Go Scott Brown! - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-01-2010, 04:41 PM   #301
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
We don't want any (closeted) gays in the GOP!


two thoughts:

1) Crist should switch parties and run as a D or I, he'd win then
2) this is bad news for the GOP; they've demonstrated that moderate, calm, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Republicans can win in a period of high unemployment when they face abysmal Democratic candidates ... why change what works?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 04:44 PM   #302
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
the original objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq were not met, and the goalposts have been consistently lowered and changed with each passing year.
Tell that to the troops.
__________________

__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 04:55 PM   #303
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Tell that to the troops.
What would be the point of that?
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 05:08 PM   #304
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Tell that to the troops.


i think they already know.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 06:16 PM   #305
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Abraham Lincoln didn't lose two wars, watch New Orleans sink, and create the worst financial disaster in 75 years by cutting taxes and spending in a way that the most taxy-spendy liberal would never have dreamed.
Oh do try and keep up.

I was rebutting u2387's claim that, "You will not find the kind of mean spirited, personal attacks on character, turn everything into a culture war, relentless and blatant lying by Republicans until Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich came on the scene." Lincoln did not do the things you mention but think again if you believe he wasn't despised, scorned and hated (not to mention assassinated) by those with opposing agendas or opinions.

A good knowledge of American history tells us that, as ugly and polarized as the country has appeared the past 10 years... it is hardly a new phenomena.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 06:21 PM   #306
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Efficient government. Responsive to the electorate. Diligent in its constitutional duties over a perpetual desire to expand.
That does not answer my question. How have Republicans been any of the things you said here? Efficient? How about hampering our ability to respond to natural disasters(FEMA) and putting political hacks in charge of responsible federal organizations? Remember "Brownie." How have the Republicans made gov't more efficient when they outsourced collection of back taxes to politically connected companies that ran at triple the government rate? How about the Iraq contractors and lack of oversight of them? The Republicans have been efficient? You know that's not true, be honest here.

Responsive to the electorate? Didn't they lose the last 2 major elections in 2006 and 2008? Haven't they lost ground in voter registration extremely rapidly, and lost support on the "do you trust them" question? This was because Republicans were not responsive to the electorate. Look at polls: most of the American people oppose privatizing social security, support investment in education, infrastructure, support health care reform, including many specific provisions of the bill, etc. Polls have shown the vast majority of the electorate would invest in renewable energy, infrastructure and education over cutting the top rate or eliminating the estate tax. Most of the public supports some form of gun control. Most of the public supports comprehensive immigration reform. Even if the "government is the problem" attitude was more popular before, Americans now realize that it is not viable in an era of massive competition through globalization. We need infrastructure, we need to be on the cutting edge of education, energy, etc. This all requires, not an all encompassing role for government, nor a heavy handed role for government, but a general, goal oriented role for government.

"Desire to expand" Jeez, you still can't define what expanding government is and how Republicans stop it! What is a good barometer other than government employees, government spending and government control over personal life? There is no empirical evidence suggesting Republicans do a better job at small government. Maybe ideologically, most are opposed to government, but that is different than small, efficient and still meeting the goals most Americans agree we should focus on. The public does not support the "starve the beast" philosophy, otherwise Bush would have sold his tax cuts as "either this or other priorities" as opposed to insisting we can have both. Bush and Scott Brown this year as well, went around telling us we can have all the government priorities broadly supported by Americans AND large tax cuts, which they know is just not true.

You accuse me of being asleep the last 8 years? The Republicans have done a woeful job on all counts, and obviously have not been responsive to the electorate as they got their asses handed to them big time in 06 and 08. You can point to 1 election this year of Scott Brown, but that does not change the majorities the Democrats still hold, nor does it change the fact that more Americans approve of the President than the Republican Congress.

