O did that really makes sense.Sorry rev…