tly the brains of thi

s operation.

Does McCain ever think anything through?

Mike in SA - Obama paid out of his own pocket. Find something else to complain about.

“The Obama administration's decision to try Abu Ghaith in a New York district court clearly contravenes the will of the American people.

Newsflash: The obstructionism, fear /war mongering and xenophobia contravenes the will of the American people.

This guy aided in a crime against America - a horrible crime, which cost thousands of American lives. So Americans caught him, and Americans will try him in America (and convict him, and LWOP him, etc.). Somebody has a problem with that? Really?

Yup I don't get it either. This is the same crap pulled with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed not wanting him tried in New York. It's a WTF?? moment.

So much for "never forgetting" or "finding the ' evil doers ' and bringing them to justice." This country has the personality of a whiny baby with colic. Doesn't matter what you give them, it doesn't shut them up. They'll still bitch and moan.

He's here now. He has been arraigned. The wheels of JUSTICE have began to turn. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a thing anyone can legally do now except proceed to trial.

This is a win for New York and America.

I love how all these politicians are quoting the American people don't want this or don't want that - when most of the time they are absolutely wrong on what THEY THINK (meaning what they want) the American people want.

MIKE in SA - jeez - President Obama did pick up the tab for dinner the other night. Stay away from Fox will you they are IQ killers.

KCBones -

Really? Ask the JAG corps how stupid it was. What's left of them, anyway.

Ido -

Okay, maybe you can explain this. The detainees are combatants because they were caught trying to wage war on the US. But they're not combatants, so they're not bound by the Geneva Accords prohibiting torture. Tell me, which one is it? Oh, right, it's the CONVENIENT AT THE TIME argument that matters, right?

As far as trying these guys in a US Court, I'm on the fence. I mean, our courts and our rights are explicitly only for American Citizens. These guys aren't citizens, so they don't have any of our rights. By the same token, the jurisdiction for the courts are not entirely limited to citizens, as they also deal in international law. I guess the best thing to do would not be to try them in the American method, but use our courts to try them under International Law. Or, better, convene a specialized court to try them, like at Nuremberg. And anyone who tries to equate the courts at Nuremberg with the one at Guantanamo Bay needs to do several things, starting with having your head removed from your rectum.

eddie s . . .

you reveal exactly the mentality of the low lifes that makes up the voter base that Obama has...everyday....

We're not low lifes. We vote. Your entire post about how the President would have lost HAD your pals voted is a moot point. He's in office and won the election because those of us that believe in this country and our right to vote actually used that vote. We not only used the vote for the President, we voted for our local governments, judges, school boards, etc. People that complain about any form of government without participating in it need to keep their mouths shut.

We tried McVeigh in court, so I don't see why we can't put this guy through the court system.

When we try foreign nationals, do we put them through military courts?

It's funny, Mike, that you and your GOTPers whine all day about the promises not kept by this president, yet at every turn, work to keep him from fulfilling them. He pledged to close Guantanamo, and the GOTP has fought him every step of the way. THEN they complain that he is not keeping his promises.

The election a couple months ago proved that the MAJORITY of American People understand the under-handed dealings of the Conservative Right and voted for the other party. You can kick and scream all you want, but the People voted and your side lost. They saw right through your petty dealings.

Do you wonder why you are becoming extinct?

That makes me wonder if the dinosaurs saw their demise approaching. Probably not because history is repeating itself.

McVeigh was a US Citizen, he had constitutional rights. This is a foreign national terrorist combatant, no constitutional rights.

I mean, our courts and our rights are explicitly only for American Citizens. These guys aren't citizens, so they don't have any of our rights.

I've heard that argument before...the Gitmo Detainees aren't citizens and therefore aren't entitled to the rights of a citizen. However, for that argument to truly be valid it would mean that our Constitution applies to citizens only. While it is correct that the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, it is also correct to say that the Constitution does not apply to citizens.

This is because the Constitution applies to the government of the United States of America. It is a series of rules by which the government shall conduct its business.

Think of it this way...is Freedom of Speech granted by the Constitution? No...you have Freedom of Speech already and the Constitution guarantees that by saying that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech".

So, like it or not, the Constitution guarantees due process.

WHY the hell does every news story lately beging with "GOP BLOCKS..." or "GOP TRIES TO BLOCK.." or some such?

Who are these assho1es, and why do they hate most of us???

As to this Bin Laden guy- I say we 'drone' him, but then Poodle-Haid Paul would get all pi$$y...

UpstateNY2

McVeigh was a US Citizen, he had constitutional rights. This is a foreign national terrorist combatant, no constitutional rights.

Oh, we pulled him out of a battlefield during combat? Funny, the news story I read says the CIA pulled him out of a luxury hotel.

So by your suggestion, since foreign nationals have no constitutional rights, do we do military tribunals for them?

This is a foreign national terrorist combatant, no constitutional rights.

If you would be so kind as to show me where in the Constitution it says that he has no rights to due process, please.

I know what I am posting is immoral and probably unconstitutional, I don't give a rat's a$$. Publicly let him loose on the streets of NYC.

Pay for hosing off the mess.

exito:

Hee hee. Yeah, that would be unconstitutional. But you've gotta admit, this is the next best thing for NYers.

my guess is that this guy will go to prison, recruit a bunch of inmates, promising them who knows what, and just wait till those inmates get parole...

Bad guess. What makes you think that he will ever be around other inmates - EVER?!? This one will be in solitary. Thank God you don't make these kinds of decisions. Get back to your study of the DNA of water.

Does the GOP simply maintain a daily, hour-by-hour, updated, shared wish-list of things they want to obstruct in Congress? Is there anything they don't filibuster? They even filibuster their own ideas they themselves proposed. They blocked a nomination to SecDef, based on a sarcastic joke. And recently they filibustered for 13 hours just because one of these Tea Partiers couldn't wait for a lettered reply from someone over the weekend of which they knew what the answer would be, anyway.

Is there anything they DON'T want to filibuster?

Have they developed this habit of blocking anything ..."just because"?

I say we file online petitions to get the GOP Tea Party members in Congress, to get medical and psychiatric treatment for this obsessive-compulsive addiction.

"He pledged to close Guantanamo, and the GOTP has fought him every step of the way." - BigJeff

Back to reality BigJeff. So tell me, what did the Republicans do to block him from closing Guantanamo that wasn't also whole-heartedly supported by the Democrats in Congress? After all Obama had a super-majority in Congress for plenty of time to get it done. The fact is that he tried dispersing those in custody to other nations but nobody would take them. The Senate handily controlled by Democrats voted 90-6 against appropriating $80 million to close Guantanamo. He then tried to buy a prison in Illinois to house the detainees. The House Armed Services Committee then controlled by Democrats UNANIMOUSLY approved legislation that would prohibit creating a detention center inside the United States. Operative words? "Democratic control"..."unanimously". The attempt to try Kahlid Sheik Muhammad was not shot down by the Republicans it was undermined by the City of New York which is controlled by Democrats. The Obama administration decision to resume the military commissions was his own and was made while Congress was still controlled by the Democrats.

So stop you disingenuous sobbing. Obama and the Democrats could have gotten it done, but it was the DEMOCRATS who controlled Congress that blocked him and then he lost his will and just gave up.

The Geneva Convention states that prisoners of war have certain rights. OK, good. But the Geneva Convention (especially the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949) is all about hostility between nations. Al Qaeda is not a nation - it is a terrorist group. Making these murderers "soldiers in a war" gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve. They are simply criminals, international criminals. No military tribunals for these scum, they are only common criminals and should be treated as such.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where does it say that this only applies to citizens?

Obama NEVER had a super-majority in the Senate. The dems controlled 58 seats.

eddie s-802886

"LMAO,,,oh you of weak minds and the reason we call you Sheeple and Lemmings..Lols...You seem to forget Obama only got 29% of the vote, which was 7 million LESS than in 2008...SO though you were told differently by the Obama propaganda machine, the number of anti-Demoncrat and anti-Obama Voters across the board are increasing every time Obama crawls out from under... Yada, Yada, Yada... "

Hey eduardo... Please go find someone that you trust implicitly and have THEM tell you you're an idiot.

It's unfair of you to foist that responsibility off onto complete strangers.

This guy is being accused of plotting to murder Americans, There are illegal immigrants that have actually killed Americans and they get tried in American courts.

"Obama NEVER had a super-majority in the Senate. The dems controlled 58 seats." -- raddave

And had 2 other independents that caucused with them. Try to keep up dave.

Besides, if there is one thing that the push of Obamacare through the Senate proved it's that you don't need a super-majority to force any piece of legislation through that you so desire. All you need is control of both houses of Congress.

eddie s-802886 LMAO,,,oh you of weak minds and the reason we call you Sheeple and Lemmings..Lols...You seem to forget Obama only got 29% of the vote

LOL - Republicans can't do math.

Obama now has a 3.4 million popular-vote, and 50.57 percent of the total.

And had 2 other independents that caucused with them.