Quote:
While no one disputes that the president is free change policies from the previous administration. How else to explain "terrorism" being rebranded as "man-made disaster" and "overseas contingency operations." The Homeland Secretary focusing on "Right-wing extremists (veterans, third party members and Pro-Life Christians) at the beginning of her term. The irresponsible declaration on the presidents 1st day that he would close Gitmo by year's end. The KSM (not thought out at all) and Underwear bomber ("system worked," " isolated extremist") fiascos.
Shit, I did not know terrorism was a natural disaster, my bad. Obama has spoken of a war on terror many, many times, contrary to what the spin machine tells its little loyal foot soldier, INDY! Homeland Security focusing on right wing extremists began before Obama got elected. It was not ideologically based, but tactic based. There were concerns about assassination comments, plans to attack government buildings, etc. Left wing extremist groups who have the potential to be violent receive the same scrutiny. You wouldn't investigate a group yelling out "terrorist" and "kill him" at the President? Of course you would. Any group, regardless of ideology, engaging in the same tactics some right wing groups have engaged in will bring scrutiny before you even know it. This has always been true.

Again, stop accusing me of being asleep for 8 years of Bush when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Bush called for closing Gitmo before Obama. So did Condi, Powell, James Jones, many retired Generals, and 2 of the most eloquent voices against torture and Gitmo, John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

KSM and underwear bomber, we have been there before INDY, but you still don't get it so lets go there again. KSM- the "fiasco" you refer to is the concerns expressed over security, etc in NYC. That was bound to happen no matter what, you are talking about a guy who planned an unprecedented terrorist attack on America. The fact of the matter is we are using the Article III Court System to try him, same with the underwear bomber. Why? Because this system has been used since 1791, and has successfully put away many terrorists, including Islamic extremists for good. Remember the 1993 WTC bombers? They were convicted in federal court, and if you want to talk to them about how good their lives are now and how much danger they can still pose to Americans, you need only obtain clearance to visit the SuperMax prison in Colorado, from which no one has ever escaped.

Note to anyone else reading: INDY still hasn't told us why his boy Bush should get a pass for trying the shoe bomber, Richard Reid in federal court! A case that is almost the same factually, I may add. There is exists no legislative or policy effort by Obama or his administration to "read Miranda rights to battlefield terrorists." The few cases that are tried in civilian courts get this, but cases like this were tried in civilian courts under Bush and every other President as we discussed. This has the broad support of the military, the FBI and the Department of Justice. Here is a little dose of reality on the issue:PolitiFact | GOP claims Obama has ordered FBI to read Miranda Rights to terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield

Quote:
Gee, hard to imagine how Americans feel a little uncomfortable with the president on this issue.
Polls have shown a majority of the public is confident on Obama being able to handle terrorism. The majority of the public supported closing Gitmo. Google a CNN poll from a couple weeks ago- 65% have confidence in Obama's ability to handle terrorism. I think you are taking the right wing opinion and substituting it for mainstream American opinion here. That's a favorite tactic of yours. Your quote should actually put the word "some" or a "minority" between "how" and "Americans."
Quote:
I've given credit and the Republicans in congress have supported the president as commander-in-chief and his actions overseas. But who is it that feels betrayed by the president actions here? The anti-war Left who don't take the (so-called) War on Terror serious and never have.
See, here you go saying that adherence to a particular policy is the only test of whether one takes the War on Terror seriously or not. I happen to agree with you, and the President and the numerous members of congress from both parties who support the Afghanistan surge. However, those who opposed the surge take the war seriously, they just see it like this: "We went in in 2001, got Al Qaeda running, since then have wiped out the vast majority of their leadership, put in place the Karzai government and turned the Taliban from gov't to disparate insurgency. The AQ leadership has gone to Pakistan, so we should focus our attention there, as well as on countries like Yemen and Somalia where AQ is getting stronger. It is not our job to nation build." I respond: "Yes, point well taken. We need to focus more on Pakistan, both militants and the government, and we have. You are right, most of AQ leadership is in Pakistan and less than 100 are in Afghanistan. However, the Taliban remains a significant threat, controlling many provinces. This group not only harbored and worked in concert with AQ in planning 9/11, they still provide them cross border support in Pakistan and cover when they venture into Afghanistan. We are not nation building, we are addressing a group that is still a significant national security threat."

