« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Jay Cost on the House and Health Care »

Giving Obama Points For Trying

Last night, the White House let leak a trial balloon (if you'll pardon the pun) -- top aides are working on reversing the decision to try the 9/11 conspirators in federal court, and giving them back to the military tribunals set up under the Bush administration. This would be a stunning reversal, as Obama and several of his top advisors -- chief among them Attorney General Eric Holder -- had made such a stink out of giving them a fair trial, and then hanging them.

Naturally, I find myself Hopeful for this Change. These terrorists have no business in civil courts. They are not criminals.

Yeah, they committed crimes, and broke the laws of the United States. But they aren't criminals, in the conventional sense. Terrorists, I've long argued, combine the worst elements of criminals and soldiers -- and treating them as either makes no sense. They are "unlawful combatants," and there are only vague rules on how to treat them justly.

During the Bush administration, there was a bit of common sense -- since these vermin have a foot in both worlds, create a system that draws from both to handle them. The result were military commissions -- a "court system" set up and run by the military for this specific purpose, set up outside the borders of the US and overseen -- very, very closely -- by civilians (the president, in his role as "commander in chief," and his designated representatives).

Naturally, as something never tried before, it had its teething pains. But that was no great surprise, as we were trying (no pun intended) something that had never happened before. But we were getting closer to an ideal solution when Obama got elected and decided to trash the whole concept.

Now he's having second thoughts. (Or, to be a bit snarky, first thoughts. He didn't put much of his legendary brainpower into the first decision.) Since he can't find a locale that's willing to cooperate in having the terrorist trials in their municipality, he's giving those big, bad, evil, unjust, internationally loathed military tribunals another look.

I'm going to take the high road here. (It's a novel experience for me.) I'm not interested in gloating. And I don't need a pound of flesh over this. I don't need Obama to give a grand mea culpa over having taken the wrong course. I don't need Holder to resign over being trumped. (I wouldn't reject either, but I don't feel like calling for them.) I'm just relieved that sanity seems to be prevailing.

Change your course, Mr. President. Bow to reality and common sense. Personally, I pledge to not hold your reversal on this matter against you. And I hope others will do so, too -- some things are too important to turn into political cudgels.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38405.

Comments (73)

Let's just release him ... ... (Below threshold)
James H:

Let's just release him ... with a large "Hi, My Name is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and I planned 9/11" nametag. Drop him into a city with no gun-control laws ....

Boy are his anti-Bush-war-m... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Boy are his anti-Bush-war-military-etc supporters gonna be mad.

I believe it was Lincoln's ... (Below threshold)
Don L:

I believe it was Lincoln's Secretary of War who upon learning of the Assaination conspiracy said that he wanted them tried and in the ground before Lincoln was buried. They forced an illegal military Kangaroo court on them too, when a civilian court would have properly found them guilty. The cure by the power brokers is always relative to their politics.

Jay...you're missing the bi... (Below threshold)
RB:

Jay...you're missing the bigger picture. To use one of Obama's favorite rhetorical tricks to hide his decline (sorry...had to get the AGW reference in there, too!), he is presenting us with a "false choice" with this dangerous attempt to concede on tribunals in exchange for the closing of Gitmo. BOTH are essential to national security, and he's continuing to play political games that endanger the country.

That's a terrible suggestio... (Below threshold)

That's a terrible suggestion, James. I'm disgusted and disappointed with you.

Drop them in a city with strict gun control laws. We'll all get a lesson in just how inventive the American people can be, when denied simple solutions...

J.

I dunno Jay T. Though I see... (Below threshold)
Hank:

I dunno Jay T. Though I see where you're coming from when you write:

'I'm just relieved that sanity seems to be prevailing."

To me, it seems more like indecision continues to prevail.

Release him in a city with ... (Below threshold)
recovered liberal democrat:

Release him in a city with no cudgel control laws. That would still be to good for him.

I'd put an ankle bracelet o... (Below threshold)
epador:

I'd put an ankle bracelet on him and release him in San Francisco. Might make for some fun tracking.

Put it on TV as a reality s... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Put it on TV as a reality show.

Hey, didn't Arnold Schwarzenegger already do a movie about this?

Pardon me while I log in an... (Below threshold)

Pardon me while I log in and out several times to stuff the ballot box in favor of Epador's #8.

