Comments on: Nearly Two-Thirds Of Americans Are Unamerican

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:52:12 +0000

Napolitano also said ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Do you agree with him about that ?

Or are you smarter ?

By: walter

walter — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:12:14 +0000

shorter King? I'm much smarter than someone who actually has a law degree, practiced law and was a Judge

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:49:56 +0000

rainman is back. We already went over this. I have respect for Judge Napolitano, but he's wrong about this one. The military commissions are constitutional, and KSM committed terrorist acts all over the world, not just in NYC. He was captured in Pakistan, and he is engaged in acts of war, declared by his organization.

But if you are waiting for me to defend O'Reilly saying "I don't care about the Constitution," you're going to be waiting a long time.

By: walter

walter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:45:12 +0000

let me re-post the discussion between Fox News Bill O'Rielly and Judge Andrew Napolitano…..

"But last night on Fox, the network’s top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano — who has been known to disagree with Fox’s right-wing narratives on legal issues — disputed that view, citing the constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. “I don’t care about the Constitution!” host Bill O’Reilly responded. The debate continued:

O’REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he’s arrested in Pakistan?

NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don’t want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused."

Fox News's Bill O'Rielly sez….." “I don’t care about the Constitution!”

what are we to make of that? I see that as a very un-American and very un-patriotic remark. King, is this how all you republicans think?

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:25:31 +0000

Really ? I'm "amazingly wrong" ? And your evidence is……?

Oh yes, your evidence is…. made up out of thin air. This thread is about whether or not to try KSM and company in NYC or not.

D-U-H.

But your "neo-con" "anti-american" "bullpuck" "humiliating" "disgraces" "authoritarian rogue" "rubber stamp" "propaganda" "non-stop lyihg" "secrecy" "fearmongering" "criminals" "Orwellian" "faith-based"…
BULLSH*T is the next best thing to a rational argument.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:02:18 +0000

You are amazingly wrong on all five counts, King. But you've always talked like a neo-con…so it's not surprising.

Neo-cons do not have any faith in the American system. That's why they have insisted, and in some cases been successful in getting their anti-American way, by saying… "everything has changed" since 9-11. Total bullpuck. The Patriot Act, the Eavesdropping on Americans Act, the Resolution to Attack Iraq Act are all humiliatingly non-American disgraces. Guantanamo, torture, special judicial trials….are all actions of an authoritarian rogue regime that no longer trusts in the American way.

Bush/Cheney and the Rubber Stamp Republicans in Congress committed massive fraud, war crimes, perennial propaganda and non-stop lying and secrecy over the last 8 years, fearmongering at every turn. Those who still embrace those criminals as Serious Leaders are the same ones who continue to spout the Orwellian slogans and faith-based ideology that Karl Rove loves so much.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:36:03 +0000

Chris,

"1. If GWB had paid attention to the warnings he received in August 2001 the entire attack could have possibly been stopped."

This is nothing more than a stupid liberal talking point. It wasn't exactly a secret that Bin Laden wanted to attack inside the USA, as Bush was told in august 2001. That's far different from stopping any specific attack.

"2. If GWB had actually ran the military tribunals instead of waterboarding the guy some 180 times the SOB could have been tried and executed by now."

It was Congress and the courts that kept the military tribunals from happening for years, not Bush. And "waterboarding the guy" got useful information that led to the foiling of other terrorist attacks.

"3. Where were all the "conservatives" screaming in the previous terror trials in NYC during the GWB administration??"

See my response to Andrea, and also to your second point.

"4. What is "conservative" about being afraid to give a terrorist a fair trial at the scene of the crime??"

It's not about being afraid. It's about being smart.

"5. Why do "conservatives" seem so willing to throw the Constitution out the window for ideology??"

The military tribunals are set up now, with congressional and court approval. They are constitutional. Obama is going to use them. The last time I checked, he isn't a conservative.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:28:18 +0000

Andrea,
First, I have to commend you for actually putting forth an argument. That's more than I usually get from the other side.

""But Rudy's hot rhetoric today is a far cry from his stance in 1994 after the verdict in the World Trade Center bombing trial."

Abdel Rahman was captured by U.S. law enforcement in the U.S. , and in 1994 there was no other option to trying him in civilian court. The military tribunals did not exist. Al Qaeda had not yet declared war on us, so the war on terror had not yet begun. KSM, on the other hand, was captured in Pakistan and has committed acts of terrorism worldwide in that declared war. The military tribunals are now up and running, and have passed constitutional muster. KSM is the perfect candidate to be tried by military tribunal. Bringing him to NYC, allowing him to espouse his fanatic ideology, and unnecessarily endangering New Yorkers more than they already are is unconscionable when there is a better alternative.

And nobody is hoping for an attack on New York. I can't believe you said that. The opponents to holding the KSM terror trial in NYC are trying to prevent an attack. The terrorists don't have much of a realistic chance of attacking Gitmo. Even if they did, our military would be waiting there to greet them.

By: Alexander D.

Alexander D. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:45:38 +0000

Andrea: But now that the entire world knows we tortured people you will be unable to sell anyone other than Americans that a fair trial could ever happen there.

And how did this come about? Our interrogation methods should never have been broadcasted, but some politicians couldn't resist jeopardizing our national security for sake of pursuing partisan interests and/or creating convenient distractions. Radical Islamists play by no rules and our efforts to thwart terrorism can only be derailed when the hands of our soldiers are tied by cowardly politicians. Call it bias, but I hold the life of 1 US civilian in much higher regard than a complete population of terrorists.