See how someone can disagree with a tactic but still take the threat very seriously? The group advancing this argument is 99% of the opposition to the surge. The radical 1% who are against all wars are not a significant part of our political discourse. They are .5% leftist and .5% Ron Paul devotees.


Quote:
No, you know I didn't say that. It's a difference of philosophies. War on Terror vs a Trial on Terror. The president and anti-war Left isn't with the American people on this.
You did accuse the people who voted for Obama of not taking the war seriously. You didn't say the anti war left, you said how could Americans not have a problem with the way OBAMA has governed.

The President is with the American people on this, at least according to the American people.(See polls)

Spare me the right wing rhetoric about a war vs a trial, ok? Do I use talking points with you? Refer to the Washington Post article I linked above. See also Obama's many usages of the word "war" in his State of the Union and elsewhere. Is Obama going to dig up all the AQ leaders he has taken out with drones in Pakistan this yr and put them on trial? No. The US has always put those who live on some kind of trial, this is nothing new. Bush did the same thing, even the military commissions are trials.

It is not surprising you make these claims, since your cheerleaders like Rudy Giuliani blatantly lie and say the President never talks in terms of war.
Quote:
The War on Terror is a war unlike any other. Bush had to draw up plans of engagement against an ideology without borders or uniforms where information was more important than military artillery. Some things could have been done differently in hindsight but a) he was successful in preventing attacks b) he did everything with congressional oversight and c) there was precedent, including the 1942 Quirin case (unlawful combatants).
Terrorism has been around forever. It is a tactic, and what is different is that today's terrorism is mostly religiously motivated, so it is more dangerous. Therefore, it has been given due attention as the most serious national security threat, starting with Clinton and continuing through to Bush(though he was a post 9/11 convert) and Obama.

A.)He didn't prevent 9/11, in fact, he ignored terrorism for his first 8 months. This is well documented. Would it have prevented 9/11, who knows? But fact is, he ignored it for 8 months and the biggest attack in history happened on his watch.
B.)Ex Parte Quirin was different. I may also point out a more Conservative Supreme Court than the one that gave the election to Bush rejected it as a precedent for his tribunals. You must have missed the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan that invalidated Bush's claims regarding detention. Anyways, Quirin upheld the right of FDR to try Nazi saboteurs as unlawful combatants in a military commission. That is all. The supreme court held that this precedent was well recognized under the laws of war, including the Declaration of World War II. Key: the men were tried, they were not held indefinitely w/o charges or access to a trial or even counsel. The question in the Bush cases is not whether military trials are appropriate, they always have been, the question is, can we hold someone w.o even charging them. No, and that is well established. Habeas Corpus, Common Article III of Geneva conventions, which once ratified by the US, becomes the Supreme Law of the land.
C.)You are confusing a claim Bush made to be acting in compliance with Congress with the actual reality. He claimed that the broad Authorization for Use of military force in Afghanistan in 2001 gave him these far reaching, unconstitutional powers. However, the Supreme Court rebuffed him on that, and pointed out that when there exists a broad general statute(AUMF Afghanistan) and numerous specific statutes- you know, like the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, Geneva Conventions-that the specific statutes win out. Bush's AUMF did not invalidate all other good Constitutional law on the subject of war. For more, scroll down to the report from the American Bar Association: Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
As opposed to the "millions of good, hardworking, patriotic Americans" ridiculed as racist, ignorant Teabaggers.
Sure, alot of them are good, hardworking Americans. They are a fringe. We are not talking about a joke fringe group. We are talking mainstream, professional Americans maligned and attacked as insufficiently patriotic because they questioned Republicans. You implied that all Americans should have a problem with Obama and that all who voted for him somehow lack a commitment to the War On Terror. No one is questioning the patriotism of the teabaggers like the way the right constantly maligns patriots like Jack Murtha, Max Cleeland and John Kerry. No one on the left is calling all the Republicans America haters, nor is there a Democratic congress person calling for investigations into who is anti-American. There is no left wing Sarah Palin calling Republicans terrorists, not even close. How about Democratic elected officials and Convention delegates claiming Bob Dole or John McCain self inflicted war wounds, lied about their records and were traitors to their country? Where is the Democratic Rush backing up the Democratic Jean Schmidt calling Jack Murtha a coward on the floor of the House? Where has a Democratic White House outed a CIA agent whose spouse dared to tell the truth? What left wing lapdogs have defended such action on TV and talk radio? Where is all that, INDY? I have looked and looked and can not find it. CAN ANYONE HELP HIM HERE? All the left has done is point out that some of these people are racist, and used their outlandish statements re:Obama's birth certificate, Nazis and socialism to speak for themselves regarding ignorance. The racism thing is a fact, not a ridicule. The element that came out of the birthers is a racist element, no doubt.