Curse you, Wizbang and your... (Below threshold)

Curse you, Wizbang and your IP-address-tracking election security system!

can you please define what ... (Below threshold)
bella:

can you please define what you mean by terrorists? who counts as a terrorist?

The Presentdent and Holder ... (Below threshold)
jbinnout:

The Presentdent and Holder already promised that these guys would be found guilty and executed. He would rather not do that as commander of the military. He wanted the civil court to handle it so he could once again vote "present". That didn't pan out so he was convinced to kick the can down the road. I doubt these guys will be tried before he is out of office.

Sorry, first a bit of snark... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Sorry, first a bit of snark: is this what Obama calls, "a teachable moment?" I have to say I feel like I'm watching a re-run of War Games, near the end, where the computer's builder is saying, "Come on, learn!"

Ok, feeling better now.

So, is Obama going to learn from this teachable moment. Will he extrapolate on that new knowledge and realize how badly he's wasted his first year in office? Will he see the tyranny in the actions of Congess and himself in their health care reform plans? (Will I ever run out of questions?)

Let me just say, I'm not all that "hopeful". I don't expect "change".

I give the bastard credit f... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

I give the bastard credit for nothing. He's changing course because HE'S BEING FORCED TO CHANGE COURSE. If he could get away with a civilian trial in Podunk, Iowa tomorrow morning, he'd do it.

to clarify my question.... ... (Below threshold)
bella:

to clarify my question.... who ought to be tried in a military tribunals instead of federal court? what constitutes terrorism in your view?

He gets no credit. Why shou... (Below threshold)
Brad:

He gets no credit. Why should he? It's because of his stupidity that it's even an issue for him to reverse course on. The man is an idiot.

There's no win here, just t... (Below threshold)
epador:

There's no win here, just the inevitable erosion of any respect the current US administration might still have here and abroad. It will continue to embolden those who wish us evil until someone who can demand and deserve respect sits at the top.

Oops, I mean stands at the ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Oops, I mean stands at the top. See, what the past year has done?

bella, I've answered that o... (Below threshold)

bella, I've answered that one a zillion times. Here's the Reader's Digest Condensed Version:

Those who wage war and commit acts of war against the United States while part of a much larger group, without the sanction of a nation-state, and in violation of the rules on combatants of the Geneva Conventions, should be handled by military tribunals.

J.

"Change your course, Mr. Pr... (Below threshold)
hermie:

"Change your course, Mr. President. Bow to reality and common sense."

I think that's the only thing he doesn't bow to.

thanks j! I am actually ne... (Below threshold)
bella:

thanks j! I am actually new to your blog so i didn't catch what you had written before on terrorists. Do you think you could send me a link to a place where you've written on this before?

What counts as an act of war against the United States? Does a bombing of building count? What are your thoughts on the the bombing of abortion clinics?

Oh, how cute. Bella's a "co... (Below threshold)

Oh, how cute. Bella's a "concern troll." You tipped your hand a bit too quickly with the abortion clinic bombing, though. Gotta work up to that, kid! Don't rush into pulling out your big guns! Show some patience, build up to the biggies.

That's why I said "acts of war" by "a larger group." The abortion clinic bombers have been individuals, acting alone. Oklahoma City was, in all likelihood, three guys.

Sigh... standards are definitely slipping.

J.

See what happens when you f... (Below threshold)
epador:

See what happens when you feed a vampire-wanna-be-troll?

epador, McGehee once told m... (Below threshold)

epador, McGehee once told me not to play with trolls' heads... unless they bounce real good.

This one shows some serious elasticity...

J.

Fry em' all!... (Below threshold)
914:

Fry em' all!

Gotta give you credit for p... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Gotta give you credit for patience, JT. I no longer have any. People like bella just get told "Fuck off asshole". I waste no more time with them and their word games.

I don't really have a hand ... (Below threshold)
bella:

I don't really have a hand - I am truly just trying to understand what you are writing about. What do you mean about standards slipping?

So the terrorists being tried at military tribunals are linked to al Qaeda? What, in your opinion, qualifies someone as being part of larger group? How do you make the distinction between the 'alleged ties' between these terrorists and al Qaeda and the 'alleged ties' between abortion clinic bombers and Organizations that want changes to law and policy concerning abortion?

