Must See Video : Lindsey Graham - Eric Holder !, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times


reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 11:03 AM by jam321
reply to post by sos37


Isn't this really just so Obama's lawyers can go through the diatribe about how terrible torture and waterboarding is and how badly these guys were treated?


That's a real possibility.

Hope it doesn't come down to that.



reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 11:05 AM by Eurisko2012
reply to post by HotSauce


One of the reasons i put the link to the Youtube Video is so
ATS members could view the video AND read the comments
under the video. The Youtube members are outraged over this Bin Laden senario . I like how you and i have both versions.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by Eurisko2012]


reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 11:17 AM by SphinxMontreal
"You've hit the nail on the head! Don't believe, for a second, that this has anything to do with the perception the administration is painting. Their whole plan is, and has always been, to bring out the TORTURE."

If what you say is true, then how do you explain this?

Obama Shifts on Abuse Photos

www.washingtonpost.com...

If Obama wanted to "bring out the TORTURE", wouldn't he have released the torture photos, instead of seeking to block the court order to release them? Your conclusion and Obama's actions are completely contradictory.


I agree with jibeho - they are trying to set a very dangerous precedent here where anyone can be tortured, have their Constitutional rights violated and be convicted. Heck, look at all the people who have already strung up KSM without even a trial. What is most disturbing, is these same people do not even realize what they are supporting is a complete erosion of their own Constitutional rights.

Chronological Progression of the American Judicial System:

1. Innocent until Proven Guilty
2. Guilty until Proven Innocent
3. Tortured and Guilty until Proven Guilty
and the final step...
4. Tortured and Guilty with no Proof Required

And all this over a highly suspect occurrence.


reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 11:51 AM by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Chance321


Bill O'Reilly calls it.




[edit on 19-11-2009 by Eurisko2012]



reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 12:29 PM by nunya13
reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I'm thinking I agree with you. I was trying to figure out why they would do it in a civil court. I am of the mind that the gov't, whether ran by pubs or dems, has one underlying agenda and that is one of complete control over the general populace in order to continue waging their false wars (even pseudo wars) for monetary gain and power.

The way you have explained it fits in perfectly with this. A lot of people think Obama is soft on this war and on terrorists. He's only making it look that way so he can dupe those that follow him blindly. He is VERY VERY VERY good at this. As you said, this may very well be a ploy in order to make admissible any kind of information gained under duress.

On another note, many people are saying they are worried he'll be set free. I don't understand this considering, just as you said, Sphinx, in America it's supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. We're walking on thin ice here with this issue. It's scary for me to here all these people say he should just be given a military tribunal so that his conviction will be ensured, without even a THOUGHT that he might be innocent. I don't know if he is or not, I don't really know much about this guy at all. I do know that whether it be a tribunal or a civil case, the evidence and testimony should be viewed and weighed objectively.

Sounds like people want him to be given a military tribunal because they don't care if he's innocent or guilty. They only care that he's been labeled a terrorist and therefore, that means he's guilty no matter what the facts.

The Declaration of Independence states:



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


It says ALL men (humans). It doesn't say only Americans.

It says "they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable rights...among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It doesn't say "unless you are an enemy combatant.

George Washington was angered when he found out his men were torturing British (and other) Prisoners.


“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775



reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 12:38 PM by Hemisphere
reply to post by Eurisko2012


What we should keep in mind is that the administration is setting up Holder to be the fall guy. Holder was an unpopular Obama appointee on both sides of the aisle. We need to question why this and why now? The timing of this with so many other national debates and distractions makes successful opposition unlikely. I doubt Graham’s resolve on this. This was a theatrical tongue lashing, if you don’t believe me just watch where this goes. You have to pick your battles when so many are raging and Rahm Emmanuel knows this and is orchestrating this.

Holder has publicly stated that these men will both get a fair trial as well as be convicted of the crimes. How can he make such statements? The truth is as Attorney General he should not. He has already tainted any court decision. That is the plan here. Someone will get off and Holder will be blamed. He does not care, that is his assignment, that is why he was appointed months back despite objections. He will sacrifice himself for the administration’s agenda. Much like a Jihadist fighting for the cause of Allah. He will get a hand slap in the end and be sent into early retirement having served his purpose by subverting the justice system, creating more divisive turmoil and making the country less safe. In Holder’s mind his reward will be watching the end of the game from some tropical get away and expecting the socialists to win out and restore his name in history. My guess is he will be unceremoniously done away with like a number of well-worn insiders in the Clinton administration he was a part of. You would think he would have learned something back then.

Holder is setting the country up for this bald-faced socialist administration to come to the rescue. And like the Bush administration they will be rescuing us from the harm they have inflicted.

This is just my opinion; we will see very soon how this all plays out.


reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 12:49 PM by GovtFlu
Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Eurisko2012


Thanks for sharing that video. Everyone should take time to watch this whatever your political leanings are or what country you are from. Lindsey Graham makes some great points.

