It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The slip of the tongue by obama

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 





I find none of this as disturbing as the fact we have people pretending to be Americans who support Terrorists, Terrorism and don't give a damn about their victims.


You find the support of a just legal system to be unamerican? Who is supporting terrorists here, this thread is about the fact that this is a show trial.

If he is so obviously guilty I ask you why a trial? Just take him out back and shot him and be done with it. Is the fear here that he might actually be found innocent and maybe is not guilty of the crime for which he is held?

You shan't have to worry about that, the president said he will be found guilty and put to death. The attorney general agrees.

My problem is with the whole charade here. This isn't about finding the truth.




Our courts are set up to let guilty people go free to make sure the innocent don't suffer.


Our courts were set up to afford everyone a proper chance to challenge the crimes against them. That means allowing them a chance to refute the evidence against, to face their accusers, and to present arguments for their case. I'm sorry you can't see why this is a good thing.




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I am no American, but I am really astonished, how many Americans live their patriotism. You wrap yourself in the Stars and Stripes banner, swear the Pledge of Allegiance and snub at every American who does otherwise. You cry foul, when you spot someone not wearing a flag lapel pin, made in China.

But yet you seem to have forgotten the core values behind the oath and your constitution. Here a little refresher (emphasize mine):

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

en.wikipedia.org...

Republicanism is the value system of governance that has been a major part of American civic thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and is strongly inclined against corruption. American republicanism was founded and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. ...It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. In a government made up as a constitutional republic, the Rule of Law and clearly defined constitutional principles dictate the actual administration of government.


If you violate justice, liberty or inalienable rights from one person, you violate justice, liberty, and inalienable rights from everyone.

Even, if 9/11 was no inside-job and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the true and only mastermind behind it. Even, if he had no US or foreign secret service backing, he must get a fair trial and due process.

I remember watching US TV and hearing this mind-boggling nonsense: “They hate us for our freedoms!!!” How could anyone fall for this absurdity?

If KSM gets no fair trial, it is clear, who hates his own freedom - granted by the US-constitution. It is clear, who is willing to surrender it - for perceived safety. It is clear, who helped the terrorists win.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 


I don't think most of us wearing our stars and stripes jammies are against KSM getting a trial. We are just saying he should be tried in a military court since he was captured as an enemy in war. Did the US or the UK try the Germans and the Japanese in US or UK civil court? Nope!



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


No they were tried in nuremberg.




Chief Justice of the United States Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "(Chief US prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."[


Interesting huh?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yeah I saw this today.

I was also watching MSNBC and they were saying that if he wasn't convicted, they would simply arrest him outside the court room for "other" terrorists charges that he was involved in.

There is no hope for this man, guilty or not, he will die by the hands of America.

~Keeper


You know, a scene just popped into my head not unlike Jack Ruby killing Oswald as he was escorted by police. Do you think the government will find a patsy already dying of cancer to off this guy if a mistrial happens or if he gets off?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Ah silly me. I thought he was captured by Pakistani police in the house of a friend.

But I guess, when a nation declares the "War on terror", everyone can be captured everywhere. The legal status can be decided later: Illegal combatant, prisoner of war, war criminal - just pick the suitable legal status, or simply create a new terminology.

If KSM is a prisoner of war, why weren't the Geneva Conventions applied? I think, it is far easier to use classified evidence in a secret court. Should the evidence fail to convince a kangaroo court - no problem - just keep the suspect forever in preventive detention.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
But I guess, when a nation declares the "War on terror", everyone can be captured everywhere. The legal status can be decided later: Illegal combatant, prisoner of war, war criminal - just pick the suitable legal status, or simply create a new terminology.


No, my friend, it was KSM, and the other terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks, who declared "War". We (the U.S.) simply accepted their declaration, and gave it a title.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
I believe this is something that went by with little notice.
Concerning this.



Asked if he understood why some people were offended by trying the men in U.S. courts, he replied: "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."


I felt the need to point this slip out. It seems the scripted reality show and new trial of the century is upon us.


Good catch Seiko!

The key to this statement is that President Obama would now not be directly connected to those death sentences. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this but if this was a military trial and these men were convicted I think the president would have to sign off on the death sentences. If that's true could you imagine how President Obama would then be viewed by the Islamic world? And that would likely be his main motivation for moving this to civil court. Not that it would best serve justice but that it would best serve his image.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
If you believe the 9/11 official story, then this isn't even a surprise.

He's one of the men behind the attacks that slaughtered over 2000 innocent people. It's obvious he'd be put to death and it's a shock he wasn't executed sooner

(I'm not an Obama supporter nor a supporter of capital punishment)



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
let's be honest, even if it wasn't predetermined, how man of you honestly wouldnt expect him to be found gulty?
I'd f said the same thing obama said, predetermined or not.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Ah the whole thing is a puzzle. I think a ''show trial'' will only serve to get the enemy all worked up. Maybe that is the point. Create a conflict?

When the verdict is read, will the sleeper cells break out in synchronized mayhem to avenge their soldier/savior buddies?