Fuck off asshole? Why am I... (Below threshold)
bella:

Fuck off asshole? Why am I even being counted as a troll?

Jay, I'm not giving him a b... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Jay, I'm not giving him a break. He made a spectacle of this entire situation and NOW he's having second thoughts? This is only pertaining to the current 9/11 planners. What about all the mirandizing going on and future terror attempts or attacks? What about Gitmo?

-------------
Bella, do you, or do you not have an opinion on the subject at hand or something to share? Or are you playing a game here?

bella, why not get right to... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

bella, why not get right to it and we'll start defining what the meaning of "is" is.

Looks like Jay already got ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Looks like Jay already got it :)

Never fails, I don't know h... (Below threshold)
914:

Never fails, I don't know how abortion clinic bombers always get brought into the equation when 911 terrorists are being discussed.

Khalid should have fried years ago instead of using up precious natural resources like O2.

Bella, you want a way to me... (Below threshold)

Bella, you want a way to measure Al Qaeda vs. the abortion clinic bombers? I'll give you about three thousand.

Conventional law enforcement can handle the abortion clinic bombers pretty well. They don't do so good with big terrorist operations. The same holds true for the justice system.

Abortion clinic bombers don't have millions and millions of supporters around the world cheering them on and providing fresh recruits who don't give a rat's ass about breaking the law -- because they plan on being dead afterward, and not exactly worried about trials and prison.

As Oyster asked -- do you have any opinions of your own? Or do you just prefer to be a rhetorical remora and attach yourself to others', feeding on them without contributing anything?

J.

"Bella, do you, or do you n... (Below threshold)
bella:

"Bella, do you, or do you not have an opinion on the subject at hand or something to share? Or are you playing a game here?"

I don't have a game. It has more to do with not totally understanding your viewpoint and having questions rather than just dismissing it straight out. I am not trying to win anything - except for information.

"bella, why not get right to it and we'll start defining what the meaning of "is" is."

Well, that wouldn't be a bad idea and there are several essays about this topic. Language can be really confusing when you try to communicate a viewpoint. Making sure that I understand how you use a term is valid isn't it? Would it be better to just assume that you use whatever definition of terrorist I happen to have?

"Never fails, I don't know how abortion clinic bombers always get brought into the equation when 911 terrorists are being discussed."

Well, the reason I bring up abortion clinic bombers is to help clarify how you use the term. There are a lot of people who consider that terrorism as well so I wanted to understand if that fits in to who should be tried in military tribunals. It is important because trying someone as an enemy combatant sets a precedent, doesn't it? It helps to define and shape who we try in these courts. If we aren't clear about it - a lot of things that ought to be fit into that definition won't be ... or vice versa!

Yes, bella, it did set quit... (Below threshold)

Yes, bella, it did set quite a precedent -- back in World War II when Nazi infiltrators were caught and executed by military tribunals during World War II. They were enemy combatants out of uniform, planning acts of war against the United States, and were put to death in very short order.

I'll clarify my challenge, though -- offer your own opinions on matters. Your "questions" demonstrate far too much sophistication for the naif you are claiming to be.

Which is why several of us here simply don't give you any credibility when you protest your ignorance. Just come out and say what you think, and ditch the "who, me?" BS. It ain't working.

I feel sorry for you, when you go back to LGF/OW/KOS/DU and tell them you were caught out so quickly...

J.

"Conventional law enforceme... (Below threshold)
bella:

"Conventional law enforcement can handle the abortion clinic bombers pretty well. They don't do so good with big terrorist operations. The same holds true for the justice system."

Hm... that still seems confusing to me. Law enforcement can't handle terrorist suspects so they must be put in the military tribunals? What qualifies someone to be on the list of people that the law enforcement doesn't do so god with?

"Abortion clinic bombers don't have millions and millions of supporters around the world cheering them on and providing fresh recruits who don't give a rat's ass about breaking the law -- because they plan on being dead afterward, and not exactly worried about trials and prison."

Do you mean to say that there are millions and millions of supporters around of al-queda bombings around the world?

"As Oyster asked -- do you have any opinions of your own? Or do you just prefer to be a rhetorical remora and attach yourself to others', feeding on them without contributing anything?"

Before I jump in with my contributions I am just trying to get a better sense of the community here. I haven't ever been able to get someone to explains these thought processes to me so I am grateful that you take the time!