Graham does a great job of stating the very negative implications of the AG trying to try terrorists/enemy combatants in particular in civil court. It just opens up the possibility that much will be thrown out of court since these people didn't receive Miranda rights before being interrogated.

((snip))


[edit on 18-11-2009 by HotSauce]


If there is no evidence, or it's tainted, the suspect can't be charged and should be set free. Period.

These suspects are only guilty of allegations made by a govt that chronically lies. If the .gov is alleging the crime of murder that occurred in New York, just like any other suspect... the trial takes place in the relevant jurisdiction. I am not surprised those two fools couldn't figure that out.

Graham stated "America would be less safe" by giving suspects rights?..lol, sure thing neo-clown puppet, care to elaborate on that ridiculous talking point propaganda? Also hilarious, Holder has no clue what to do with Osama Bin Laden? after all these years there is no plan to deal with the capture of the evil doer boogie man himself?.. laughable.

There are few an old American virtues that fascist should examine: "innocent until proven guilty" and the concept of a fair due process... which includes the right against self incrimination.

Well unless Graham has his way, then suspects will have the right to be tortured until they self incriminate.

The US is supposed to be a nation of laws and rules that are not supposed to be changed to suit a few men or spiced up to the more palatable political flavor of the week... if the .gov ruined, lost or has no evidence, the .gov loses and the suspects should be set free... that is how .gov incompetence is dealt with no matter what the alleged crime.

I personally can't wait for 9/11 trials to take place, aggressive defense lawyers will have subpoena powers to dig into all that nasty 9/11 cheese, and will get lots of juicy info via discovery. The 1st 2 people I'd subpoena and grill under oath in deposition would be regular dumb & dumber citizens: bush & cheney.


reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 01:11 PM by ufoptics
reply to post by GovtFlu


What will that get us....they will just lie a bigger lie......what absolutely freaks me out is the way they are just hoe-hum talking about this. Don't they understand the most simple concepts of the law? I am just a layman & I do....sorry days for us, because the people are taking this BS hook, line and sinker.
The Hype is, get the evil doers. And as Bush used to declare "We will hunt them down and KILL them"......so very christian of good ole W. They declared war on the US, the US declared war on them, therefore it is an act of war.....Military Tribune/Court, Period. Military Courts are fair, I should know, first hand knowledge. If found guilty they assign the punishment, life in prison or the death penalty.


reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 01:18 PM by GovtFlu
Originally posted by Chance321
Mr. Graham made on mistake when he said he knows holder is looking out for the people. He's not, he looking out for the terrorist. If this boob gets KSM's case thrown out of court, then that'll mean everyone that was captured on the battlefield will basically have to be set free because they weren't read their rights according to these new rules.
Now here's a twist I just thought of. If KSM's case were to be dismissed would he beable to sue the US in civil court?
We have got to stop this and put it back to a Military Court as it should be.


What exactly has any of these suspects been found guilty of? An American virtue is innocent until proven guilty, these are innocent people. A lot of you folks have forgotten that while turning into an unruly torch carrying mob.

Isn't this the same .gov & media apparatus that found Saddam guilty of possession of WMDs? the N Vietnamese guilty of attacking US ships in the gulf of tonkin? and found isreal innocent of murdering US servicemen stationed on the USS Liberty?

Graham knows all that neo-clown propaganda that created the frenzied mob justice atmosphere will be exposed in an open fair process.. exposed as a bunch of lies, exaggerated half truths, illegally & unethically collected evidence and will make the gov look incompetent to the point of being sinister.

Graham would much rather have a banana republic N. Korean show trial with secret evidence and admissible torture statements before the scheduled hanging of these suspects (patsies)... thats a sad reflection on what America is supposed to stand for.. 1930s Nazis would be proud of a bogus legal process like that.


reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 01:30 PM by GovtFlu
Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by GovtFlu


What will that get us....they will just lie a bigger lie......what absolutely freaks me out is the way they are just hoe-hum talking about this. Don't they understand the most simple concepts of the law? I am just a layman & I do....sorry days for us, because the people are taking this BS hook, line and sinker.
The Hype is, get the evil doers. And as Bush used to declare "We will hunt them down and KILL them"......so very christian of good ole W. They declared war on the US, the US declared war on them, therefore it is an act of war.....Military Tribune/Court, Period. Military Courts are fair, I should know, first hand knowledge. If found guilty they assign the punishment, life in prison or the death penalty.


I would deny my client declared war on the US and was not engaged in uniformed state sanctioned combat when arrested.. my client was sleeping at the time of arrest. Thus if your accusing him of conspiracy to commit murder in NY, he should be tried in the relevant jurisdiction like any other suspect.

"A declaration of war (aka DOW, DoW) is a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations. The legality of who can declare war varies between nations and forms of government. In many nations power is given to the head of state or sovereign. In other cases something short of a full declaration of war, such as a letter of marque or a covert operation, may authorise warlike acts by privateers or mercenaries. The official international protocol for declaring war was defined in the Hague Convention (III) of 1907 on the Opening of Hostilities."

en.wikipedia.org...
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^