Much, much different than what you suggested about 67 million Americans' and our President's commitment to protecting this country.
Quote:
Surely you jest. Though I'll give you a pass as you were born in 1987. The hatred for Richard Nixon goes back to when he was vice president. Reagan was vilified in Europe (listen to a Bono "Ronald Raygun" speech) because of arms race and here because he dared to slow the growth of government. Same with Gingrich. Despised by the political Left and accused of hating the poor and children.
But where were you for BusHitler's 8 years? Fahrenheit 911, Cindy Sheehan, Buck Fush stickers, "Bush Doesn't Care About Black People," etc?
Surely I do not jest. I don't need a pass from you for being younger, my historical knowledge is just fine. I never denied that personal hatred was a part of Nixon's detractors(though alot of it was response to his baseless Communist accusations or his terming of opponents as "enemies"), nor did I say anything about public opinion of Reagan in Europe or as expressed by Bono on the Joshua Tree stage or the Rattle and Hum DVD. Reagan never "dared to slow the growth in government," he expanded it. Gingrich was despised by the left, certainly, he may not have hated the poor and children, but its pretty clear what Clinton stopped him from doing to Medicare, Medicaid, Education, etc. I don't pretend to know what his motivations were.

Cindy Sheehan, Kanye West, anti Bush bumper stickers, personal animosity from all of them. Very true. Glad you have 2 eyes and 2 ears. You are missing the point. Political opponents are not going to particularly like the other guy, and some, like Sheehan will be vocal and controversial. They are not part of a coordinated talk radio-TV pundit-Congressional nexus bent on personal destruction like the one that has been put in place against the last 2 Democratic Presidents. This is what I was referring to when speaking of the unprecedented decline in truth and civility in politics.

What I said, and made very clear, was how leaders are treated by their opponents in government. You did not see character assassinations our outright lies repeated over and over by Democrats bent on destroying Nixon or Reagan as soon as they entered office. Nixon was investigated vigorously for his various dirty tricks and Watergate, as was Reagan for Iran Contra, but they broke the law. By in large, Democrats worked with Nixon and Reagan on issues and were civil. You did not have a left wing talk radio/news network movement constantly shilling for lies that started with members of Congress. The talk radio movement got big in the mid 1980s, and when Clinton was elected, the right wing of CONGRESS launched a coordinated effort with them to take him down personally and do whatever lying they had to do to achieve this. Hence the claim repeated over and over again in many circles about 1993 tax increase, scumbag piece of shit Dan Burton's constant wasting of taxpayer money to investigate right wing conspiracy theories about Clinton, Ken Starr wasting taxpayer to investigate Clinton's dick, et cetera. This got worse with Republican CONGRESSPEOPLE, IN CONCERT WITH TALK RADIO AND MEDIA claiming everything from socialism to stealth terrorist to un American to non citizen with respect to Obama. There is no parallel movement on the left. No Democrat tried to take either Bush, Reagan or Nixon down personally like Republicans have with Clinton and Obama. No NH phone jamming scandal on the Democratic side either.