"Jay, I'm not giving him a ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"Jay, I'm not giving him a break. He made a spectacle of this entire situation and NOW he's having second thoughts?"

Agreed. America's enemies are not going to give him a break on this; his dithering and indecision make us look weak and encourage our foes.
Good, solid D-minus on this one.

Those who wage war... (Below threshold)
James H:
Those who wage war and commit acts of war against the United States while part of a much larger group, without the sanction of a nation-state, and in violation of the rules on combatants of the Geneva Conventions, should be handled by military tribunals.

I disagree slightly. I would have preferred to see them tried for war crimes in a court-martial under the UCMJ, which has a well-established legal tradition behind it. Perhaps I'm just a squishy lefty, but the military commissions left me uncomfortable because (to my eye) they smacked of show trials rather than honest efforts to assess guilt or innocence.

(The D-minus was for Barry,... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

(The D-minus was for Barry, not Jay)

bella- "Do you... (Below threshold)
914:

bella-

"Do you mean to say that there are millions and millions of supporters around of al-queda bombings around the world?"

Yes, they belong to the religion of peace.

Before I jump in with my... (Below threshold)

Before I jump in with my contributions I am just trying to get a better sense of the community here. I haven't ever been able to get someone to explains these thought processes to me so I am grateful that you take the time!

This blog has years and years of history, bella. If you really want to know what it's all about, you don't have to ask and wait for answers -- you can just read, it's all spelled out there.

So I'm going to chalk you up to the "remora" theory I espoused. You just want to entice us into constantly answering your questions so you can nit-pick whatever you see as some sort of inconsistency or flaw, while keeping your own thoughts tightly wrapped so you can't be examined in return.

No, thanks. I've played that game too many times. Do your own homework.

J.

Bryan, you forgot the best ... (Below threshold)

Bryan, you forgot the best reasons for keeping the trials civilian: the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States have both already proclaimed the accused are guilty, will be found guilty in a fair trial, and even if acquitted will never, ever, ever be released from custody. So there's no danger whatsoever.

J.

Let's say that 99.9% of Mus... (Below threshold)

Let's say that 99.9% of Muslims oppose Al Qaeda or have no opinion.

That leaves 0.1% Muslims who approve.

Out of 1.2 billion Muslims, that's 1.2 million.

I think it's slightly higher than 0.1%.

There were a LOT of celebrations around the world on 9/11. I remember the footage from the Palestinian territories.

Oh, it's higher than 0.1%.

J.

Jay:It is fine tha... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Jay:

It is fine that you are taking the high road and don't want to exploit this latest faux paux on Obama's part but I don't feel like giving him a pass. Obama really is playing politics with our national security and the liberals and the media made similar claims about the Bush Administration although in that instance the claims were merely politically motivated. In the end, Obama will not be doing this because he thinks it is now the right thing to do - it is because he is being forced by reality to do it and you know it is irritating him to no end that the American people cannot see the wisdom of his ways. It would be different to me if he would man up and admit he was wrong but he won't and as such he does not deserve any praise from me. But this reversal of policy may well be done as part of some exchange to close Guantanamo and that is another false choice and if people like Lindsey Graham are part of this scheme than they will won't get my support on anything. There is nothing wrong with Gitmo and I dare say that transferring the detainees to some federal prison on our soil will actually be worse for the detainees when it comes to their actual treatment - not that I really care about that but the human rights people should but they are a bunch of hypocrites anyways. Plus, I don't want these dangerous individuals to be exposed to other inmates who might be ripe for indoctrination into to their ways of thinking. And having a facility near our communities is just a risk not worth taking. I think the best part of Gitmo is it is a secure facility on a military base that is not on our territory. It does not expose civilians to needless risk. And there is a dollars and cents issue as well. In this time when we are going bankrupt, do we need to close a facility that was bought and paid for to accomplish this mission and shell out hundreds of millions if not billions more to build a new one? Hell, the civilian NYC trial alone was estimated to cost several hundreds of millions of dollars because of the added security requirements and that does not even tell the whole story. How much money would local business have lost because people chose to stay away from the media circus and all the added security hassles? This was just something else Obama wanted to cram down our throats and I am getting sick and tired of being asked to pay for things we the people have made very clear we do not want.