...for a grand total of 181 days...half a year...from 7/7/2009-8/25/2009 (when Senator Kennedy passed away) and them from 9/25/2009-2/4/2010 (when Paul Kirk was appointed Senator until the election of Senator Brown).

And don't forget that Robert Byrd was out ill most of that year as well.

"Yup I don't get it either. This is the same crap pulled with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed not wanting him tried in New York. It's a WTF?? moment." - WillardsEtchaSketch

The WTF moment was when Ahmed Ghailani almost walked from a civilian court scot-free.

Looks like the GOP-TP is having a Block party !!! Prepare for bad weather with these Blockbusters !!!

Man, does nobody else see the elephant in the room? This instance of obstruction has nothing to do with the Constitution, the American people or anybody's rights. It has everything to do with the same old Republican fear mongering.

Try the terrorist in NYC and his organization will take revenge on NYC. We are supposed to be shaking at the knees until the Republicans regain power to "protect" us from the boogey men. Have we forgotten how Bush/Cheney kept us all safe? That's why we gave them a second term.

Keeping us uneducated, poor and constantly in fear is the only way for Republicans to gain and hold positions of power. That explains all of their actions for the last 2 decades, at least.

So instead of OFFERING a BETTER SOLUTION, the Republicants say "NO". Still the party of Obstructionism

Two days after his first inauguration, the president signed an executive order calling for the closure of the military prison. But bipartisan resistance from lawmakers, who feared trials for terror suspects on domestic soil, scuttled efforts to shutter Guantanamo, leaving prisoners and detainees in legal limbo.

They whine to about Obama not closing Guantanamo, and then forget they pushed against it.

Call me a traitor, but I don't necessarily see the problem with trying terrorists in a civilian court. Yes, I would technically prefer a military tribunal, but it doesn't really make that much of a difference. One way or another, the guy is going to be thrown in jail. Besides, trying him in a civilian court tells the world that we are not vengeful savages like the terrorists who have blown our people to bits; it shows that we are better than they are. And isn't that the point of this war? To win the support of the world? If we act like the very men who seek our deaths than what is the point in fighting?? For years we have defiled the very ideas our Founders fought for: liberty, equality, and rationality. We have tortured captives, murdered civilians, violated the rights of our nation and of nations all over the world, and destroyed whole countries in the name of freedom. Is this what it has come to? Is this who we are as a nation? At this point we are no better than these goddamn terrorists. Trying these bastards in a court of law shows that we are not barbarians; that we are fully capable of reason. If we are willing to fight this "war" than we ought to be willing to look our enemies right in the eye. If not, then let us lay down our arms. We have defiled our image in the eyes of the world; trying terrorists in a real court of law is one step towards redeeming ourselves.

What has not changed since the issuance of the president's executive orders is that terrorists working to attack the United States are enemy combatants, and if captured should be placed in military custody where they can be interrogated,”

Why can't we all just agree that the term "enemy combatant" is a meaningless, contrived term from the Bush era, to say that, look, we didn't like it when our soldiers in Germany and Vietnam got tortured so we made everybody sign a piece of paper agreeing not to do it, but when we get a hold of them, oh no, they are not soldiers. No no, they are enemy combatants.

AlexM-3929653

*note to self. America talks about human rights and righties ignore it when it's CONVENIENT for them. They forget the 'politics' involved with this and how the WORLD watches/reacts.

" ... Obama only got 29% ... "

And what the Right WANTS to forget is that even at only 29%, Obama got 5 million MORE votes then their guy. You remember him don't you? His name is Mitt. 5 MILLION MORE!!!

Oh, and then there was the guy before Mitt. What was his name now? John? That's right, John. He lost to Obama too! Remember that? No?

So the winner got 29%. And then there was the looser. OOPS! Make that losers! Who got even less then that.

So your point would be what? As bad as you say Obama is, that your GUYS are worse?

Huh. Imagine that.

I cannot believe the mental disconnect of the reich-wing nut jobs, first they scream about drone attacks on "American citizens" (that have for all intents and purposes given up any citizen status) that have joined al-queada and are either attacking or promoting attacks on America, and how "they aren't getting a fair trial", then they turn right around 180 degrees and are screaming how we can't give a trial to the guy that was his buddy.

the delusion of the right knows no bounds

" ... you know what they say about assuming. ... "

But you see, the Right makes asses out of themselves everyday. All by themselves. With out anyone else's help.

So the problem with "assuming" would be what? That only the Right has the right to be asses?

Well that works for me. You win. I concede to your superior logic. And your vastly superior intellect.

From now on, ONLY the Right can be asses.

Huh. Imagine that.

ldo

Yep, give the "TERRORISTS" (COMBATANTS) their Miranda Rights, take them to Federal Court, and then send them to prison for life with the possibility of parole.

Let them mingle with the "good guys" already in confinement. Talk about "home grown" TERRORISTS.

Then, there is the minor problem of providing "security funding". Guess NYC has enough taxes to cover that small issue.

The Progressives are clueless.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progressives and Unions are dinosaurs.

Pathetic show of fear; I hope you're wearing Depends. But I understand, you can't help it:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

AlexM-3929653

@!$%#ing libs.

He isn't a us citizen, so no trial. Put a bullet in his @!$%#ing head, toss him in a gutter, be done with it. No trial, no money wasted, just get it done with and move on.

And once again, all you libs can do is praise obama, he can do no wrong. Abort living babies, kill citizens with drones in the us, give guns to the cartels, get caught in lie after lie, and you all still bend over for him and praise him. Seriously, it's @!$%#ing astonishing, but I guess that's how chavez, hitler and the rest were treated by their peons.

Another frightened conservative speaks.

Freshieee, you really need to study up on Ahmed Ghailani, his trial and near complete acquittal.

Holy Schnikeys, just what is it the GOP wants?

One day it's "Close Gitmo now!" Then next day it's "Bring bin Laden's body back here so we can see it!"

Now it's, "Al-Qaida leaders captured on the battlefield" -- which abu Ghaith wasn't! -- "should not be brought to the United States to stand trial."

F'chrissakes, GOP, make up your alleged minds already!

Oh, wait, I remember now; you already have a mindset: Obama wants it = knee-jerk GOP opposes it.

To date, many terrorists, including Al Qaida members, have been tried and convicted in US courts, and are now serving long sentences. So far, there has been one trial by military tribunal, resulting in the whopping sentence of 5 and a half months. It seems like a much better idea to go with a tried and true system that gets results than to rely on an experiment invented by the incompetent Bush administration.

D) Filibustering doesn't kill a bill, it just delays it. The longest filibuster on record was Democrat Strom Thurmond filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and was only 24 hours and 18 minutes. So you're going to let an important bill die because you have to wait a day or two? Seriously?

seriously? did you know that each of the secret hold" filibusters actually hold up a bill for two weeks? honest filibusters like the one rand paul just did are actually quite rare these days

Oh poor Sen McPain,

I am sooo sorry to hear that you don't think America is strong enough, that our police/National Guards/military are not good enough to keep you & your little chicken**** butt safe!

Too close to that big bad guy in NYC to be safe? just go home to AZ. and stay there. You have NO CLUE what We The People think . . . which is that we TRUST the whole system, here on American soil, to keep us safe, to try this fat old guy, and throw him in a cell for the rest of his life.

BTW, the "Blind Sheikh' is incarcerated just up the road a bit from where I live, and we are not the least concerned about the ability of our prisons to keep his butt there.

.

FORWARD! :-)

"Wow. Your intellectual incapability is astounding. Wake me up when you have something more substantial to say other than banal and mind-numbingly thoughtless rhetoric."

Mike, I have to give you +1000 interwebz for the most hypocritical and hilarious line Ive ever read on these forums. The irony alone is... just art. Bravo.

"seriously? did you know that each of the secret hold" filibusters actually hold up a bill for two weeks? honest filibusters like the one rand paul just did are actually quite rare these days" - markwills

Seriously? Secret holds don't exist anymore.

"As my long-time partner in this effort, Senator Grassley, can attest our campaign to end secret holds has almost become the longest running battle since the Trojan War, but today we’ve won an important victory for open government. The transparency and accountability in this resolution will ensure that the public’s business will be done in public; that bills and nominations are not swept under the rug never again to see the light of day; and that the special interests cannot secretly block important legislation or nominations by finding one senator willing to covertly upend legislation they don’t like." - Sen. Ron Wyden

When has McCain ever shown any respect for "the will of the people"? He hasn't accepted that President Obama won in 2008 or that he won in 2012 and it hasn't dawned on him yet that the reason he won is the the majority of the people who voted support the President's beliefs and policies. What an old hypocritical fart.

"I don't watch Fox. My TV news comes from MSM and then I use my head. Pretty typical leftist assumption, but then you know what they say about assuming."

Now, look at your first sentence. Now, look at your 3rd one. Please justify your 3nd one, and describe for us, in the 2nd one, what 'mainstream' means.

Yesterday, conservatives were complaining about drone strikes as being horrible. Today, conservatives are complaining that trials are horrible. What do you guys suggest?!