Tell me what massive, coordinated left wing machine made up lies about Nixon and Reagan that were constantly repeated and believed by members of Congress and a majority of registered Democrats? None. How about Democratic members of Congress who have called Boehner a Nazi or Bobby Jindal a stealth terrorist without a birth certificate? What Democrat has accused McConnell of setting out to destroy America? That is why Reagan would not recognize this era. He knew he had people who disagreed with him, but he would never question their loyalty to America nor personal character nor would he consistently lie about their policies. He would stretch the truth and distort, but what politician does not? Reagan would argue with you and then go for a beer afterward. Same with Ted Kennedy and Richard Nixon, despite the fact that Nixon had an "enemies list" that included Kennedy.
Quote:
And you think Abraham Lincoln was as uniformly loved in 1864 as he is now?
LISTEN CAREFULLY. I never said anything about anyone being universally loved. There is, as I just pointed out, a difference between opposition to policies or a presidency and the vast smear campaign, lie campaign and character assassination campaign that has been employed against the last 2 Democratic Presidents. No intellectually honest person can deny this campaign.

I am well aware that Lincoln was not universally loved. Shit, we wouldn't have j had a secession and the one of the bloodiest civil wars ever if he had been. John Wilkes Booth certainly didn't like him. Nor did southerners, nor did business people and other societal elites not particularly fond of his disruption of the status quo economic and social system.

Don't talk to me like I am some kind of idiot who does not know history and is just a young, naive hack. Ok? It is clearly you that twisted "coordinated campaign of character assassination and lies" into "non uniform" agreement with a particular President's policies.

You looking up my birthday and pointing out my young age is not going to substitute for the facts, nor will it change your twisting of what I am saying.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 06:42 PM   #307
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
They are not part of a coordinated talk radio-TV pundit-Congressional nexus bent on personal destruction like the one that has been put in place against the last 2 Democratic Presidents.
I have to respond to this but the rest will have to wait.

The 24/7 media/internet culture has only existed since the Clinton years.

So of course everything has amped up. But don't think for a minute that political parties and special interests haven't used everything available to them AT THE TIME. Newspapers were often very partisan (often having in their name Republican or Democrat) and would skew politicians, unions or companies not in their good graces through stories or editorials.

Short interview with the author of Anything for a Vote, Joseph Cummins. Some good examples of dirty tricks, mudslinging and political smears. It's very interesting.

The Complete History of Dirty Politics: A Q&A on Anything for a Vote - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 06:54 PM   #308
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Tell that to the troops.
Most soldiers that I talk to already know this... They knew it from day one.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 06:56 PM   #309
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Oh do try and keep up.

I was rebutting u2387's claim that, "You will not find the kind of mean spirited, personal attacks on character, turn everything into a culture war, relentless and blatant lying by Republicans until Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich came on the scene." Lincoln did not do the things you mention but think again if you believe he wasn't despised, scorned and hated (not to mention assassinated) by those with opposing agendas or opinions.

A good knowledge of American history tells us that, as ugly and polarized as the country has appeared the past 10 years... it is hardly a new phenomena.
You did not rebut it at all. You twisted it into something that was easy to rebut and then had a go at it. I never said there was no polarization before, in fact, I explicitly acknowledged it. I never said there was no personal animosity in American politics before this. You wouldn't have had the Burr-Hamilton duel or the Sumner beating or Joe McCarthy before.

I was referring to the Congress-Talk radio-TV pundit nexus of distortion, repetition of outright lies and character assassinations that is indeed an unprecedented feature of our politics employed against the last 2 Democratic Presidents.

So now, Indy, maybe you can address what Irvine said as opposed to hiding behind another one of your fake rebuttals.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 07:01 PM   #310
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:37 AM
i'm a sideshow to this debate, so please don't waste time on me. i won't interrupt.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 07:08 PM   #311
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
I have to respond to this but the rest will have to wait.