These scumbags have no remorse for the taking of innocent lives. If we're going to have a judicial circus, as a result of their apprehension, it may be more beneficial for our soldiers to interrogate them, torture them, and finish them off. Especially when our intelligence efforts are derailed by those who cannot keep their clams closed. We should really be discussing charges of treason for those who jeopardize our national security……………………..rather than rolling out the red carpet for jihadists. Our kangaroo court system emboldens our enemies, lines the pockets of shady lawyers, and provides the taxpayers with no return on their "investments".

When those in power deny that terrorists exist, what sort of justice will prevail?

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:58:34 +0000

Well perhaps if GITMO wasn't used as a torture chamber perhaps we could have had them there. But now that the entire world knows we tortured people you will be unable to sell anyone other than Americans that a fair trial could ever happen there. So end result would be those terrorists will become heroes .
Remember these people are willing to die for their cause.
As for security NYC has housed many criminals and not the first time a terrorist has come here – . If trials were held at GIMO I doubt would make NYC any less safe as we are always a target. They did it here so let them die here too – maybe this can closer the door and the world can see we are not barbaric we have a system and we follow the constitution.
Rudy Giuliani been mouthing off now where was he back when trials were going on in NYC ?
"But Rudy's hot rhetoric today is a far cry from his stance in 1994 after the verdict in the World Trade Center bombing trial.
The New York Times wrote on March 5, 1994: "Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict 'demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/05/nyregion/explosion-twin-towers-4-are-convicted-bombing-world-trade-center-that-killed-6.html
And: "It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world, that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated," Giuliani said.
Republicans are playing a sick game – hoping a attack happens so they can blame Obama

By: N. E. Frye

N. E. Frye — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:27:28 +0000

Testing, Testing. 1 2 3

By: Tory Bug

Tory Bug — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:50:56 +0000

I think someone is purposely misunderstanding your point, JRid. Either that, or he truly doesn't understand that a trial held at Gitmo would mean that there would be more security and less chance of our citizens being harmed if someone agreeing with the terrorists' views were to try to make a point of some sort by attacking an area near the scene of the trial.

Whether he's dense or just pretending to be, that says to me that you made a point he can't come up with an argument to refute. Good for you!

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:50:22 +0000

1. If GWB had paid attention to the warnings he received in August 2001 the entire attack could have possibly been stopped.

2. If GWB had actually ran the military tribunals instead of waterboarding the guy some 180 times the SOB could have been tried and executed by now.

3. Where were all the "conservatives" screaming in the previous terror trials in NYC during the GWB administration??

4. What is "conservative" about being afraid to give a terrorist a fair trial at the scene of the crime??

5. Why do "conservatives" seem so willing to throw the Constitution out the window for ideology??

By: Tbomb

Tbomb — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:01:36 +0000

Right, if the trials were held at Gitmo the terrorists would never consider attacking NYC. Brilliant!

By: JRid

JRid — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:10:56 +0000

Andrea if you think for a second that had Bush decided to hold trials for the terrorists in New York that conservatives would be silent, you have much to learn. The simple fact is that he never would've even considered it and if he had, he would have been criticized not only by conservatives but also by some of the very people currently defending this decision.

I disagree that there would be a greater chance of the building being "blown up" if the trials were held at "Gitmo" since Gitmo is a military installation; it has far better security than anything in New York. Never mind that if terrorists would try to attack these trials, having them in New York potentially puts thousands more people in harms way than having them at Gitmo.

Holding a military tribunal is hardly robbing them of any supposed rights or treating them inhumanely. Just remember, these people collaborated to rob the very right of existence from several thousand people. Giving them a show trial only inspires more people like them to continue.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:56:34 +0000

In accordance with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is the American way . I dont care if you are a axe murder or a Terrorist or you poisoned your mother in law. Notice the wording – NO person NO Person that means NO person – doesn't say with the exception of foreign terrorists …..
Now that I have family in NYC , yes I am a bit concerned about security while these trials are going on but I was also concerned about security when any president visits or leader from a foreign country.
If the terrorists are found guilty which I sure they will be let them die but we can then say we as Americans were fair – we didn't behave in barbaric ways such as Saddam Husein would have by taking law into his own hands. – whether these trials take place in Ohio or NY Or Gitmo makes little difference – but if we had them in Gitmo chances are the building would have had a good chance of being blown up . We are a country that gives every one a fair trial no matter who they are – so all I can say is shame we have so many people who are thinking like People do in uncivilized countries and like TERRISTS and the word UN America comes to my mind cause they surely are not abiding by what OUR constitution says.
And just cause it is a large number of people against doesnt make it right – many Americans have a follow the leader type of stupidity and do not think clearly to what the repercussions might be if we had no trial . So would I prefer the trials to be held in another state , sure but it happened here so maybe they have to be found guilty here too .
I wonder if Bush had it here woudl you have been silent – I think so

By: Alexander D.

Alexander D. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:54:04 +0000

It appears that David Paterson may now be accused of "racism". LOL

I'm still at a loss for the rationale being used. Is this a deliberate distraction from the economy and health-care fiasco, is this part of a hastened process to shut down gitmo, do they expect radical islamists to change their ways, are they trying to revive the Bush/Cheney "boogeyman", …………….what is it??

We didn't make these nutjobs what they are and we most certainly didn't initiate the aggression. Surely coddling such murderers does not send a statement which reinforces zero tolerance, nor does it benefit our national security. If someone is that anxious to house these detainees in the US, maybe they should have cleared some space at the White House? I haven't met a single person that believes we should transport these terrorists here, therefore a partisan agenda must be the driving factor. With all these "welcome mats", it is just a matter of time before we are fighting radical islam on our soil.

Unlike our un-American elected representatives, I'll be well prepared and armed with many solutions.