Terrorism is not like regular warfare. We can't go into foreign lands and try these people there. We have to try them in our country. In this case, the terrorist in question helped to mastermind the 9-11 attack. On our soil. Directed at our people. And conservatives don't want to try him here?!

Conservatives demand closure of Guantanamo. But they won't let the prisoners be moved anywhere else or tried anywhere else. Do they know how ridiculous they sound?

GITMO vs Civilian Courts; Does anyone know how much it costs to house one terrorists for one year at GITMO? How about One Million Dollars, check it out. Get this, USA just completed building a New Soccer field to replace the old one down there, and they get served food in their Cells. GITMO provides for Atlantic Ocean views and trade winds, and most of the year it is a fantastic place to live.
But you anti-Obama-ites are so bind in your hatred of him that you would rather pay for them there at a much higher costs, than do what President Obama wanted, which was transfer them to a SuperMax at a fraction of costs. Civilian courts have already tried and convicted more than five hundred terrorists, but GITMO about five.

Eddie S. If Obama had won 29% of the vote, he would not be President. He is President. Therefore, you are wrong. Living in an alternate universe has its downside which is the facts are contradicting you at every turn!

He isn't a us citizen, so no trial. Put a bullet in his @!$%#ing head, toss him in a gutter, be done with it. No trial, no money wasted, just get it done with and move on.

Of course, Alex, because why let that little Constitution thingy get in the way?

Please go back and read the Constitution...specifically the Fifth Amendment. The framers were smart people. If they intended the right of due process to be guaranteed only for citizens would they not have wrote CITIZENS and not PERSONS?

Stop with the ludicrous arguments that the Constitution does not apply because the suspect is not a United States citizen because those arguments are JUST PLAIN WRONG!!!

Come on people - the Repub's are not obstructionist. They are just soft on crime. This is just another of their protection of their criminal backers. They oppose trying criminals. They oppose criminals being stopped from being able to buy guns. They oppose giving police all available equipment to monitor criminals (drones).

This is just another announcement from the 'soft on crime' party. I am waiting for them to demand that drugs are legalized next.

chucky b 1.15

Obama paid for it out of his OWN pocket.

BS and you know it. You're about as pathetic as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Mike in SA:

Here's the timeline. I really get tired of posting this thing. The Democrats DID NOT have a super majority. How about just once, you admit you're wrong.

Senate Supermajority myth

January 3, 2009 - 111th Congress sworn in. 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.

January 15, 2009 - Roland Burris sworn in to Barack Obama's seat. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.

April 30, 2009 – Arlen Specter changes parties. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

July 7, 2009 – Al Franken seated. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A
60-VOTE MAJORITY.

August 25, 2009 – Teddy Kennedy dies. Kennedy had missed 97% of the votes in 2009 and over 90% in the last half of 2008. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

September 25, 2009 – Paul Kirk appointed to Teddy Kennedy's seat. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents.

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A 60-VOTE MAJORITY.

February 4, 2010 – Scott Brown sworn in to replace Paul Kirk. 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents.

June 28, 2010 – Robert Byrd dies. Byrd had missed over 90% of the votes in 2010 and almost 50% in 2009 due to illness. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

November 29, 2010 - Mark Kirk sworn in to replace Roland Burris. 56 Democrats, 42 Republicans, 2 Independents.

Super-majority? It existed only for a total of 6 months AND only during
two periods when Teddy Kennedy and/or Robert Byrd were unable to vote AND
required them to get the votes of every Democrat plus BOTH independents.

FACT: The "Democrat supermajority" is a G.O.P. lie.

FACT: The GOP used every roadblock, filibuster, and secret hold they could think of so that EVERY bill had to have a 60-vote margin to pass.

Does McCain ever miss an opportunity to grandstand, ever?

@David Walker#1.84: Wrong? The GOP wrong? Liars? Admit it? These days, any self respecting, dead, right winger, would lay the effects of rigor mortis on the evils of our President. Sides, wrong indicates a misunderstood mistake. That's not todays GOP. They're all a pack of gwaddamn liars, and damn proud of It. Wide spread stupidity among 'em notwithstanding. Regards

McSENILE is forgetting one thing - shipping him off to Gitmo means that there will NEVER be a DECISION. HOW LONG can we hold someone essentially incognito? For whatever reason, we ARE A COUNTRY OF LAWS. not MILITARY LAWS - CIVIL/ CRIMINAL LAWS. The UCMJ (skewed as it is) is not suitable for trying these combatant prisoners. Sure, they can NOT be released (how many have returned to being terrorists? I know that some have) So the "civil" trial is the option (of course, how DOES the gummint determine what constitutes a "jury of their peers"?)

Close Gitmo NOW and revert to civil trials and get DONE WITH THIS FIASCO.

Poor McCain just can't help but whine about everything.

Oh, and P.S. McCain, you do not speak for me so STFU

The old-ass obstructionist McCain is at it again with his hypocritical party.

Hey McCain, speaking of "what the American people want," how about this, 80% of "the American people" have said they want back ground checks on anyone buying weapons, but you and your hypocrite republican obstructionists don't seem to be paying attention to that, now are you?

You take the suspected terrorist and tie him to the back of a jet and let the jet take off. If the wind rips him to shreds then he is proven guilty. Fun to watch and a whole lot cheaper. But then McCain we be whining we are hurting the terrorists...

@riley-lotsa no's#1.91: Does your shadow frighten you too?

Here we go again with the cowards of the Republican/Tea Party. We all know they don't know how to govern and they definitely don't believe in democracy, equal rights, voting rights, a woman's right to make her own medical decisions and now they don't believe in American justice....... All these things are just too darn American so unless it resembles fascism they can't relate.

It looks like Republican and their right wing cheer leaders are afraid that the terrorists will hate us more if we punish them under our justice system................ I know what's wrong with Republican/Tea Party types these days....... they have run out of guts and are afraid of EVERYTHING..... Like I said before their cowards.

So McCain, a former prisoner of war, held by the enemy for years, doesn't want the enemy to be tried in USA... What a PUTZ! And a liar!!

The GOP is now THE WHINING PARTY! The NO Party is already old. Now it's NO and Whining, and making up things the American people HAVE NOT SAID.

I want that dude tried here in America! I want the Cuba prison shut down too.

The Republicans are FULL OF IT!

I'm beginning to think most of the GOP is made up of BIGOTS!! OR ELSE THEY'RE COWARDS! PROBABLY BOTH IF BIGOTRY IS INVOLVED!

Doesn't matter what the issue.......RICH-piglicans.....the party of NO.....No morals, No ethics, No regard for what the "people" want, No interest in the middle class....nothing but give it all to the rich....for free...of course....they're "ENTITLED".

I think they should have the trial in Arizona....just to piss McCain off!

McCain's real problem is.....President Obama and team America...captured another big fish.....and McCain is pissed at their success despite all the republicon pldeges to vote and obstruct any bill that would be good for America.

Piss and moan. That's all the conservative clown posse is capable of any more. They can't even unify their own party. They can't even agree on their party principles. They can't get out their message without offensive rhetoric and even more offensive tone. They can only vilify the working class as lazy, stupid, under-worked, overpaid, over pensioned, godless union thugs. They claim to be job creators but then they stand for sequestration thus reducing employment even further. They can't even put up a candidate that they all can support. They claim to be capitalists but in 2008 they socialize the Wall Streeters and banks. They claim to be fiscal hawks yet they believe deficits don't matter and add trillions to the debt, spending like drunken sailors. They say they are against entitlements and welfare but then turn right around and give entitlements and free rides to the corporate world, big oil, and the top 1%. All these useless conservatives can do is stir the pot, cry in their soup, and yell "wolf" so often that no sensible American will take them seriously.

Gee -- Republicans in the Senate are bitching, whining and obstructing -- AGAIN. This is news? If President Obama wanted this trail at Gitmo, Republicans Senators like John McNasty would be whining to hold it in New York.

Mike in SA

"I thought they have dinner together last night. These GOP didn't even say 'Thank you.'" - Pigotry

For what? The President didn't pick up the tab. The American people did...and on an overextended credit card no less. I don't recall Obama thanking the American people for HIS luxury dinner either.

I do believe this is the first time I've seen an expectation of a president to say "thank you" for his meals. Why might THAT be, Mike? To many have never let it go for too many wrong reasons. Let it go. Let's get back to reality.

Why is the GOP so darned scared of these beat-down camel jockeys? If "Mr. Mission Accomplished" would've suggested trying these vagabonds in NYC, McCain and his clan would certainly have been voicing their flowery praises in acceptance.

I liked the McCain of 2000, before the Karl Rove Lie Machine trashed his image. Now, he's a turncoat to his former ideals. What a dweeb.