Don't bother with the rest, you're not capable of responding to that.

Quote:
The 24/7 media/internet culture has only existed since the Clinton years.
Not what I was talking about.
Quote:
So of course everything has amped up. But don't think for a minute that political parties and special interests haven't used everything available to them AT THE TIME. Newspapers were often very partisan (often having in their name Republican or Democrat) and would skew politicians, unions or companies not in their good graces through stories or editorials.
Of course they have used everything available to them. All mediums. Newspapers were much more partisan throughout history than they are today, all were owned by someone with an explicit agenda. I would, however, like to see a study done of the number that were merely biased and selective in who they criticized vs the number engaged in the kind of birther type non sense of Limbaugh and Beck. There is, you realize, an enormous difference, right? It would be: "Labor unions are harmful to our businesses and will become too powerful," versus "Labor Unions are Communist plots to destroy America, anyone who joins one is a Communist, anti American, not to be trusted SOB!"

None of this was disputed by me, so more irrelevant stuff from INDY.

Quote:
Short interview with the author of Anything for a Vote, Joseph Cummins. Some good examples of dirty tricks, mudslinging and political smears. It's very interesting.
The Complete History of Dirty Politics: A Q&A on Anything for a Vote - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com[/QUOTE]

Very interesting indeed. I never said dirty politics was new.

What you need to do is show me the precedent(in the mediums previously used) for a coordinated nexus of talk radio-tv pundits and MEMBERS OF CONGRESS to engage in the kind of outright lies and character assassinations that have been employed against Presidents Clinton and Obama. Members of Congress were always the missing piece. No matter the medium used. They had their biases, but left the outrageous stuff to the press for the most part. There were of course dirty campaigns, dirty tactics, etc, they are as old as human history. But a general coordinated effort by government officials of a political party with extremist talk radio(or previous medium equivalents thereof) and media pundits against every prominent member of the other political party most certainly did not exist before Clinton.

TV and Radio are not new mediums in American politics, both have been around more than 50 years. Pundits are not new. 24 hours is new, but what is on between midnight and 5? Infomercials? Book club meetings? Porn? Not high charged political discourse. Either way, the 24 hour TV network was employed against Clinton via Fox, after talk radio had already been massively successful. So my advice would be to not shoot holes in your own theory by saying things naturally got "amped" up only with the rise of 24 hour cable

Not new mediums, new ways of employing these mediums by the right.

If this is how the rest of your response is going to go, then it will certainly be a strong contender for the "Indy's greatest hits" list.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 10:36 AM   #312
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
People like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab weren't mentioned in the SOTU because it's damaging to the administration.

The Christmas Day bomber was Mirandized by Holder/Obama after less than an hour of questioning. Why?


precedent?

Quote:
Shoe bomber was read Miranda rights
By: Mike Allen
February 2, 2010 02:40 PM EST

Republicans may have a hard time keeping up their talking point about how reading Miranda rights to the Christmas Day bomber represented a dangerous new direction under President Barack Obama.

It turns out that that back in December 2001, Richard Reid — the “shoe bomber” — was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days, beginning five minutes after being taken into custody.

Furthermore, the Bush administration specifically rejected the idea of a military tribunal — another step that Republicans have argued should have been taken in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day and was read his rights after 50 minutes of FBI questioning.

After Reid attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight out of Paris, Massachusetts State Police officers boarded the plane at 12:55 p.m. on Dec. 22, 2001, handcuffed Reid and removed him from the plane, according to U.S. District Court records.

“At around 1:00 p.m., one of the officers (it is unclear who) read Reid Miranda warnings,” according to a court order in Reid’s case. “The officers then placed Reid inside a police cruiser. … At some point while in the cruiser, Trooper Santiago … asked Reid ‘What happened on the plane?,’ which Reid answered by stating that nothing happened on the plane. … Reid then asked Trooper Santiago, ‘Where are the reporters?’”

