If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Your in-laws may suck, but at least they never got you tried as a terrorist mastermind   (reuters.com) divider line 20
    More: Followup, Osama bin Laden, son-in-law, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, conspiracy  
•       •       •

4422 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 11:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



20 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-08 11:07:32 AM
This guy belongs in Gitmo, preferably strapped down and water boarded.
 
2013-03-08 11:08:28 AM

BillCo: This guy belongs in Gitmo, preferably strapped down and water boarded.


soo...no due process today?
 
2013-03-08 11:15:49 AM

somedude210: BillCo: This guy belongs in Gitmo, preferably strapped down and water boarded.

soo...no due process today?


Not for terrorist who are non-U.S. citizens.  No, not yours!
 
2013-03-08 11:16:52 AM
s18.postimage.org

I CRUSH YOUR HEAD!!!!!
 
2013-03-08 11:17:10 AM
Don't give my mother in law any ideas.
 
2013-03-08 11:20:26 AM
My ex-in laws = Outlaws

/get it?
 
2013-03-08 11:21:51 AM

BillCo: Not for terrorist who are non-U.S. citizens. No, not yours!


Yes because the best way to show people that both our culture and system of government are far superior is to not follow our system of government and ignore our past transgression.

Cunning plan, not thought out.
 
2013-03-08 11:32:53 AM
So now we go after the No. 2 in-law in charge.
 
2013-03-08 11:35:57 AM
F'him. Light him up
 
2013-03-08 11:37:10 AM

BillCo: somedude210: BillCo: This guy belongs in Gitmo, preferably strapped down and water boarded.

soo...no due process today?

Not for terrorist who are non-U.S. citizens. No, not yours!


Why bother having a trial ILO evidence of criminal activity we can just call someone a name and lock them up forever.  That seems like a fair system of justice.
 
2013-03-08 11:50:53 AM

BillCo: somedude210: BillCo: This guy belongs in Gitmo, preferably strapped down and water boarded.

soo...no due process today?

Not for terrorist who are non-U.S. citizens.  No, not yours!


That's terrorist-like thinking in my opinion. Off to Gitmo with ya.
 
2013-03-08 11:55:53 AM

BillCo: somedude210: BillCo: This guy belongs in Gitmo, preferably strapped down and water boarded.

soo...no due process today?

Not for terrorist who are non-U.S. citizens.  No, not yours!


so...it's only fair if they're one of us? Are you saying that all people do not deserve the same rights and treated equally under the law no matter where they're from? If an illegal immigrant kills your wife, does he not get punished equally as the husband who kills his wife (both of which are citizens)?
 
2013-03-08 11:59:28 AM
Should have used a Nobama drone on him, oh wait, Barry will only use drones on terrorist
Might as well give him the rights that their taking away from us
 
2013-03-08 12:13:09 PM
If going on TV and acting like an idiot is a crime, most of our TV personalities should be in Gitmo.
 
2013-03-08 12:20:42 PM

shpritz: BillCo: somedude210: BillCo: This guy belongs in Gitmo, preferably strapped down and water boarded.

soo...no due process today?

Not for terrorist who are non-U.S. citizens.  No, not yours!

That's terrorist-like thinking in my opinion. Off to Gitmo with ya.


His two cents worth is one of the reasons they're trying to abolish pennies.
 
2013-03-08 12:44:47 PM
I'm surprised they didn't just drop a missile on his head
 
2013-03-08 12:45:42 PM

FeFiFoFark: My ex-in laws = Outlaws

/get it?


Yup, because typically the difference between in-laws and outlaws is that outlaws are wanted.
 
2013-03-08 01:28:15 PM

BillCo: somedude210: BillCo: This guy belongs in Gitmo, preferably strapped down and water boarded.

soo...no due process today?

Not for terrorist who are non-U.S. citizens.  No, not yours!


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I stressed the part the Bush and Obama administrations can and will use to justify denial of due process to terrorism suspects. According to Attorney General Holder last week (as stated by Senator Cruz on the Senate Floor--  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81PmoTAeYzA around the 11 minute mark if you don't have time for all 16 minutes, but the full 16 minutes are interesting if you watch with an open mind), the Executive reserves the right to decide when the Fifth Amendment applies to any individual--and I suspect it's the part I stressed that Holder is specifically referring to, but Holder has a very bad habit of not expressing himself well at all, thus leaving a lot of room for people to attack him and the President.

Now... in terms of the Constitution applying to everyone, regardless of citizenship, BillCo, you are wrong. It does, in fact, apply to all who stand within US borders, regardless of citizenship status (except for those rights, such as voting, running for office, and holding certain other jobs, that apply only to United States citizens as directly specified in the Constitution's text). HOWEVER... Congress has the right to decide on immigration issues without interference from the courts and to apply laws to immigrants that they would not be permitted to apply to citizens. (Source:  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_ n oncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html )

I did try to pull up the actual National Lawyers Guild fact sheet on that for you, but it's been moved and I'm too lazy to look up where it's been moved to. Besides, Slate summarizes it nicely and provides a bit more information--including a court established under the Clinton Administration that is every bit as secret as these military tribunals established under Bush (which I believe Obama has continued, but I could be mistaken), but has never been used.
 
2013-03-08 01:44:35 PM
It's not asif a US court has the ability to subpoena documents from overseasand expect to receive them, but there is something very anti-climatic about an enemy of the state who just quietly disappears.

I believe they're running him through the court system so he can be visibly held-accountable and then punished to send a message. He comes from a very well-connected family and this will bring more attention to their relationships.

Plus, every bit of testimony can be used to frighten the pants-shiatting contingent of people happily surrendering rights in exchange for a feeling of safety.
 
2013-03-09 04:26:45 AM
Am I the only one who thought it was hilarious that one of his lawyers is named Weinstein?

/glad at least SOMEBODY still gets due process
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report