Looks to me like the same old partisan stuff. This is not about bashing each other, this about the war on terror. This terrorist wasn't sitting around in NYC restaurants for the last ten years, he was actively involved in plotting to destroy the United States and killing american citizens. Didn't 9/11 teach you anything? This piece of crap doesn't deserve to be tried in our court system, like he is an american citizen. Since he was brought here and read the miranda rights, he can legally refuse to give any information that might have been helpful to prevent terrorist attacks in the future, or to get information on already planned attacks . If he were in military custody, tried by the military, he could have been interrogated for years to come, to get additional information on future terror attacks. If you people had any brains, you would start thinking about protecting all americans, not just spout partisan garbage. Do you have any idea, what is at stake here? Do you think that if you treat a terrorist more humanely, they will thank you ,before they put a bullet in your head ? They way to protect us, is to extract all the information we possibly can from the bastards, before we execute them.

They are farther left than Fox is right.

"They" being defined as all REAL news stations (since I do not define FOX as news, but, instead, a political opinion show). And FOX IS a show in that it's programs are obviously slanted on their views and facts. FOX forces the REAL news stations to take harder looks... and when they do, they might appear "left" to you. Center-left (i.e. America) looks left from an extreme right position.

Most people I know that take hard right positions can yell it and can post it... but they can seldom admit to it among friends or family and certainly can't sustain a defense more than repeating the talking points. Funny, huh?

Maybe THAT's why the GOP is so afraid of real trials... they have to come up with real facts and real proof to put someone away for life... and they're just not sure what that means.

First Eddie??? You are on crack or something... Where in the hell did you get O only had 29% of vote???? He had right at 50%. Keep on smoking though... keeps you out of the public.

Mike says things just to stir people up, but I started to make a list of all the totally incorrect crap he stated and the list got too long and others have addressed. The only one I found to be almost right was the fact Ahmed got off on most charges. The rest of his "facts" are wrong... Holds-read about recent threats to place a hold on cabinet nominations, super majority-see posting above (neo cons love to try to prove this fact for years, but didn't happen),unlike the reps who blindly followed Bush in lock step at EVERY move, the Dems voted for what was best for their constitutents, so even in those 5-6 months we had 58, Kennedy couldn't vote and O couldn't count on every single dem to stop cloture, blocking move of prison-blocked by a bill tacked on to a huge spending bill to block funds to build a new prison for Guantanamo, .. etc, etc. But Mike keep it up... we do get our entertainment...

I Do???? Did you miss the most recent election???? Liberals are Dinosaurs??? wow... missed that one.. since we WON THE DAMN ELECTION.. lol wow... the laughs keep coming this morning.

Good for Obama and Holder. The GOP stuck gitmo up his behind four years ago, now its his turn. I love seeing livid Republicans. He should have left the Bush tax structure expire but instead he tried once again to appeal to their better nature. Well, they don't have one, the entitled bastards are just pissed that they can't always get their way. Let them steam for a change, maybe that way they will know how a lot of us feel toward their self-righteous attitudes.

I'd like to know why Obama used a drone to kill an American ( I know he was a terrorist), but captured this guy and got him to N.Y before Congress even knew? Given the lying nature of the secretive Obama Administration there's more to this story than what's being told.....

Mike in SA

"I thought they have dinner together last night. These GOP didn't even say 'Thank you.'" - Pigotry

For what? The President didn't pick up the tab. The American people did...and on an overextended credit card no less. I don't recall Obama thanking the American people for HIS luxury dinner either.

Yes, you are right, but it's kind of funny when the same Rethuglicans get together to circumvent the laws of the US and bill the taxpayers too. Yes, it's kind of funny how that works out.

Two days of comments from libs, and not one substantive one addressing the actual concern... that holding the trial in NY might motivate terror attacks there. Nope, no substance, just the usual empty-headed, juvenile name calling...like "McSenile"......how f**king clever, and how typical!

Seriously David Walker?

"January 15, 2009 - Roland Burris sworn in to Barack Obama's seat. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant."

56 + 41 + 2 + 2 = 101

"April 30, 2009 – Arlen Specter changes parties. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant."

As I stated and as is documented in Senate rules, the only time 60 votes are a requirement for cloture in the Senate is when ALL 100 SEATS ARE FILLED. Not sure how many times that has to be said before you stop ignoring that reality. When less seats are filled, you don't need 60 votes to have a super-majority. With one seat vacant (making only 99 seats filled) the 59 Senators caucusing with the Democrats formed a super-majority that could have ended any type of delay the opposition threw at them. The Senate rounds all such figures so 59 / 99 = 59.59% = 60% = 3/5. This super-majority started on April 30th with 59 of 99 Senators caucusing with the Dems.

"August 25, 2009 – Teddy Kennedy dies. Kennedy had missed 97% of the votes in 2009 and over 90% in the last half of 2008. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant."

This AGAIN leaves only 99 seated Senators meaning only 59 were needed to invoke cloture. The super-majority remained based on the rounding rules of the Senate and 59 of 99 Senators caucusing with the Dems.

"February 4, 2010 – Scott Brown sworn in to replace Paul Kirk. 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents."

This is the first date since April 30th, 2009 that Democrats were no longer a super_majority and numerically unable to invoke cloture meaning -- as I clearly stated in my post -- that Dems had a super-majority from April 30th, 2009 through Feb 4th, 2010.

I think what the Republicans really want is to round up all Bin Ladens currently in the country and re-unite them with their families. Just like after the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

So it appears most here on this thread will be satisfied that this here foreign criminal gets life behind bars, if convicted?

What are the odds this judge will not sentence him to death? Anyone?

After all is said and done, all of us are going to hear the tapes of him giving us information, and we'll all live happily ever after.

OMG talk about a case of Narcissism...Pigotry you really really look bad here..1 ,1.2, 2, smells desperate

What I don't understand is how so many cant see past the headline.....this is once again, the media playing mommy for Obama...its not his fault, he's just a boy...........leave him alone.....come here honey, mommy will kiss your booboos and make those mean kids pay for what they have done....

its just sickening, we are a diseased nation...diseased by leaders who cant even pretend to be civilized. And the media playing savior mommy for their flavor of the month...

Why oh why do you all have to point blame...you, media, have destroyed this once great nation. we are so lazy that we just want to believe everything we are feed...just like processed foods, its of no value to us...just satisfies our taste buds....which then leads to a country where 58million people are over weight...yea we love to be feed BS...slurp slurp

and the sheep goes...

We should all come to the conclusion that when someone cant take responsibility for their actions, or has a hell bent need to blame everyone but themselves...they are mentally ill, period.

spider-737231

Two days of comments from libs, and not one substantive one addressing the actual concern... that holding the trial in NY might motivate terror attacks there. Nope, no substance, just the usual empty-headed, juvenile name calling...like "McSenile"......how f**king clever, and how typical!

So tell me. How does GITMO NOT motivate terror attacks? AND doesn't GITMO help with terrorist recruitment as well? The closer we get to being able to hold our heads high when the truth is known, the closer we get to addressing terrorism altogether. It's when we give "them" a steady stream of fodder that GITMO gives them that we get in trouble.

The best way to fight terrorism in the long run is to eliminate "reasons".

All the righties that think Gitmo is so great, you're right. It's a great recruiting site for AQ. During the Bush years, there was a policy of paying Iraqis and Afghans to turn in their neighbors for contact with terrorists. If someone disliked his neighbor, all he had to do was turn him in and get paid, and his neighbor gets a one way ticket to the tropical paradise known as Gitmo, where he comes in contact with real terrorists. Add to that, once in Gitmo, you're guilty until proven innocent, so a person who's only crime was having a feud with his neighbor gets indoctrinated in AQ's world.

OF COURSE WE WANT THE PROCESS OF TRIAL....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GEEEZZZZ

its the blame republicans headline that is being argued not the process!!!!!

Get over yourselves already....yes yes please try the dude what ever means necessary other than immorally..ok.

That is not the issue, the issue is every time a Democrat does something.....they have to start out saying

"well I was forced to do xxx because of republicans...." this is sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SICK and vile.

Why cant a democrat stand up for what they believe without playing tricks and painting everyone else as evil...

if you believe something so strongly then do it with pride, don't cower behind a blame...is just plain filthy!!

Democrats, you all need to stop being so flimsy...stand up and get it done if that is what you feel is right, but don't parade around with a circus and expect people to follow your beliefs. next up- fire eating, caused by republicans obstructionism...stay tuned for the next blame in 5 4 3 2 1...

Mike in SA

Point taken.

But you can knock off the "lazy" @!$%# any time. I missed your response in 1.25... but "lazy"? LOL

There should be transparency. Anything less would violate international law of due process. We have been spoon fed terrorism by the government and media for over a decade now. Unless we are willing to give up all civil rights and have perpetual war, we should, as a supposed leader of the world be able to withstand hearing the other side of the story.

The GOP is wrong.

Two days of comments from libs, and not one substantive one addressing the actual concern... that holding the trial in NY might motivate terror attacks there.

...as if terrorists aren't motivated enough already?

Pigotry you say state that the GOP had dinner with the president last night, but what you fail to realize is that the our president knew about this Suliaman character and never even mentioned what he was about to do. This is the kind of sneak we have for a president.