At some point I want an admission from Obama that his plan was wrong and they need to acknowledge that many of the policies of the past were the right ones and he needs to start giving credit to those who implemented those strategies in good faith rather than threatening them with prosecution. He cannot have it both ways - he cannot demonize the policies and hide behind the security they have already provided and will continue to provide. The liberal mantra was Bush never admitted mistakes but Obama clearly has made many in his short time in office and he has never owned up to one of any real significance and is never called upon to do so either by the media and his supporters. I cannot stand Eric Holder but Obama is trying to make this fiasco about the AG's lack of consultation with him when it is very clear to me that he was merely trying to implement Obama's policy. You know damned well that Obama knew about this decision when it was announced and in the 1% chance he did not he needs to be called out for his lack of engagement on one of the key issues he ran for office on. This guy is supposed to be so brilliant but he seems to be delegating almost everything. Is he too lazy to do any real work besides giving a speech? He just seems to have an aversion to getting his hands dirty plus it allows him the opportunity to blame somebody else when it all goes wrong.

What Patrick said.... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

What Patrick said.

bella = sophomoric rather t... (Below threshold)
epador:

bella = sophomoric rather than socratic

1) Military com... (Below threshold)
1) Military commissions are ... untested
Really? As far as Wikipedia is concerned a "military commission" is a "military tribunal" by another name.

Military tribunals have a rather extensive history.

I'll make a "modest proposa... (Below threshold)
zipity:

I'll make a "modest proposal". If the Liberal Lefties insist on calling the Tea Party folks "teabaggers", we get to call Liberal Lefty demonstrators "cocksuckers". I don't see how they can object to it, since they routinely use the "teabagger" term on national broadcast radio/television. And we all know how much they love equality....

"The President of the Un... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

"The President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States have both already proclaimed the accused are guilty, will be found guilty in a fair trial, and even if acquitted will never, ever, ever be released from custody."

That statement alone should keep KSM and company out of the civilian courts because even a first year law school student could get any conviction thrown out on appeal. Our legal system is based upon the presumtion of innocence until found guilty and to have the President proclaim KSM's guilt to the world brings into question the possibility of a "fair" trial.

Torture, or the even the hint of torture aside, a rank amateur legal defense could completely destroy any government case by requiring the government to bring forward any intelligence information, sensitive or not. You now would not need the New York Times to leak sensitive information, it would be on display in open court. If you don't think any of these things could happen go back and take a look at the trial of the First World Trade Center Bombings and the problems faced by those prosecutors.

There is a large body of evidence supporting the use of military tribunals in our history - to include their use during both World Wars.

"I'll clarify my challenge,... (Below threshold)
bella:

"I'll clarify my challenge, though -- offer your own opinions on matters. Your "questions" demonstrate far too much sophistication for the naif you are claiming to be. This blog has years and years of history, bella. If you really want to know what it's all about, you don't have to ask and wait for answers -- you can just read, it's all spelled out there."

Fair enough!

"I feel sorry for you, when you go back to LGF/OW/KOS/DU and tell them you were caught out so quickly..."

Though... I don't even know what those are.


"Yes, they belong to the religion of peace."


This was in response to my question about millions and millions of supporters of al queda. I don't get what this means? Did you think that I meant in support of bombing al queda? I meant in support of al queda as a group bombing things.

"There were a LOT of celebrations around the world on 9/11. I remember the footage from the Palestinian territories."

I don't see how celebrations of what happened on 9/11 (which is horrible) = actual support of further bombings by al-queda. Palestine as I understand has it's own reason to celebrate trouble in the USA.


"bella = sophomoric rather than socratic"

Not sophomoric or socratic!


"I'll make a "modest proposal". If the Liberal Lefties insist on calling the Tea Party folks "teabaggers", we get to call Liberal Lefty demonstrators "cocksuckers". I don't see how they can object to it, since they routinely use the "teabagger" term on national broadcast radio/television. And we all know how much they love equality...."

I remember very well that 'tea bagger' was a name that the tea party movement gave to it's OWN members.


Nice try floating that Libe... (Below threshold)
zipity:

Nice try floating that Liberal Leftie meme here bella, but BUZZZZZZ. WRONG! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

In a 14 March report on Fox... (Below threshold)
bella:

In a 14 March report on Fox News, Griff Jenkins said, "ReTeaParty.com has a headline, 'Teabag the fools in DC on Tax Day.' They want you ... to take a tea bag, put it an envelope, and mail it to the White House." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging

Your syntax is showing, soc... (Below threshold)
epador:

Your syntax is showing, sock puppet.