How anybody can not like a country that serves biscuits and hashbrowns is beyond me. All terrorism seems to be goofy. None of them ever have a good reason.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gren
let's be honest, even if it wasn't predetermined, how man of you honestly wouldnt expect him to be found gulty?
I'd f said the same thing obama said, predetermined or not.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume, that KSM wil be found guilty. But, Obama is not only the POTUS, he is also a constitutional lawyer. He should have know, that such a statement may be used by the defence to demand a mistrial. Likewise it can influence the jury's reaction.

Nixon made the same mistake before Charles Mansons trial.
news.yahoo.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by Seiko
I believe this is something that went by with little notice.
Concerning this.



Asked if he understood why some people were offended by trying the men in U.S. courts, he replied: "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."


I felt the need to point this slip out. It seems the scripted reality show and new trial of the century is upon us.


Good catch Seiko!

The key to this statement is that President Obama would now not be directly connected to those death sentences. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this but if this was a military trial and these men were convicted I think the president would have to sign off on the death sentences. If that's true could you imagine how President Obama would then be viewed by the Islamic world? And that would likely be his main motivation for moving this to civil court. Not that it would best serve justice but that it would best serve his image.


Whoa. That's a good analysis. This is weird that the slip up shows fully the intention to serve up the death penalty, he knows it, and he side steps it. Oddly it could show a two-faced nature in that he is keenly aware of the situation and seeking to console the religious while the country he runs goes right on killing. Holy smokes, this is hot!



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


I had to star this reply. This is what this site is about. The potus has slipped something here, and you also caught part of it.

Yes the president has to approve of a military execution. Link.




The president's involvement also sets military death-penalty cases apart. The president can commute any federal death sentence, civilian or military but must personally approve each military execution and sign an order to carry it out. "That's a political act," Silliman said. "The president of the United States personally approving a death penalty is a political act." When President Bush signed Ronald Gray's execution order in July 2008, it was the first time a president had done so in 51 years. In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower approved the execution of John Bennett, an Army private convicted of raping and attempting to kill an 11-year-old Austrian girl. Bennett was hanged in 1961.


May I return the compliment, good catch, and good critical thinking skills.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by HotSauce
 





I don't really care if he is brainwashed or not, I just want to see him brought to justice. I think we should wrap him in a pig carcass and broadcast his execution to the world just to send them a message.


Can you kindly wait till the show trial is over to call for the public execution?

I always suspect distraction, but this is bloodlust. The story is not so much that they will be tried, but that they are already guilty. They are not going to walk free, and they've slipped this here. They didn't mention overwhelming evidence, just that the trial will not contain any contrary outcomes to the guilty verdict.

This should alarm you.


I think the reason the Pres is so confident is that he has seen more evidence than is available to us.
They should save the money and just blow the guys head off in Cuba. What is the difference?


CX

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by CX
 


Thank you for that.

For the comment by Obama.



And thank you for that.


I can understand "sort of" how this could have been just a slip of the tounge but not in a "he's already guilty" way.

I know it's a totaly different scenario but last week there were some kids playing in the road outside, tiny kids who IMO should have been under closer supervision.

I said to a friend, "Look at those kids, i wonder where the parents are, that's pretty dangerous". My friend said something like, "Ah they are only playing, it's harmless enough". I then said "It won't be harmless enough when i come round the corner in a car and hit them because they are playing in the road in the dark".

Now of course i didn't mean i was going to run the kids over, just that it was a very dangerous scenario i could see hapening, whether it was me or another driver.

It is so hard not to be blinkered into jumping down the throats of the PTB nowadays, especially on this site. I think Obama could break wind and people would call for him to be tried as a terrorist who had just released a deadly bio-agent.


Then again, he could have made his mind up already.

CX.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Seiko
 


i got the feeling that he was just trying to seem like a strong leader in the sense of "we're gonna kill this no good so-and-so because he's attacked our country." then i think when he corrected himself i don't think it was him covering any "slip of information" or anything but more of him thinking he may have overstated something and come off as too blood thirsty.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


~Keeper


You know, a scene just popped into my head not unlike Jack Ruby killing Oswald as he was escorted by police. Do you think the government will find a patsy already dying of cancer to off this guy if a mistrial happens or if he gets off?


most excellent, i had the same thought.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by x2Strongx
Yeah... I read this today... and I thought to myself... Isn't it: "Innocent until proven Guilty".


That's how it used to be. Today, it is "Guilty until proven Innocent" in cases that involve actions or beliefs in any way harmful to the political establishment.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


KSM is not someone who is a nuisance nor a common criminal. The fact is that this should not be in a Federal Court and should not be held blocks from the crime scene. I am not advocating a dictatorship but what is occuring is that we will be unveiling many of the ways that we collect information in the war against terrorism. this is why after the MOussaui trial so many documents were released about 9/11 because they became public knowledge after the trial.

Why would our president want to provide Islamic Fundamentalist terror groups this information unless he truly is not the person he states he is and maybe his teachings of his youth are finally coming into play.

I believe in a far trial in ANY situation but this is not the way to do it and I am not the only person to feel this way.




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join