His dumbass probably thought it was cute to sit there talking about economic matters knowing that Suliaman was enroute to this country.

John Bryantvia

All the righties

so what, you have a fb account and now you think you know all the "righties in this nation"....yet another case of narcissism...good job

im pissed that nothing gets done ever with this admin, nothing...just finger point...they have the power but its just much more fun to point blame and tear this nation in pieces...good work boys

how is it that you can find money to have a lavish life in the WH but yet you cant find enough money to transfer prisoners...

here's and idea, make gitmo a better place, not a cruel evil secret like bush had it 8yrs and Obama for 4yrs...is it that we just cant find guards and personnel that can be neutral or civilized??? really why cant this place be a place that passes human rights and still does what it needs to do to keep prisoners away from society?

so what, you have a fb account and now you think you know all the "righties in this nation"....yet another case of narcissism...good job

Pot, meet kettle. Funny how that never seems to stop all of the blanket assumptions made about "libs", "libbies", "libtards" or whatever other names you want to call.

im pissed that nothing gets done ever with this admin, nothing...just finger point...they have the power but its just much more fun to point blame and tear this nation in pieces...good work boys

Funny, because any time the administration does try anything y'all just accuse him of trying to be a king or a dictator or a tyrant or something like that.

here's and idea, make gitmo a better place, not a cruel evil secret like bush had it 8yrs and Obama for 4yrs...is it that we just cant find guards and personnel that can be neutral or civilized??? really why cant this place be a place that passes human rights and still does what it needs to do to keep prisoners away from society?

No matter how nice, a prison is still a prison...just as denial of due process is denial of due process.

"Mike says things just to stir people up, but I started to make a list of all the totally incorrect crap he stated and the list got too long and others have addressed. The only one I found to be almost right was the fact Ahmed got off on most charges. The rest of his "facts" are wrong... Holds-read about recent threats to place a hold on cabinet nominations, super majority-see posting above (neo cons love to try to prove this fact for years, but didn't happen),unlike the reps who blindly followed Bush in lock step at EVERY move, the Dems voted for what was best for their constitutents, so even in those 5-6 months we had 58, Kennedy couldn't vote and O couldn't count on every single dem to stop cloture, blocking move of prison-blocked by a bill tacked on to a huge spending bill to block funds to build a new prison for Guantanamo, .. etc, etc. But Mike keep it up... we do get our entertainment..." - wives fan

This is hilarious considering I'm the only one here providing any valid third-party documentation that substantiates my statements and all I see from your side is regurgitated, blathering, mind-numbingly thoughtless, intellectually lazy rhetoric. You can talk about whatever phantom hold threats there were on the nominations but the reality is that none were used because -- as a clearly noted and documented -- there are no more secret holds. Secret holds don't exist now. And here you are trying to ignore this fact even though I have this documented. I have also clearly documented -- using the Senate's rules -- that the Dems had a super-majority with 59 of 99 seated Senators caucusing with them. And really, that one of the Democrat Senators refused to step down and have his Dem governor replace him with another Dem when he was too incapacitated to properly serve his constituents is not a basis for saying you didn't have a super-majority. Dems both held and controlled that seat.

But then again what good are substantiated facts on the unicorn ranch in the delusional alternate reality you've contrived in your head.

This line is especially funny and goes back to the original topic:

"O couldn't count on every single dem to stop cloture, blocking move of prison-blocked by a bill tacked on to a huge spending bill to block funds to build a new prison for Guantanamo, .. etc, etc."

The House Armed Service Committee, then controlled by Dems, voted UNANIMOUSLY to block the funds. It's not that a single Dem broke ranks. It's not that two Dems broke ranks. They controlled that committee and yet they ALL voted the same way. In the Senate i a 90-6 vote more Dems voted against providing funds to close Guantanamo than there were seated Republicans at the time! Talk about entertainment value! Watching your delusional train-wreck of a response play out is better than watching an "America's Dumbest..." marathon on True TV.

"But you can knock off the "lazy" @!$%# any time. I missed your response in 1.25... but "lazy"? LOL" - LMarcT

You also apparently were either not industrious enough or not curious enough to look at the comment I was responding to. So what do you call that if not lazy? Just saying...

Hell just let them go! Why stop at treating them as civilians - just let them go back so they attack us again... Worked the last time Obama released them...

Zero sense of civilian law and military law. Taking the opposite side - it like saying a bank robber is an undercover military agent aiming to destroy the economy.

@da noid----you qoate the constitution in post 1.80--what is your thoughts of the 2nd amendment and what the left is trying to do to it?

Umm... Alex (1.57). You do know the Republican party is the in favor of use of drones right? So that part of your hateful rant is incorrect. Also, please provide proof that he has murdered any babies or provided guns to cartels. If so, after he leaves office he would be indicted and tried for his crimes. Otherwise, try to calm down and think before you hate.

Once again that fat sow pigotry must stay up all night waiting to be first to post, too funny but liberals have nothing but time on their hands.

@ David Walker. The (2) independents caucused with the Democrats giving them the 60, or pseudo super majority. But I'll just stick to the ole, "If you need a super majority to govern, perhaps the plan is bad" ideology.

@ Wants to. Try, just try to use your head. In what circumstance can Obama only get 29% of the vote, and still be President? The answer is that it IS possible. Please, just try to figure that out before you type.

With regard to the actual point of the article. I really don't care, for now if they put this dude on trial publicly, but if I were A.Q, I would spend millions funding this lawyers through legitimate means and get this person off, or at least the opportunity for parole. I haven't read any evidenced that he was part of the 911 conspiracy. The inner circle yes, but not the conspiracy. He did a lot of rants/threats but this may not bring a fast death penalty sentence. If he gets off, or limited time the question will be:

Did Obama do the right thing, or should he have used the Military Tribunal. Simple as that, and only time will tell

spyder....I'll respond to your silly fear (fake as it is) that the country will be attacked by his supporters when he goes on trial. This goes for Mike in S.A also who brought Ahmed Guailani into the disscussion as a way to bolster your silly argument.

Ahmed Guailani was found guilty and sentenced to life w/o parole....and no terrorist attack was carried out on his behalf on US soil while he was on trial or since.

I read your stuff daily on newsvine and you rarely make valid arguments.

gitmo has been a complete failure. cost 10 times as much per prisoner and has hald over half of their convictions over turned. civilian courts have a 100% conviction rate of islamic based or inspired terrorists. they are not locked up with the general population as ido says. they are sent to super max in colorado to spend the rest of their lives in solitary.

put your politics aside and look at what works.

What does Obama, McCain, Republicans, or Democrats (and the associated hatred that comes from the mouths of posters on this thread) have to do with this issue? The issue is very simple and straightforward: Should terrorists be tried in a U.S. Civilian Court or in a Military Court. It seems to me that anyone waging war against the U.S., whether it is a country or a foreign group of people dedicated to the destruction of our nation, should be considered enemy combatants. And if the Constitution does not make that clear, then it is time for a new Amendment. Enemy combatants should be tried in a Military court. The side benefits would be a quicker sentence, cost effectiveness, and better security that is already in place.

These people are not enemy combatants, period. We are not a nation at war

The Geneva Conventiion classifies terrorists as "unlawful combatants". It is this justification Obama uses as the basis for his drone strikes. Ask Obama if he thinks "we are not a nation at war".

After McCain embarassed himself yesterday by showing support for willy-nilly drone strikes against Americans on American soil, one would think he would have the wisdom to shut his trap.

cdahl, Sorry to confuse you with facts, but Lieberman, while he ostensibly caucused with the Democrats, almost exclusively voted with Republicans.

Are the Republicans afraid of what this man will say in regards to 9/11? They know Cheney was invalved in 9/11 up to his eyeballs. I think the US would be well served to hear whatever he has to say.

Hopefully, truth will be served. Those apposed to him getting a fair trial, are really afraid of the truth.

This begs for attention:

Super-majority? It existed only for a total of 6 months AND only during
two periods when Teddy Kennedy and/or Robert Byrd were unable to vote AND
required them to get the votes of every Democrat plus BOTH independents.

FACT: The "Democrat supermajority" is a G.O.P. lie.

In the bold font DW explains that a "Super-majority" existed for six months. Then he claims that it didn't exist. It was all "a GOP lie".

The leftist mind at war with itself and both sides losing. Remarkable.

Are the Republicans afraid of what this man will say in regards to 9/11? They know Cheney was invalved in 9/11 up to his eyeballs. I think the US would be well served to hear whatever he has to say.

Let me see if I understand correctly. You think Cheney was involved in 9/11 without proof, and you think this man had Cheney's ear and will reveal it all if placed on trial on American soil? And the Republicans fear this?

It doesn't get any more conspiratorially convoluted than that.

Mike in SA

For what? The President didn't pick up the tab. The American people did

Now he says

I merely stated that the dinner was likely on the US taxpayers tab

Get your talking points straight.

I can't say I'm in favor of trials on US soil; it's one thing to not be fearfull of terrorists and another to invite trouble. Also, this isn't the time for costly undertaking by government or private enterprise that's really not necessary if the right decision is made.