UnResolved:... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

UnResolved:

1) Military commissions are an untested, uncertain, and unacceptable risk.
Wrong, as stated previously, they have been used successfully throughout our history.

2) Military commissions give terrorists short sentences.
Death Penalties were given in World War Two and the penalties were carried out within 30 days. Nuremburg trials ending with death snetences were carried out within 24 hours. But I guess that could be construed as a "short sentence."

3) Criminal courts are a reliable, effective means of prosecuting terrorists.
Unproven for foreign nationals whose crimes occurred on foreign soil.

4) Criminal courts hand out tougher sentences than military commissions.
See Number 2.

5) Conservatives erroneously think military detention denies access to attorneys.
This conservative does not think that so your generalization is like the rest of your logic - SHIT!

6) Suspected terrorists get lawyers in military commissions.
Yes, and your point is?

7) Judge Mukasey made sure detainees held without charge get lawyers, too.
Yes, and your point is?

8) Access to lawyers doesn't restrict intelligence gathering.
Yes, but in a military tribunal it does restrict the defendant's access to intelligence. The lawyer, with proper clearance and need to know, can see the intell but does not have to share the substance with the defendant, preserving the source and nature of the intell.

9) Plea bargains in criminal cases compel cooperation and ensure accuracy of information.
They can also force a defendant to plead to something he did not do - is that accurate enough for you.

10) Some urging Obama to seek preventive detention law to avoid "soft on terrorism heat".
Yes, and your point is?

11) Preventive detention does not improve intelligence collection.
Civilian courts improve it?

12) Leverage lost and disincentive to cooperate created when detainees held without charge.
So convict them quckly and bring in the hangman - see how much incentive that will bring to the table.

13) The Obama administration should use the tough and proven criminal system.
Stupid is as Stupid does!

and some more on tea... (Below threshold)
bella:


and some more on tea partiers calling their own actions teabagging:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8

But let's go with your argu... (Below threshold)
zipity:

But let's go with your argument. Let's say someone involved in a Tea Party protest, somewhere, sometime refered to themselves as a "teabagger", although plainly the vast majority of those who are associated with them have not. Does this make it acceptable to you to refer to all subsequent folks associated with these protest as "teabaggers"? If so, then I can also use this twisted logic to refer to ALL Muslims as Jew-hating, American-hating, shariah-loving, clitorectomy advocating, homicidal, jihadiis, since I've certainly heard a Muslim somewhere, sometime, refer to themselves as that. Are we clear on the concept now....?

" Does this make it accepta... (Below threshold)
bella:

" Does this make it acceptable to you to refer to all subsequent folks associated with these protest as "teabaggers"? "

Good point! Though I still don't see why the original poster thinks that this is a good reason to start calling liberals cocksuckers. How is that going to do any good.

I thought it might make the... (Below threshold)
zipity:

I thought it might make them realize how juvenile, stupid, and just plain asinine the use of that term makes them look. A huge long shot, appealing to a sense of decency in such obviously flawed human beings, but I thought it was worth a try....

bella, once again you're sh... (Below threshold)

bella, once again you're showing off your intelligence. Nothing wrong with that, but it really puts the lie to your disingenuous manner.

Look how fast you whipped out the "teabagger" bit. You're showing your sophistication in that you could use that bullshit so quickly, but you plead ignorance on a host of other matters when it's convenient?

Like I said, you're playing at being a remora here. And I don't play that game.

Acknowledge your own political knowledge and expertise (as flawed as it may be), and stop playig the naif here. You aren't smart enough to play that dumb.

J.

yah....golly gee...these he... (Below threshold)
zipity:

yah....golly gee...these here innertubes can be goll dern diffec.....diffikul....hard.....

Go to your room, Bella. </p... (Below threshold)
Not Really Steve Green:

Go to your room, Bella.

If you're new here, let me suggest you spend a few days actually reading Wizbang before you trot out your sophomoric crap. There are many other blogs I can think of where your enlightened and inquiring mind can find a comfortable home.

