Pdog wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 5:35pm:

of course it's a trap, it would be another beatdown live on TV! I pray it happens.

Pdog wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 7:47pm:



Well, those interviewed weren't household names. And I doubt they had a go-ahead to say anything other than the party line.

careful, it could be a trap.

"I previously gave you credit for understanding the distinction between a person arrested in the U.S. for crimes committed in the U.S. and "a foreign national captured on foreign soil with no direct link to crimes committed in the U.S."  I hereby revoke that credit.  You evidently do not see the distinction.

Your concern about decisions of the military in the field is also misplaced.  As I understand it, federal courts have a 90% conviction rate in terrorist cases.  This includes cases such as Padilla and Moussouai (20th hijacker) which were moved from military commissions to federal court.

Finally, your idea about who is "owed" a fair trial reveals a startling ignorance about the basis of our justice system.  We do not give fair trials to criminals because they have "earned" that right, nor do we deny fair trials to those "who do not follw (sic) any rules of law."  We grant fair trials to all accused persons who fall under the jurisdiction of our courts.  We grant fair trials because of who we are, not because of who the defendant may or may not be.  Your lack of knowledge about  elementary civics, or your lack of allegiance to the values embodied in our justice system, is what I'm talking about when I say that you hate freedom."

Forgive my ignorance, oh Beacon of Freedom and Righteousness, but you criticize me for failing to understand the "distinction between a person arrested in the U.S. for crimes committed in the U.S. and a foreign national captured on foreign soil with no direct link to crimes committed in the U.S."   And then you argue that "we grant fair trials because of who we are, not because of who the defendant may or may not be." 

So let me see if I understand THAT logic - you acknowledge the fundamental difference between the procedures followed in US federal courts and those of military commissions, but then you suggest that we must grant fair trails (as opposed to unfair?) regardless of who the defendant is.  And you do this to argue that combatants should be tried in federal courts? 

Seems to me that the underlying premise of your argument is that somehow a military commission is an unfair trial.  Why else would you be working so hard to make your argument?   You trash me repatedly, noting my "startling ignorance" and revoking my Brainy credit and calling me a Dick Cheney freedom hater. 

That sure is a lot of work for that bloated ego of yours!      

You should stick to something you know about.
Like being a dick!

Why is a military commission an improper trial?
There is Congressional authorization for them, and a military code of justice to protect whatever rights these terrorists do have.  How is that in any way "improper"?

And the terrorists do fit into the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant.

The only difference is you want to give these people rights that they are not entitled to - simple as that.

I don't -- I don't hate freedom, our Constitution, or the rule of law.
I hate you lefties handing out rights to people that do not qualify for them.

Where do Rush and Beck stand on this?

Pdog wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 7:24am:

Got arrested for inciting a peacful riot

Here's an interesting article:

When it comes to trying terrorists on American soil since 9/11, let's all work from the same set of facts. This morning we've heard three people in the Sunday shows talking about the "hundreds" of terrorists that we have tried in US courts and hold in US prisons - as if KSM was just some regular Joe terrorist. Some facts:

First, the only civilian trial of a 9/11 terrorist was Moussaoui who was arrested before 9/11 had even happened and before the President had authorized detaining terrorists as enemy combatants.

Second, Moussaoui had his trial while the entire military commission system was under sustained legal attack by left-wing lawyers, which put all military commission trials on hold. So he couldn't have been tried by military commission back then any way.

Third, the trial was a circus largely because the defendant was uncontrollable and used the attention to spout hate against the US; the prosecutors were unfairly accused of misconduct, though the judge gave some credence to the accusations; and they couldn't even get the death penalty even though he eventually admitted he was supposed to be the 20th hijacker. The Moussaoui trial is hardly viewed as a model of success.

Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, never had a trial, as he pleaded guilty. And his arrest was just one month after President Bush authorized detentions of enemy combatants - the system was still being set up. He also could not have been tried by military commission because of the left-wing legal assault on the system.

As for the "hundreds of terrorists" -that figure encompasses every type of terrorism charge DOJ brought in 8 years and have nothing to do with 9/11, nor were any of those people foreign terrorists captured overseas as part of the war on terror. Those terrorists were held at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants with the intention of eventually trying them in military commissions.

"Keep telling us to look at your hand while you wave it around saying abra-cadabra"

I can't wave my hands - this is a message board.
i need them to type.

What's that, oh sure, here you go - another interesting article:

JESUS was GAY - according to the gospel of SIR ELTON JOHN.
The singer makes his controversial claim about the Lord in a new US interview that will enrage America's bible belt.  Elton, 62, declares as he pours out his heart to a magazine: "I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems."

---------

I mean, Elton should know....

Pdog wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 8:54am:


That was the whole "it's not illegal if the (Republican) President does it" thing I was talking about ... at the risk of a case of the hiccups, basing your legal opinions on the decisions made by those stout defenders of the Constitution, Messrs. Bush, Cheney et al, is perhaps not the firmest ice to be skating on...speaking of skating, the US is kicking some serious butt at the olympics! Maybe that's something we can actually ALL agree on!

USA!USA!USA!

You really need to lighten up.
You'll live longer.

You need to lighten up too.
It was a silly statement by silly Elton and yeah, I was poking a little fun.

I do not care one way or the other if Jesus was straight, gay, bi or a tranny.
Same for you.