Keukasmallies Posted March 18, 2010 Posted March 18, 2010 The water boarding that happened on Bush's watch was torture, and the US doesn't "do" that; but the current AG, Eric Holder, says OBL will be killed, so there will be no venue fuss over him. What's up with that: Bush, no; Obama, OK? I'd think we'd want OBL alive and well so he could be a recipient of the new health care provisions....
3rdnlng Posted March 18, 2010 Posted March 18, 2010 The water boarding that happened on Bush's watch was torture, and the US doesn't "do" that; but the current AG, Eric Holder, says OBL will be killed, so there will be no venue fuss over him. What's up with that: Bush, no; Obama, OK? I'd think we'd want OBL alive and well so he could be a recipient of the new health care provisions.... So, we could torture him by making him wait in line forever? I say we pass the bill but allow only for certain targeted retroactive abortions. We could start with anything that resembled phony, plastic or dingy.
erynthered Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Its been years since I've seen this movie but I watched GI Jane last night on my new HDTV and I had forgot about this scene.
PearlHowardman Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Obama whacked a handful of starving teenage Somali pirates last Spring. Out in the middle of the ocean. Few witnesses. No investigation. No one bats an eye.
DrFishfinder Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 The water boarding that happened on Bush's watch was torture, and the US doesn't "do" that; but the current AG, Eric Holder, says OBL will be killed, so there will be no venue fuss over him. What's up with that: Bush, no; Obama, OK? I'd think we'd want OBL alive and well so he could be a recipient of the new health care provisions.... We could make him watch the TWSS (Tiger Woods Sex Scandal) Channel for a month straight. I know that would kill me.
drnykterstein Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 The water boarding that happened on Bush's watch was torture, and the US doesn't "do" that; but the current AG, Eric Holder, says OBL will be killed, so there will be no venue fuss over him. What's up with that: Bush, no; Obama, OK? I'd think we'd want OBL alive and well so he could be a recipient of the new health care provisions.... I know misinterpreting and misunderstanding things caters to your Republican stained glasses, but you have this one wrong. Holder simply accepts that we won't be able to capture Bin Laden alive, he will be dead before we will get our fingers on him. That is his analysis.
Magox Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 I know misinterpreting and misunderstanding things caters to your Republican stained glasses, but you have this one wrong. Holder simply accepts that we won't be able to capture Bin Laden alive, he will be dead before we will get our fingers on him. That is his analysis. Hmmm
drnykterstein Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Hmmm REP. WOLF: So my question to you is, if you catch Osama bin Laden alive, will it go to an Article III court or will it go to a military court? ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I am not trying to dodge this one, I just don't think the -- the possibility of catching him alive -- REP. WOLF: Well, but let's assume -- but we can't -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: -- is infinitesimal. REP. WOLF: Okay. But if -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Either he will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. REP. WOLF: But, Attorney General, I respectfully, I'm not -- that was a (trick ?) -- (inaudible) -- sincerely, what if we do, though, catch him alive? That's the question. ATTY GEN. HOLDER: And what I'm saying is that -- and maybe I was being a little flip with Mr. Culberson, and perhaps (I shouldn't be ?) -- REP. WOLF: Okay, we'll just -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: -- about, you know, reading Miranda rights to his corpse, because I think that's what we're going to be dealing with. He is not going to be alive. REP. WOLF: Well, but the question was, what if he is alive? And I think the gentleman raised a legitimate case. And from my perspective, we -- our government is setting a precedent with the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City. And I think that's the real -- the real danger. src: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/0...laden_wont.html
Magox Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 REP. WOLF: So my question to you is, if you catch Osama bin Laden alive, will it go to an Article III court or will it go to a military court? ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I am not trying to dodge this one, I just don't think the -- the possibility of catching him alive -- REP. WOLF: Well, but let's assume -- but we can't -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: -- is infinitesimal. REP. WOLF: Okay. But if -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Either he will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. REP. WOLF: But, Attorney General, I respectfully, I'm not -- that was a (trick ?) -- (inaudible) -- sincerely, what if we do, though, catch him alive? That's the question. ATTY GEN. HOLDER: And what I'm saying is that -- and maybe I was being a little flip with Mr. Culberson, and perhaps (I shouldn't be ?) -- REP. WOLF: Okay, we'll just -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: -- about, you know, reading Miranda rights to his corpse, because I think that's what we're going to be dealing with. He is not going to be alive. REP. WOLF: Well, but the question was, what if he is alive? And I think the gentleman raised a legitimate case. And from my perspective, we -- our government is setting a precedent with the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City. And I think that's the real -- the real danger. src: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/0...laden_wont.html So what does that tell you about Eric Holder? Oh, wait, nevermind. I'll answer this one, it says that on a particular day he says one thing and on another he says something of the contrary.
drnykterstein Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 So what does that tell you about Eric Holder? Oh, wait, nevermind. I'll answer this one, it says that on a particular day he says one thing and on another he says something of the contrary. That transcript is of the exact same interview as the video you linked me to. I just wanted to point out the transcript because it's easier than saying "Hey go to 1:23 of the video". Edit: Actually, nevermind, that's Breitbart (aka the definition of slanted) I doubt he provided the full video.
Alaska Darin Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Edit: Actually, nevermind, that's Breitbart (aka the definition of slanted) I doubt he provided the full video. Sincerely, The guy who regularly uses the Huffington Post Dude, just STFU.
KD in CA Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 REP. WOLF: So my question to you is, if you catch Osama bin Laden alive, will it go to an Article III court or will it go to a military court? ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I am not trying to dodge this one, I just don't think the -- the possibility of catching him alive -- REP. WOLF: Well, but let's assume -- but we can't -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: -- is infinitesimal. REP. WOLF: Okay. But if -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Either he will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. REP. WOLF: But, Attorney General, I respectfully, I'm not -- that was a (trick ?) -- (inaudible) -- sincerely, what if we do, though, catch him alive? That's the question. ATTY GEN. HOLDER: And what I'm saying is that -- and maybe I was being a little flip with Mr. Culberson, and perhaps (I shouldn't be ?) -- REP. WOLF: Okay, we'll just -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: -- about, you know, reading Miranda rights to his corpse, because I think that's what we're going to be dealing with. He is not going to be alive. REP. WOLF: Well, but the question was, what if he is alive? And I think the gentleman raised a legitimate case. And from my perspective, we -- our government is setting a precedent with the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City. And I think that's the real -- the real danger. That exchange was so stupid and pointless it's a shock conner wasn't involved.
drnykterstein Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 That exchange was so stupid and pointless it's a shock conner wasn't involved. I didn't make this thread though.
KD in CA Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 I didn't make this thread though. Oh trust me, you made this thread. And then some.
Recommended Posts