I would agree that an international court of sorts could take care of this and clean up the gitmo problem. If for some reason those found guilty are allowed to breathe then all can share in those expenses for life imprisonment, including the building of some facility if none exist.

Of course America was severely and in my mind most seriously affected, but others were and may feel similarly as well. Any that deny there's some degree of publicity to this US trial bit are in denial. Justice is justice, and some in NY may not want the extra cost, security, media blitz, etc... that will follow this for some time to come as much as I don't want it.

Problem is, there may be reason for wanting and not wanting the trials here, both sides may have good points and legit reasons, but again....... problem is, this has all boiled down to one end or the other of the Donkephant....... AGAIN.

Re-read all the posts if some are in disbelief......

The same progressive idiots supporting this move will be the first to defend this guy, when he turns around and sues the USA for damages, but yet they will forget that he was out to kill the Americans. I wonder if they knew anyone that was in the twin towers?

Its seems that pigotry and her good friend fiesty will be the lead cheerleaders..

Pigotry "I thought they have dinner together last night. These GOP didn't even say 'Thank you."

Neither did Obama.

It was the American taxpayer that paid the bill.

Mike in SA

As CREW's latest research shows, however, senators continue to employ secret holds to anonymously stall, and at times kill, crucial nominations and legislation. Over the past three years, there have been only 20 instances of a "notice of intent to object" placed in the Senate Calendar of Business — more than half by Grassley and Wyden — but secret holds appear to have been placed on numerous other bills and nominations contrary to the agreed-upon rule.

Secret holds have delayed the confirmation of nominees for jobs at critical agencies including the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the Office on Violence Against Women. Notably, a secret hold was responsible for holding up the confirmation of Robert Ford, President Barack Obama's nominee to be ambassador to Syria, for more than a year.

SECRET HOLDS STILL BEING USED DESPITE RULE CHANGE

Mike in SA/Simple Theory

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still "only" 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy's vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd's health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms.

David Walker

Ido: These people are not enemy combatants, period. We are not a nation at war. Ergo, we are dealing with people who are alleged to be CONSPIRING TERRORISTS, not combatants as they are defined during wartime. They are alleged to have plotted crimes and that's all there is to it, but they are not soldiers who fight under any flag, and thus do not fall under the jurisdiction of military tribunals.

You can scream and call people names all day, but that is not going to alter facts. The criminal court system is the proper venue.

ROTFLMAO!! What a @!$%#ing joke you Obamabots have become! One day you're arguing in favor of the President blowing up anyone he wants with a drone and the next day you are proclaiming that these VERY SAME people are NOT enemy combatants?? How exactly the @!$%# does that work?? You understand that had WE had discovered this guy in Iraq or Afghanistan we'd have just blown him the @!$%# up right??? Your pea brain is enough to comprehend that FACT no??

So which is it retards??? No one could possibly be stupid enough to think that someone does "not fall under the jurisdiction of military tribunals" BUT at the same time DOES fall under the jurisdiction of military Hellfire missiles.

ROY WILSON-336103

It was the American taxpayer that paid the bill.

Wrong again Roy

The White House announced the president picked up the tab and paid for it out of his own pocket.

Republicans emerge from Obama dinner with new hopes for deficit deal - The Hill

Mike in SA:

Your arithmetic is absolutely correct. I shall go back and do my work again. If I'm wrong, I'll be back with an apology.

Backcountry164 wrote specifically to me:

"One day you're arguing in favor of the President blowing up anyone he wants with a drone and the next day you are proclaiming that these VERY SAME people are NOT enemy combatants??"

BS. Find the post where I supported President Obama's "blowing up anyone he wants with a drone". Show one of them. If you can't, I'll expect you back here with an apology. You won't be able to demonstrate such a post. What you will do is run like a sissy, because you don't have guts enough to admit when you're wrong.

David, I think the pretzel logic of the right twists them into such knots that they forget which way is up.

So it appears most here on this thread will be satisfied that this here foreign criminal gets life behind bars, if convicted?

What are the odds this judge will not sentence him to death? Anyone?

Quick Quiz:

If one of these alleged terror suspects is sentenced to death what happens to him (other than, "He Becomes A Corpse")?

If you answered, "He Becomes A Martyr," you guessed correctly.

To simpletheory - There is abundant proof Cheney was involved in 9/11. There is proof NORAd was involved, when they there holding separate exercises on 9/11, called Operation Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior and Northern Vigil. Does anyone seriously think that it was just a giant coincidence that NORAD was holding an exercise simulating a plane accidently crashing into a building on 9/11? Evidence indicates Cheney was involved in the exercises.

I do not claim this man had Cheney's ear. He could know plenty about Bin laden's knowlege of events. Like I said, do you fear the truth?

It appears Republicans always fear something. They were all in dire fear of Iraq, a country which had no navy, air force or effective missiles. The neocons had to make up threats. If one listened to right wing radio talk show hosts, prior to the Iraq war, the right wingers and their callers, were peeing in their pants, comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany. Right now, Fox News is doing the same with Iran.

Now Republicans are afraid some truth will leak out. There is no other viable explanation.

Mike in SA:

BS. Find the post where I supported President Obama's "blowing up anyone he wants with a drone". Show one of them. If you can't, I'll expect you back here with an apology. You won't be able to demonstrate such a post. What you will do is run like a sissy, because you don't have guts enough to admit when you're wrong.

I was referring to Obamabots in general- "ObamabotS", "retardS", you know that putting an "s" at the end makes it plural right?

Show me the posts where you oppose this action. If you're going to talk about people having guts why don't you go ahead and show me where you have had the guts to actually speak out against your puppet masters drone policy.

Sorry but your pathetic silence is all the support the President needs.

I'm starting to wonder if these guys have ties to Cheney and are worried that the under the table dollars they're probably getting would stop if trials were held.

Backcountry164

Show me the posts where you oppose this action.

Sorry but your pathetic silence is all the support the President needs.

Typical Right Wing fallacy

"the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

brutaltruth

Sigh, BigAl Las Vegas, you leftist moron, terrorists at Gitmo that faced trial WERE before their accusers with people who lost loved ones in 9/11. Why do we want the media coverage and the heightened security risk HERE? Read some of the court buffoonery that went one there. We don't need the cost, the expense, OR the circus. Get the info from the Jihadist and let him rot. Death is what he wants to go to paradise so make him suffer a long life on Ensure and Cosmopolitan magazine. We want to be done with these fools.

Why not then bring them over here? Why must we have prisoners in a high-profile max security prison in a country that doesn't even want us there (Cuba) when we have prisons over here? Guantanamo is a major expense, both in dollars and publicity. Send those terrorist bastards over here and let us try them like civilized adults. I wouldn't mind walking right up to one of them and blowing his brains out, but that's against the law. We do not make the law; we follow it. The War on Terror is not your average conflict; average conflicts include visible parties belonging to different organizations or countries (i.e America and Nazi Germany or North vs South Korea); these terrorists have no nationality. They belong to no flag, no organized sovereignty; they belong to an international terrorist group. If you want to send a message to terrorists and would-be terrorists all over the world, try them in a court of law and then do as you will to them. Or better yet, send them to an international court, have them do all the convictions and what-not, and then decide on what to do with them. America cannot and must not abandon the rule of law, lest we become the very thing that we are currently fighting against.

As for your dense comment on women's rights it was the Republicans who brought those suffrage issues forward, just like the removal of slavery that the dems fought against, as well as made some great organizations to halt it....ever hear of the KKK? Know what right wing hate group wanted to arm the freed slaves? THE NRA. Hate to tell you, but Lincoln was the first Republican, and he wasn't about CHANGE, he was about preserving the union.

You really need to study your American history. The KKK was not a Democratic organization; it was an ex-Confederate one born out of the ashes of the old Confederacy (which, by the way, harbored the same ideals on states' rights and limited government that the GOP currently adores as dogma), consisting of old Confederate soldiers and bigoted Southerners. The KKK was not just against blacks; it was against Jews, Catholics, Poles, Irish, Germans, and pretty much anyone who was not white or Protestant. Democrats were once a safe haven for Catholics and Jews, primarily due to its pro-labor sentiment and urbanized electorate. The NRA was founded in 1871, six years after the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of all the slaves. In the 1970s and 80s, the NRA was FOR gun control, mainly in order to counter militant racial organizations like the Black Panthers. Lincoln was a Republican, yes, but the Republicans of the Civil War era were the ones in favor of a strong national government, of abolishing slavery, and of the industrial Northeast. They also created the first income tax and expanded the size of government in order to quash the states' rights secessionists in the Confederacy (which was the epoch of limited and decentralized government and failed because of it). The Republican Party of Lincoln once voted FOR the Civil Rights' Act and the Voting Rights' Act; nowadays the GOP is trying to OVERTURN the VRA and contains a small but vocal section of misguided idiots who are railing AGAINST the Civil Rights' Act. The Party of Lincoln is no more; now it is the Party of Reagan.