“At 2:15 p.m., he was again read his Miranda warnings,” the chronology continues. “Before any interrogation of Reid commenced, he rested in his cell and was given water. … Federal investigators began interrogating Reid at around 5:07 p.m. … At that time, the agents again informed Reid of his Miranda protections, which he said he understood. …

“The following day, December 23, 2001, agents Davis and Choldin resumed questioning Reid at the Plymouth Facility at around 5:10 p.m. They reminded him of his Miranda safeguards, which he said he understood. He also signed a form acknowledging that he understood his rights and agreed to be questioned.”

The next month, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Reid for attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, attempted homicide, placing an explosive device on an aircraft, attempted murder, interference with flight crew members and attendants, attempted destruction of an aircraft, using a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence and attempted wrecking of a mass transportation vehicle.

Later that year, Reid pleaded guilty to all charges, and was sentenced to life in prison on Jan. 30, 2003.

During a Jan. 16, 2002, news conference announcing charges against Reid, Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked whether he “consider[ed] using a military tribunal in prosecuting [Reid].” Ashcroft replied: “I think people were alert, and that created a factual basis for the kind of court case that we've alleged. I did confer with the Department of Justice — pardon me, with the Department of Defense and with their general counsel — and they had no objection to our proceeding in this matter.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said some of the Bush administration actions in the case were a mistake. At a Capitol stakeout on Tuesday, McConnell said: "Regardless of what may have happened in the past, and we have had some terrorists tried in U.S. courts, we've learned from that. It's a mistake. Since then, we set up military commissions. There are courtrooms, state-of-the-art courtrooms at Guantanamo. That's where the terrorists have been kept. It's clear that we ought to detain foreign terrorists at Guantanamo and try them at Guantanamo in military commission courtrooms. That is the sensible way to deal with this aspect of the war on terror. And most of my members think that that's the way we ought to go."

Shoe bomber was read Miranda rights - POLITICO.com Print View
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 01:35 PM   #313
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
It turns out that that back in December 2001, Richard Reid — the “shoe bomber” — was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days, beginning five minutes after being taken into custody.
3 months after 9/11. Still kinda working out things out. The No Fly list had just been created, Homeland Security was still months away for example. But if you're arguing for consistency then I would agree.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 01:55 PM   #314
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:37 AM
So all those new definitions and laws that you always argue against haven't been made at that point...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 05:04 PM   #315
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
3 months after 9/11. Still kinda working out things out. The No Fly list had just been created, Homeland Security was still months away for example. But if you're arguing for consistency then I would agree.
This makes no sense.

3 months after 9/11? When you could go down to lower Manhattan and still smell jet fuel? That's exactly the time you would think that people truly outraged about "making accommodations" for terrorists would be screaming the loudest.

What does Homeland Security have to do with this? They have nothing to do with the DOJ and interrogations.

You trying to rationalize this makes my point perfectly: the people who are using this as an issue against Obama are not doing it out of some kind of principle or some kind of knowledge of the issue at hand, they are merely following along with the extreme right who will try and use anything against the President.

I don't know how you can't see that when for our entire history(with a 100% conviction rate, I may add), we have non controversially used the Article III court system to prosecute terrorists. Limbaugh, Hannity, et al were all alive and well in 2001, and we never heard a word from them. Lamar Alexander was a US Senator with more influence than he has now and there was no call for Ashcroft to step down then. These people are jokes and hacks, nothing more, nothing less.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MERGED ----> James Brown hospitalized + R.I.P. James Brown.... + James Brown Dead... europop2005 Lemonade Stand Archive 66 01-02-2007 03:23 PM
Nets fired Byron Scott after 2 straight Eastern Conference Titles Headache in a Suitcase Lemonade Stand Archive 6 01-27-2004 10:10 AM
Adam's Camouflage Pants... Lemonite PLEBA Archive 52 01-14-2002 12:41 AM
Who was at Oakland 2?- share the ASOH story!!! cainz Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 2 11-17-2001 08:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com