Is it OK for you to explain what he really means, then, when his actual words don't support your argument? I refer to your claim that "tainted" means "tainted by torture".

-- leftistgadfly

Yeah. Bless your heart. I was wondering about that, too.

Perhaps you can tell me what you mean think the the phrase "tainted evidence" means.

Now..... get a fucking life.

Holly!

We hear everyday about "Islamofascists" and the "hateful" Muslims

Indeed we do, from people just like you who happen to be on the other side. How can you bitch about them if it's ok for you to do what you do?

You're their best friend they have.

Whenever one of our esteemed commentors uses the term "islamofascist," I am compelled to dismiss the writer as an idiot, a propagandist for AIPAC, or Norman Podheretz... or all of the above.

He should have an air-horn blasted beside his ear every time he engages in the kind of weasel-wording he does here.

-- Iokannan in the Well

______________________________

It's such a satisfying image!

"We hear everyday about "Islamofascists" and the "hateful" Muslims

Indeed we do, from people just like you who happen to be on the other side. How can you bitch about them if it's ok for you to do what you do?

You're their best friend they have."

Gee...let me think.....

Maybe because when I do it I am not starting wars based on lies?

Maybe becuase I am pointing out the core beliefs of the Jewish State, which the United States supports with money and arms, that support being detrimental to our national security?

Maybe because if more people understood the roots of Jewish Supremacism, they wouldn't be "okay" with so much influence from AIPAC going to our government; they would be better able to understand why the Palestinians are suffering, and how they are suffering, and how much we are lied to about them not suffering; they would understand why everyione in the Middle East seems to hate Israel "for no apparent reason at all"; they would not be comfortable with a core group of policymakers nicknamed the "Likud" working out of our own Pentagon. Just maybe, huh?

Maybe our lives and our family's lives would not be in danger if we did not support such racist bastards?

Maybe 9/11 might not have happened if we did not support such racist bastards? (see the 9/11 Comission Report - one of two main reasons for the attack was our support for Israel).

This is why GGs questions appear. This is why our Middle Eastern policies are so ass-backwards, stupid, inhumane, and don't make any fucking sense. They make perfect sense when you realize who is calling the shots, and why.

Who: Israel. Why: Supremacist beliefs.

End of fucking story.

Get it?

The Constitution is actually fairly clear about holding people for criminal prosecution. Without probable cause to arrest, indictment by a grand jury, and access to counsel, the government simply cannot hold them. The only exceptions are in a military theater, where enemy forces can be held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, the Code of Military Justice, etc.

Because everyone now admits that the "live battle" exception is inapplicable at this point (if it ever was), the inmates need to be released unless there is probable cause, grand jury indictment, etc. (which there isn't). And, of course, their "speedy trial clocks" have already tolled. Release them.

-- Roger Roots

Sixty-four years ago today, Helmuth von Moltke was sentenced to death by the Nazi Volksgericht for his opposition to the Nazi regime. Moltke argued for the scrupulous application of the Geneva and Hague conventions and his interventions saved the lives of thousands, even as they ultimately cost him his own life.

Moltke is a moral example for our time. In the papers found after his death was a stirring argument for war crimes prosecutions of political leaders who contemptuously disrespected the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. In Moltke’s view, lawyers have special responsibilities to uphold the protections found in the Geneva Conventions and face special accountability for failings. Moltke’s views on this subject are widely shared by prosecutors today, which is why David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Jim Haynes and John Yoo face the strongest likelihood of being prosecuted. Read more on this in my presentation to the American Society of International Law’s conference marking the anniversary of the Nuremberg Tribunals, “When Lawyers Are War Criminals**.” - Scott Horton

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004159

** http://www.nimj.org/documents/Horton-When_Lawyers_Are_War_Criminals.pdf

Back in March of 2008, CIA Director Michael Hayden along with Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush all echoed the same belief over the NIE assessments that Iran was still pursuing a nuclear weapon.

The American public should take very seriously when the Obama administration utters the same false assertions as it shows a paradigm of thinking about our enemies.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/31/world/fg-hayden31

This same thinking if I recall correctly was used to start the Iraq war. Beat the Drums and they will fall into line. That has been the false cry of the Bush administration.

I've thought most of the people here were just mindless Greenwald sycophants. I now realize that Kitt, Arne, cocktailhag and others are all probably just Greenwald himself engaging in his notorious sockpuppetry.

http://patterico.com/2006/07/27/annotated-wuzzadem-the-facts-behind-the-greenwald-sock-puppetry/

After all, not that many people could be so stupid.

you must not have much of an argument.

This coming from the guy whose argument is based literally on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Dude, you are made of 100% pure win.

Perhaps you can tell me what you mean think the the phrase "tainted evidence" means.

I posted this one yesterday in a dead thread so I figgered it was time to resurect it for this one.

< rant > I don't believe anyone is worried about the recidivism rate of these 270 people. They can't be. Hell, we're complicit in making probably double that number right now in Gaza and we've made scores more in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There are probably a few widowers running around Palistan also. No, that those 270 might return to terror, if they ever were there, isn't the problem. The problem is by doing what we did, we became no better than the worst of them. < /rant >

Anyway, why not try these people in regular US courts with the evidence at hand? If the evidence is tainted, the judge will consider that and if it's proven tainted, he'll toss it. If there is evidence of crimes which isn't tainted, then let the jury(s) decide guilt or innocence and the appropriate sentencing can take place.

There's a funny thing about daylight. Daylight makes flowers grow, roosters crow, and it also lets people see things much clearer than when they're in the dark.

Another funny thing is that our court system is open. What goes on in a criminal courtroom is open to public scrutiny. If agents of our government committed crimes during the apprehension or incarceration of these people, the public will become aware of it and, just in case some are actually found innocent because the evidence was tainted by illegalities in its collection, the public will also know who is responsible for those illegalities.

Obama's choice in this should not be a difficult one. He's going to take an oath in a few days and that oath says "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Defending the Constitution of the United States includes seeing that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. If he doesn't see that the law is faithfully executed, he's no better than Bush, literally.

Let the trials begin and let them begin soon. If we have to release a few that will come back to do us harm, it's certainly not worse than what we're creating in Gaza, and because the trials were open for public viewing, people will know where the blame lays.