Tea party cowards???? Cowards let ambassadors die at the hands of our enemies and do nothing but go back to bed. We are trying to save medicare and Medicaid and social security and keep us on a path the is prosperous, not prop up the stock market and devalue our currency by printing off 58 billion a month making our dollar worthless. Women's rights......when you spend this much to stay afloat on gas, energy, and food it is the democrats war on ALL AMERICANS that keep us in the red. We're on on way to a lost decade of spending with NO benefit but artificial stimulus and government dependence, just like Japan did. Wake up drone.

Yes: Tea Party cowards. Cowards are the people who pledge their eternal loyalty to a nation without daring to question it, even in times of war (see the jingoistic defense of the Bush administration). Cowards are the people who want to transfer the entire burden of austerity on the backs of the poor, the old, and the sick while worshiping the very hedge fund managers and "job creators" that almost destroyed this country in the first place. Cowards are the people who use the Constitution to prevent government from acting responsibly while trampling over it when it doesn't serve their interests. Cowards are the people who lose elections but instead of negotiating with the winners decide to obstruct the legislative process and bastardize the exalted institutions of government. And finally, cowards are the people who try to move the country backwards because they are afraid of what will happen to them if we move forward (which we must). Wake up, coward.

sreeeeminglib

Typical Right Wing fallacy

the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

Typical left-wing spin. I was asking him if he had the balls to stand behind his convictions by actually speaking out about them. Are you actually admitting that such a simple question went right over your head?? Try to pay attention.

Backcountry164:

I knew you were a sissy. Take a look at your post. It is addressed to David Walker, and you pasted MY quote. Yeah, bucko, that was to me. So, what do you do? You snivel to Mike in SA.

About the opposition to drone strikes - none of which have EVER occurred - all you have to do is click on my name and go look for yourself. Indeed, you'll find one where I specifically opposed the use of a drone for civilian surveillance in this country.

Keep an eye on this thread. If I'm wrong about my post to Mike in SA, you'll find a REAL apology. Right here. It's no wonder you're so full of crap. You've had your ass handed to you so many times, you can't sit down to fix the problem.

Mike in SA:

Here you go Mike. I've pasted the appropriate information from a bullet - and I don't mind telling you it was a pain. It didn't want to copy. In any case, here's the relevant bullet point/paragraph:

"The majority required to invoke cloture is three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen
and sworn, or 60 votes if there are no vacancies in the Senate’s membership.
However, invoking cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate’s rules
requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or 67 votes if all 100 senators vote."

Here is the link to the Senate rules:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2%3C4QLS%3E%0A

As far as your other point, you are quite correct as I wrote earlier. I'm still working on that. I'll get back. I'd like to point out here that I don't usually spend this kind of time in response. However, there is clearly an error, I want to fix. Secondly, when I'm done, right or wrong, I'd like to know why you are allied with right-wingers who lie as a matter of course, when you have a clear interest in facts. What the hell are you doing on the dark side?

note to self. America talks about human rights and righties ignore it when it's CONVENIENT for them. They forget the 'politics' involved with this and how the WORLD watch

Lol, the world and you @!$%#ing libs are a great bunch to talk about human rights. How about the rights of an unborn infant? How about the rights of women in all middle eastern countries? How about the rights of the elderly in the countries with the socialized medicine that you @!$%#ed up people so adore? How about the rights of women and children in africa? How about the rights of the victims here in our own country while you @!$%#ed up libs let criminals walk the streets? How about the rights of the minorities in our own country while you @!$%#ed up libs let illegals take the jobs from them?

Don't @!$%#ing talk to me about human rights. Besides, an eye for an eye. When you do @!$%# like what these terrorists do, then you LOSE your human rights because you're no longer human.

@!$%# you and go suck on a bumper.

Our President is under constant attack from Repubteacns who want to harm his Presidency, who would have predicted this, you would think Repubs would be getting tired of being fools !!!

Old John McCain is running out of gas, but he still packs a good fart for his party - I was proud of John when he made Rand Paul look like a fool on the Hill !!!

"AlexM"

I'm sorry that you couldn't attempt to make your point without cursing 7 times. Have a nice day.

Figures the party of endless entitlements and spending would try to pull the wool and treat a terrorist as any common criminal. That way, after he's found guilty, he can be locked away in a US prison at taxpayer expense. The same taxpayers who have been and will continue affording criminals from the south who infiltrate our country illegally every day of the week. The party of spend spend spend likes it this way.

seaskip

Just for clarity, not that you will pay attention or care, but John McCain is a typical warmongering far right GOP idiot and I am glad he lost in 08'. It may have to do with being a POW. I don't know, but he is a paranoid delusional and is viewing 300 million Americans as potential terrorists. And I don't believe that he made Rand look like a fool, and I will explain why.

For too long, people behind closed doors have been determining policies that affect our lives and rights. McCain as with others on the committee want to determine policy in regards to the treatment of US citizens behind closed doors and out of the media. That is how NDAA originally got passed with language that opened the door. When he asked questions of the future CIA director Paul was fully in his rights to get an answer. When the President, the Attorney General, and Brennan refused to give a clear answer to a simple question Paul did the only thing he could to bring attention to the subject before it was too late.

You may not like what Paul did, or how he went about it, but I am proud that there are a few elected officials that don't care about politics and attempt to do what is right, for rights sake. In today's world they are few and far between that will break with party and actually have values.

Figures the party of endless entitlements and spending would try to pull the wool and treat a terrorist as any common criminal. That way, after he's found guilty, he can be locked away in a US prison at taxpayer expense. The same taxpayers who have been and will continue affording criminals from the south who infiltrate our country illegally every day of the week. The party of spend spend spend likes it this way.

You are aware of how much it costs to keep the Gitmo detainees at Gitmo, yes?

The cost of the average prisoner in a federal prison in the United States is $25,000 per year. The cost for a single Gitmo detainee is $800,000 per year. As of September 2012, 167 detainees remain in Gitmo. So, you do the math...would you rather spend the approximately $133.6 Million to keep them in Gitmo or the $4.175 Million to have them in the regular federal prison system?

"secret holds still being used despite rule change" - sreeeeminglib

THEN DEMOCRAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID NEEDS TO ENFORCE THE RULE!

He can drag anybody doing this in front of the Ethics Committee for discipline but doesn't! Why? He would rather -- like you -- have something to cry about and to blame the Republicans for!

Mike in SA

Harry Reid can't see anything with cheeks in his eyes and his nose firmly planted. Or, I'd guess the Admin probably has pictures of him fornicating with sheep or something of that nature. Or, he was injected with nanobots and they have ahold of his nads. Or, He is a yes man that doesn't understand the separation of powers very well, as the Senate at this moment in time is simply another branch of the Executive.

"Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating." - sreeeeminglib

So your sole rationale for the Dems not having a super-majority was that one of your Senators was so incapacitated that he -- if true with extreme narcissism I'll add -- was depriving his constituents representation on important matters. The Democrats controlled that seat. If he could no longer even make it to Washington for a simple 30 minute cloture vote, all Kennedy would have to do is to have stepped down and another Democrat would take his place. After all the Democrat Governor would have immediately appointed a Democrat to take Kennedy's seat (which he did upon Kennedy's death).

Kennedy's seat had one role at that point. Occasionally come in for 30 minutes and vote to invoke cloture. That's all he had to do. If he was too incapacitated to do even that then the Dems should have asked him -- or he should have volunteered -- to relinquish his role.

Your rationale for this is lame and reeks of a desperate reach.

Backcountry164, not sure why you are attributing that quote to me in #1.149. I have after all been very outspoken about this.

"Yeah, bucko, that was to me. So, what do you do? You snivel to Mike in SA." - David Walker

Couldn't get much more off target philosophically, could he? LOL.

Mike in SA

Backcountry164, not sure why you are attributing that quote to me in #1.149. I have after all been very outspoken about this.

It was a typo, I cut and pasted his whole quote which was addressed you first. I deleted the part adressed to you but removed his name instead of yours. Sorry for the confussion.

David Walker

I knew you were a sissy.

And apparently you are a 5 year old

Take a look at your post. It is addressed to David Walker, and you pasted MY quote. Yeah, bucko, that was to me. So, what do you do? You snivel to Mike in SA.

It was a typo dumbass. Are you saying you were too stupid to figure that out? You thought I was actually addressing someone else using your quote? Sorry I got @!$%#ed up by your lazy-assed post addressing two different people at the same time.

About the opposition to drone strikes - none of which have EVER occurred - all you have to do is click on my name and go look for yourself. Indeed, you'll find one where I specifically opposed the use of a drone for civilian surveillance in this country.

Civilian surveillance??? What the @!$%# are you talking about??? You said this guy is not an enemy combatant so let me just ask you straight out since you seem to be having some difficulty staying on target. Do you support the Presidents use of deadly drone strikes against people who are not enemy combatants. If these people are not enemy combatants, as YOU claim, then the President is assassinating them. So do you support assassination or not?

POLL

Who's worst:

1.) Mike in SA

2.) Jim Spence

@moshuluu#1.169: Spence has "stupid" cornered. Mike in SA is just a typical lying bullshi^^er. Regards

Foreign enemies of the US are not entitled to any 'due process'. only another enemy of the US would believe otherwise, or an administration that believes illegals are entitled to food stamps, health care and educational assistance - but then I repeat myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights

David Walker,

"...three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 votes if there are no vacancies in the Senate’s membership."

I'm not sure how you keep missing the operative phrase, "...if there are no vacancies in the Senate's membership", when the basis of your argument is that Franken's seat was vacant.

"However, invoking cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate’s rules
requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or 67 votes if all 100 senators vote."

I'm not sure why you included this as it only pertains to clotures related to changing Senate rules not legislation.

"Secondly, when I'm done, right or wrong, I'd like to know why you are allied with right-wingers who lie as a matter of course, when you have a clear interest in facts. What the hell are you doing on the dark side?"

This statement is pretty ridiculous considering I've spent a good portion of 3 days factually swatting done liberal lie after liberal lie.

I'm a conservative because of facts. I don't take facts at face value. I view facts in news reports -- no matter the source -- skeptically because I know that the source likely has an agenda and I want the truth. Fox has their agenda, but in an environment in which Freedom Forum finds 93% of Washington correspondents vote Democrat in presidential election years, everybody else has an agenda also. (This finding is confirmed by study after study, such as this from the NYT).

So when I see an article I'm interested in and that article quotes some "fact", I dig. Knowing "facts" in isolation can be misrepresentative, and easily regurgitated I look for surrounding facts and context. I look for supporting statistics and consider the source and possible bias of the statistics. I look to see if there are multiple sources of statistics to get a statistical consensus. I seek truth and the truth breaks conservative.

Sure, there are "conservatives" that lie. You yourself are lying if you're insinuating that are not people that lie on both sides, just ask Andrea Mitchell. There are people that all they have is rhetoric which is something I have a great deal of disdain for. It's lazy. And I know for every Chris Matthews and Nancy Pelosi and Keith Olberman out there, there is a Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachmann and Anne Coulter.

Rush Limbaugh? Not a fan. Michelle Bachmann? Not a fan. Anne Coulter? Not a fan. Why? Because they do more harm to the true core conservative cause than they do any good. Their self-aggrandizing, rhetorical, windbaggery only detracts attention from the truth and as noted the truth breaks conservative.

I'm conservative because I think the closer the government is to the people the better and more responsive government is. Being from Texas, my voice is heard 12 times louder on the state level than the national level. It is heard 300 times more loudly on the local level than the national level. Also third parties actually have a chance in state and local elections, a chance they don't enjoy in national elections.

I'm conservative because no matter who is in charge, our federal government is a gigantic self-serving monolith. It is less interested in effectively governing than it is with the re-election of it's members. I find it ludicrous for people to lament how Washington is run by special interests and is bought by lobbyist, but then want more of it. That's crazy.

I'm conservative because a self-interested government tends to screw up almost everything it touches or tries to exert it's influence on, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

I'm conservative because the best welfare program is a healthy economy and attacking those that are the engines of the economy at a time when you are in recovery is the worst welfare program of all.

I'm conservative because had we only tied federal spending growth between 1970 and 2012 to something reasonable like population growth and inflation, instead of having a $17 trillion debt dragging our economy, we would be sitting on a $17 trillion surplus growing at $1 trillion a year. Or if your a 99-percenter, even better...we would have $0 in debt, only the top 1% would pay any income tax at all and $1 trillion of extra private middle class savings and spending would be unleashed on our economy EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Consider that the "stimulus" was a one time shot of a little less than $1 trillion in less effective government spending over 2 years. This would be $1 trillion in more effective private savings and spending year after year after year after...every single year. Our economy would be BOOMING.

"Mike in SA is just a typical lying bullshi^^er." - Mac Forester

Except I have unbiased source after unbiased source after unbiased source substantiating everything I say. Of course unbiased facts are no friend of yours and don't fit nicely with your thoughtless regurgitated rhetoric, so your characterization of Congressional records and BLS statistics and remedial math and such as lies is understood.

If you want to find a "bullshi^^er", go look in the mirror, Mac. Regards.

Backcountry164 writes:

"It was a typo dumbass. Are you saying you were too stupid to figure that out?"

I want to make sure I understand this. You make a mistake and it's my fault for not figuring out what you REALLY meant? That's about as weak as it gets. No you're not a sissy. You're a full-blown idiot.

---No military tribunals for these scum, they are only common criminals and should be treated as such.

Uh. Last I checked suspected criminals were entitled to trial. Never mind that they're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, which this guy would be because of video evidence.

Mike in SA:

It sure looks to me as though the first sentence in the paragraph I pasted refers to cloture in general. The second sentence refers to amending rules. I'm checking again. Out here we only have 24 hours in our days.

You write:

"I'm a conservative because of facts. I don't take facts at face value."

It's probably safe to say, I tend to lean more to the left than the right, but if facts are the determinant, based on your quote, I'm a liberal. I DO take facts at face value. Facts ARE facts, anything else is BS.

ROY WILSON-336103

Pigotry "I thought they have dinner together last night. These GOP didn't even say 'Thank you."

Neither did Obama.

It was the American taxpayer that paid the bill.

You should read the news more often. It was not the taxpayer that paid for the dinner, it was President Obama. He paid for it out of his own pocket. Standard Republican, assuming without reading.

David Walker

I want to make sure I understand this. You make a mistake and it's my fault for not figuring out what you REALLY meant? That's about as weak as it gets. No you're not a sissy. You're a full-blown idiot.

Right, you were the one who couldn't add 1 plus 1 but I'm the idiot, sure. And I guess that makes YOU the sissy then since you ran like a coward from my question. I knew you were a clueless hypocrite.

The first motion from the defense attorney for Sulaiman Abu Ghaith is likely to request a change in venue, based on his belief that his client cannot receive a fair trial in New York City, the state of New York, or for that matter the United States. In support of his motion he could present this thread from the Vine! His motion is denied and then he appeals to the World Court, arguing that it is the only place where he can receive a fair trial.

After years of legal procedure, hundred of thousands of dollars (more likely millions), and "friend of the court" briefs by several European and Middle Eastern Countries, he wins his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court establishing a precedent for all time!

This is a really bad piece of propaganda. The headline is the GOP tries to block Obama from meeting pledge on US terror trials. Is NBC saying that since Obama wanted to close Gitmo and the only way he could figure out how to do that was to bring terrorists to US shores to try them that it's somehow the GOP's fault? Why not just make Obama the editor.

Actually the problem of trying Sulaiman Abu Ghaith in the US is moot. He's been brought into the US already. The story should have been about how stupid the administration is to have brought him to the US and not first to Gitmo or another friendly country via rendition in the first place.

Wow, the first five words of the headline describe the last four years:

"GOP tries to block Obama"

Isn't this the same Greedy Obstructionist Party that ten years ago was proclaiming they would Bring these terrorists to justice?

Oh wait... here are some RepubliCON quotes:

"Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves — you will not escape the justice of this nation."

"We will bring terrorists to justice."

"We're also fighting a war with the purpose of hunting down the evildoers and bringing them to justice."

"As a nation of good folks, we're going to hunt them down, and we're going to find them, and we will bring them to justice."

Let me get this straight... The Grotesquely Obsolete Party wants to bring the terrorists to justice, but when the President that they were on a mission to "make a one-term president" does it, it's now wrong?

Why do you right-wing nut jobs hate America so much? Clearly, you hate America, because you defy the will of the people so often, and you hate the average American.

Is no one in the media pointing any of this out to these hacks?

Try them ALL for treason. Every single one of them, from Lindsey "my mom gave me a girl's name, you connect the dots" Graham, to John "I lost my mind in Hanoi" McCain, to Mittens "47% of Americans are freeloaders" Robme...

Close down Guantanamo. But not before you put all the RepubliCONS in it. Then you can close it.

"It's probably safe to say, I tend to lean more to the left than the right, but if facts are the determinant, based on your quote, I'm a liberal. I DO take facts at face value. Facts ARE facts, anything else is BS.
" - David Walker

Surely you don't have the inability to understand the context I was speaking in, David. In reading the whole post, most would understand I was speaking about "facts" as reported by an arm of the media including MSM, MSNBC, FOX, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Drudge, etc.. If you accept the "facts" as they are reported at face value, then you are sorely misinformed. But then that's "typical liberal" and goes directly to what I was talking about. That I wrote that sentence is fact. However, you apparently completely ignored the context that that fact was given in. You took that fact at face value, out of context, without looking further for true meaning and used it to support a biased agenda. Not surprising.

"You should read the news more often. It was not the taxpayer that paid for the dinner, it was President Obama. He paid for it out of his own pocket. Standard Republican, assuming without reading." - brenda1964

Apparently brenda1964 and others are not familiar with the very common act in business and politics of paying for something, then getting reimbursed for it.