Let me guess: your backlink points to the "Organizing for America" section at www.barackobama.com, and you've got the light of Jesus in your eyes.

"Look how fast you whipped ... (Below threshold)
bella:

"Look how fast you whipped out the "teabagger" bit. You're showing your sophistication in that you could use that bullshit so quickly, but you plead ignorance on a host of other matters when it's convenient?"

I am definitely not trying to feign ignorance or expertise. I know a lot - but I don't know a lot about military tribunals and certain legal definitions concerning terrorists. I think you made a good point when you said that I have to do my homework. That is fair - but now that I contribute something and you think that I am flaunting?

"If you're new here, let me... (Below threshold)
bella:

"If you're new here, let me suggest you spend a few days actually reading Wizbang before you trot out your sophomoric crap. "

I actually have been reading for a few days now. I am not such a big Obama fan and I am not trying to make any points with my questions. They were really just questions. I have already agreed a few times that I could do a bit more background research on your community here. That I will do!

You'll have to understand, ... (Below threshold)
zipity:

You'll have to understand, our troll-detectors are set to "kill on sight", so you best be on your toes....

Bush's military commissi... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

Bush's military commission could only squeeze out a 5 year term against AlQaeda defendants, which by your hot pink lights is surely "unacceptable".

I would like you to show where I said it was acceptable or not. I repeat that commissions used in our history have returned death sentences and you can't refute that one - Shithole!

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

2) Military commissions give terrorists short sentences. "Death Penalties were given in World War Two and the penalties were carried out within 30 days. Nuremburg trials ending with death snetences were carried out within 24 hours. But I guess that could be construed as a "short sentence.""--sshiel

The Nuremberg Tribunal was not a military tribunal, you big-boobed dumb ass.

Again, Death Penalties have still be given by Military Tribunals and you still can't refute that one - Asswipe!

Is it just me, or are you a... (Below threshold)
zipity:

Is it just me, or are you also picking up some tension in the comments between SShiel and bryanD? Or am I being too sensitive....?

JT, I am thinking your opin... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT, I am thinking your opinion of Bella is right on. We have been at war with Islamofacists since 9/11 (really since 1979 but on our soid on 9/11) and Bella is "wrestling" with what a terrorist is. This person is either very naive or not very bright.

And then she brought out the very vile term teabagger, which closed the deal. A liberal lefty playing semantic's with a very serious subject. The left does not believe in terrorism, so that is why they want us to define in so they can convince us it doesn't exist. Nice try Bella. Go home now. ww

"We have been at war with I... (Below threshold)
bella:

"We have been at war with Islamofacists since 9/11 (really since 1979 but on our soid on 9/11) and Bella is "wrestling" with what a terrorist is. This person is either very naive or not very bright."

I don't understand why anything in our history would mean that we shouldn't consider how we deal with terrorists. Each time the US makes a decision about how to handle something, we need to think about the implications of that. What you agree to now, could be something that comes to bite you later on.

"And then she brought out the very vile term teabagger, which closed the deal. A liberal lefty playing semantic's with a very serious subject. The left does not believe in terrorism, so that is why they want us to define in so they can convince us it doesn't exist."

I did not bring up the term! I was responding to a comment where there was confusion about why people use that term. I was trying to clarify that I had seen it was a term tea partiers use themselves. Not as something liberals made up to taunt them.

The left does not believe in terrorism? They absolutely do!

bella:"Do Not Look... (Below threshold)
epador:

bella:

"Do Not Look at the troll behind the Concern-Troll Curtain!"

Fluttering those false eyelashes so fast and often to try to pretend innocence must take a lot of practice.

zipity "Is it just me... (Below threshold)
Marc:

zipity "Is it just me, or are you also picking up some tension in the comments between SShiel and bryanD? Or am I being too sensitive....?"

No, not just you, but given bryanD's long history here fully understandable.

When you must deal with a full-on WTC 7 nutcake like bryanD tension is the natural order of things.

But truth be told, it glad to know bryanD is still alive after events at the Pentagon in recent hours.

"Giving Obama Points For Tr... (Below threshold)
914:

"Giving Obama Points For Trying"

I give him points for trying but he loses them all for failing as usual..

Bryan, give marc back his t... (Below threshold)

Bryan, give marc back his ten points -- with interest. You're flat-out making up shit.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

J.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy