The lies roll off the man's lips like music off Yo-Yo Ma's cello. Both are virtuosos - one a cellist, the other a liar.
A partial list.
Bush had nothing to do ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney doesn't even support same-sex car pools." –David Letterman
"The head of ...
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman at a Saturday afternoon fundraiser in Colorado.
I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I ...
Rand Paul:
Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his [Obama's] views on marriage could get any gayer.
We won't call Rand cynical. Ignorant, bigoted asshole is more fitting. An adult using ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"President Obama came out with approval of same-sex marriage. He said that over the years, he has ...
I've never understood Log Cabin Republicans - gay conservatives who give their support to a homophobic political party that derides their sexuality and refuses to grant them equal rights under ...
Finally.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own ...
Election roundup:
Indiana.
As polls forecast, the Tea Party's efforts to cleanse the GOP of any impure conservatives has Dick Lugar out and teabagger Richard Mourdock in. Mourdock is the new Republican ...
There are lies...and then there are lies.
My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what ...
From the papers captured last year at Osama bin Laden's Pakistani hideout comes this.
Like any public figures, bin Laden and his advisers were mindful of the media. Adam Gadahn, one ...
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor. Happy Friday.
"Today Mitt Romney visited a firehouse here in New York City. Of course, he was disappointed ...
It happened to Kerry. Can it happen to Obama? Nope says Margaret Carlson.
Obama’s belief system -- in that hopey-changey business and the post-partisanship thing -- has been altered by reality. ...
Sullivan:
What do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?
A faggot.
Exactly right, but then could one expect anything different from a political party that ...
And they claim that atheists are immoral?
The ugly side of religion shows its face once again. The words below were spoken at a Sunday sermon by Sean Harris, a pastor ...
It's been fun watching conservatives and Romney twist themselves into pretzels trying to undo Mitt's past words on GM and bin Laden.
Romney, April 2007:
It’s not worth moving heaven and earth ...
In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, a couple of scholars from liberal and conservative think tanks, discuss the state of American politics.
We have been studying Washington politics and ...
Romney's VP-in-waiting, Marco Rubio, is perfecting the conservative sleaze play.
He has proposed his version of the Dream Act in which people who entered the country illegally as children will be ...
Beyond the rhetoric, the political BS, the lies - that is, the concerted effort by the right-wing noise machine to distort and misinform at every opportunity - is the very ...
It was never a matter of 'if'...only of 'when'.
Two constituencies that President Obama is holding onto about as strongly now as he did four years ago are voters under 30 ...
This Bill O’Reilly clip points out the obvious once again. .
.
In O’Reilly’s world (and that of many conservatives), ignoring the Constitution and shunning it aside as an insignificant matter in this debate is the logical thing to do.
Here how Tom Andrews, director of the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo puts it.
“If you are accused, you get to know what you know what you are accused of, you get to face your accusers, and you get to defend yourself in court, and then you face a trial and a conviction. This is who we are as a system.”
“The Taliban? You can get a trial and a beheading in a few hours. That’s not our system of justice.”
End of story.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
Bill O’Reilly “I don’t care about the constitution”
Funny how Bill doesn’t care what the constitution says in this regard but doesn’t hesitate to care about what the constitution says when he ‘believes’ rights are being ‘taken away.’ Now isn’t that the definition of hypocrisy?
O’Reilly is questioning Napolitano and askes him specifically what HE thinks about something. Napolitano begins to answer the question with, “The Constitution says…” O’Reilly responds to the effect, “I don’t care what the Constitution says. I’m asking YOU what YOU think.” (Not direct quotes. Can’t find a transcript and not going to take the time to do it dictation style.)
So for you to quote O’Reilly out of context as you have is (can I say this?) dishonest and misleading.
Napolitano is answering the question because as he intimates, it isn’t about what he (Napolitano) think but what the Constitution says. In this instance, O’Reilly clearly doesn’t care what the Constitution says
If conservatives do not like to follow the Constitution, maybe they can follow this. It is a case of not elevating these trials to the level that would please these terrorists. They want nothing more than to think of themselves as being on equal footing with our military. By putting this in the US courts as a civil case, it reduces these people to common criminals. They want to think of themselves as high profile war criminals. In their eyes, civil court is a put down folks! They should face the judicial system of New York. New Yorkers deserve to give this last smack down of the thugs that tried to destroy that great city and its people.
janine, you’re not playing fair. You quoted O’Reilly out of context, giving the appearance he simply stated, “I don’t care about the Constitution.” period. That is misleading.
What you say is true if one takes the time to listen to the entire interview. But that wasn’t the question at that time. O’Reilly specifically asked the Judge what HE thought. If one simply happens upon your comment, a misleading statement is made and a false conclusion drawn.
azanna, that is the most reasonably stated set of reasons I have come across for holding these trials in a civilian court. It certainly should give any reasonable person pause. I would state however that from a publicity standpoint, it DOES elevate the trials to exactly what they want, on another level.
I still just can’t agree these people are entitled to the Constitutional Rights and Privileges that will be afforded. I still think it is a political gambit. And I still think this administration doesn’t think it will happen, and hopes it will not happen, but is still willing to risk the possibility that one of them may be set free in order to make political hay.
A good question is whether Boumediene v. Bush has set the precedent that anyone being held in a U.S. controlled facility is entitled to protection under the Constitution. In that decision, the SCOTUS declared Sec. 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to be unconstitutional because it effectively denied the right of habeas corpus to detainees.
KSM is only being classified as a war criminal by Republicans in Congress and others who unofficially hold that opinion. Others are tagging him as a POW. What is his official classification by the US Gov? If he is a POW, then he is under the protection of the Geneva Conventions, which have in turn be violated. If he is a terrorism suspect, then he is under the protection of the US Constitution. Someone cannot proclaim KSM a war criminal just because that’s what they think he is.
Frances says: November 15, 2009 at 10:47 am
“We are not fighting a country. We are fighting a group of criminals. To give a group of criminals nation status by declaring their crimes to be “acts of war” is to elevate them above the level of criminal and give them status that is not their due.”
One is a “reasonably stated set of reasons” but when I propose it, not so much. :roll:
And it’d be fine, if this represented a legitimate policy opinion. Instead, it’s just another way to whip up under-educated white Americans about the spectre of the Muslim, Communist Obama that wants to do away with the Constitution and eat their children.
It’s no mistake, absolutely no mistake, that the entire panoply of right-wing punditry is staying completely on-message about this. “They’re going to be in OUR cities”, they cry. “What if they get off because of some technicality?”
Those technicalities, of course, are deemed to be extra-Constitutional liberal graft-ons that were deliberately put into place to let crooks run free, by their worldview.
Once you parse the code words out of this, you’re left with nothing more than a huge crock of BS, plain and simple. There’s more than sufficient evidence to convict KSM, and I’d assume, most of the other guys they’ve not released from Gitmo.
The only way “technicalities” would rear their heads is if the government has ZERO evidence other than what it produced under torture.
But, again, that’s not really what this is about, is it?
(If you visit my website, I devoted a small part of my morning to ripping apart another far-right “superstar” in his attempt to burn the house down with straw men. I’d link it directly, but I use the full word “BS” pretty frequently, and don’t want to offend folks here.)
they rant and rave about the constitution all the time during the healthcare debates,but now they dont care about what it says,uh……….. duh gee george duh i dont under stand george duh tell me again george.its funny how they refuse to take the word of a judge over this,”dont be a pinhead” excuse me who told him mr,grand high pooba of upper butt crack i am a legend in my own mind mr.billo that he was lord and master of all rules in the world..i hope they show the trials i want them to come here.we as americans can go and show them how much we want our justice to come to them,im sure they want to die and we should give them what they wish!
“Tennessean says:
Of course. No criminal has ever walked due to technicalities in our judicial system. No reason to expect it could happen in this instance.”
Are you concerned that the torturing of KSM will interfere with his conviction?
“We just don’t think the privileges, protections and rights provided by the United States Constitution applies to foreign War Criminals/Terrorists.”
Whoever “we” is, I’m glad you’re not in charge. The Constitution was established to protect people from the government more than anything else. After the “forming a more perfect Union” part comes “to establish Justice”. Habeas corpus was so important to its authors that it was the only basic right specifically stated in the main body of the document and not added by amendment.
Not only did the Bush Administration go on a witch hunt to find “enemy combatants” in this country and all over the world, they created laws that circumnavigated the Constitution in order to effectively suspend habeas corpus so that those detained would have no legal recourse whatsoever. It took a SCOTUS decision to restore it.
The basic question is, “Are the people being detained at Gitmo protected from the government by the Constitution?” You cannot protect some and not others. You cannot decide that the ones presumed innocent get protected and the ones presumed (or even confessed as) guilty do not. You cannot punish someone for a crime they haven’t been convicted of yet. KSM and the others should have be tried in federal court years ago – it should have been over and done with by now.
Frances, in this poll, “we” is between 54% and 64% of the population.
“When it comes to dealing with people suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks against the United States, which would you prefer:
40% Trying them in open criminal court with a jury, and a civilian judge
54% Trying them in a closed military court with a military judge?”
And according to CNN Polls (ya’ gotta love that source): “The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court.”
You ask, “Are the people being detained at Gitmo protected from the government by the Constitution?”
My thoughts and opinion are “No”. Not unless they are United States Citizens. If they are not, then the issue is, at the very least, open for discussion.
Isn’t that what we are doing? (At least as long as we aren’t simply criticizing each others thoughts?)
Frances, I guess therein lies the intransigence of our opposing positions.
I don’t believe these people are entitled to the privileges and rights provided by the Constitution of the United States. You do.
And where this Administration is concerned, it is becoming increasingly apparent “Public Opinion” means little to them. I think they may become a bit more concerned at election time.
TN, it is not up to what you or I believe. Our opinions don’t matter. The Constitution and the rule of law must prevail. That is the only way to protect ALL people from the government.
Frances, I disagree. I think the opinion of the majority of Americans has to be a factor. I don’t think this is a clear cut issue. I think there is room for debate on both sides. And yes Frances, the opinion of a large majority of Americans SHOULD matter.
You never answered my question about KSM and torture.
As for debate – you’ve stated what you believe, but the fact is that popular opinion cannot be allowed to overrule the Constitution. Your belief is based on the mistaken notion that KSD has been officially classified by the US Gov. as a war criminal. Show me an official declaration by the US Government. If war criminals cannot be tried in federal courts, then KSM cannot be a war criminal – otherwise he would be tried by a military tribunal. Even Eric Holder must know that.
You’ve also stated that you do not believe that people charged with terrorism should have any rights under the Constitution. Legal precedent has proven that to be false. Even when a prisoner is foreign being held in a foreign land under US control, they have rights despite all the efforts of the Bush Administration to withhold them.
When you argue against the rights of others, you argue against your own. There were innocent people held at Gitmo for several years without any rights. What is your opinion of that?
Frances, “You never answered my question about KSM and torture.”
I am not of the opinion he was tortured.
KSM is not a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a clear cut issue he should be tried in a Federal Court OR offered the rights, privileges and protections of the Constitution.
You said, “You’ve also stated that you do not believe that people charged with terrorism should have any rights under the Constitution.”
That is not true. I have not said that. I think non-U.S. Citizens are not automatically afforded protection of the Constitution. The “automatically” part is obviously unclear and up for debate.
I’m not arguing against the “rights” of any American Citizen. Not even yours!! ;-)
We don’t agree on this one. No matter how many comments we exchange, I doubt we ever will. I’m for moving on.
Bill O’Reilly “I don’t care about the constitution”
Funny how Bill doesn’t care what the constitution says in this regard but doesn’t hesitate to care about what the constitution says when he ‘believes’ rights are being ‘taken away.’ Now isn’t that the definition of hypocrisy?
janine, and there you go.
O’Reilly is questioning Napolitano and askes him specifically what HE thinks about something. Napolitano begins to answer the question with, “The Constitution says…” O’Reilly responds to the effect, “I don’t care what the Constitution says. I’m asking YOU what YOU think.” (Not direct quotes. Can’t find a transcript and not going to take the time to do it dictation style.)
So for you to quote O’Reilly out of context as you have is (can I say this?) dishonest and misleading.
@Tennessean
And there you go…
Napolitano is answering the question because as he intimates, it isn’t about what he (Napolitano) think but what the Constitution says. In this instance, O’Reilly clearly doesn’t care what the Constitution says
If conservatives do not like to follow the Constitution, maybe they can follow this. It is a case of not elevating these trials to the level that would please these terrorists. They want nothing more than to think of themselves as being on equal footing with our military. By putting this in the US courts as a civil case, it reduces these people to common criminals. They want to think of themselves as high profile war criminals. In their eyes, civil court is a put down folks! They should face the judicial system of New York. New Yorkers deserve to give this last smack down of the thugs that tried to destroy that great city and its people.
janine, you’re not playing fair. You quoted O’Reilly out of context, giving the appearance he simply stated, “I don’t care about the Constitution.” period. That is misleading.
What you say is true if one takes the time to listen to the entire interview. But that wasn’t the question at that time. O’Reilly specifically asked the Judge what HE thought. If one simply happens upon your comment, a misleading statement is made and a false conclusion drawn.
Why does it have to be hard??
azanna, that is the most reasonably stated set of reasons I have come across for holding these trials in a civilian court. It certainly should give any reasonable person pause. I would state however that from a publicity standpoint, it DOES elevate the trials to exactly what they want, on another level.
I still just can’t agree these people are entitled to the Constitutional Rights and Privileges that will be afforded. I still think it is a political gambit. And I still think this administration doesn’t think it will happen, and hopes it will not happen, but is still willing to risk the possibility that one of them may be set free in order to make political hay.
Obviously, it’s OK for Republicans to not honor the Constitution, while at the same time, pretend their rights are infringed upon.
Bill O’Reilly of loofah fame
Always plays the hypocrite’s game
From talking points to stalking points
Bias, ego and id he flaunts.
http://www.CitizenPoet.com
A good question is whether Boumediene v. Bush has set the precedent that anyone being held in a U.S. controlled facility is entitled to protection under the Constitution. In that decision, the SCOTUS declared Sec. 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to be unconstitutional because it effectively denied the right of habeas corpus to detainees.
KSM is only being classified as a war criminal by Republicans in Congress and others who unofficially hold that opinion. Others are tagging him as a POW. What is his official classification by the US Gov? If he is a POW, then he is under the protection of the Geneva Conventions, which have in turn be violated. If he is a terrorism suspect, then he is under the protection of the US Constitution. Someone cannot proclaim KSM a war criminal just because that’s what they think he is.
TN, azannaphx’s comment doesn’t sound familiar to you?
http://mariopiperni.com/terrorism/911-victim-speaks-out-on-ny-terrorist-trial.php/comment-page-1#comment-10528
Frances says: November 15, 2009 at 10:47 am
“We are not fighting a country. We are fighting a group of criminals. To give a group of criminals nation status by declaring their crimes to be “acts of war” is to elevate them above the level of criminal and give them status that is not their due.”
One is a “reasonably stated set of reasons” but when I propose it, not so much. :roll:
And it’d be fine, if this represented a legitimate policy opinion. Instead, it’s just another way to whip up under-educated white Americans about the spectre of the Muslim, Communist Obama that wants to do away with the Constitution and eat their children.
It’s no mistake, absolutely no mistake, that the entire panoply of right-wing punditry is staying completely on-message about this. “They’re going to be in OUR cities”, they cry. “What if they get off because of some technicality?”
Those technicalities, of course, are deemed to be extra-Constitutional liberal graft-ons that were deliberately put into place to let crooks run free, by their worldview.
Once you parse the code words out of this, you’re left with nothing more than a huge crock of BS, plain and simple. There’s more than sufficient evidence to convict KSM, and I’d assume, most of the other guys they’ve not released from Gitmo.
The only way “technicalities” would rear their heads is if the government has ZERO evidence other than what it produced under torture.
But, again, that’s not really what this is about, is it?
(If you visit my website, I devoted a small part of my morning to ripping apart another far-right “superstar” in his attempt to burn the house down with straw men. I’d link it directly, but I use the full word “BS” pretty frequently, and don’t want to offend folks here.)
Sh*t Militant Centrist, you can’t offend us. :D
Of course. No criminal has ever walked due to technicalities in our judicial system. No reason to expect it could happen in this instance.
Frances, in my opinion, neither is right. One is just a little better stated.
they rant and rave about the constitution all the time during the healthcare debates,but now they dont care about what it says,uh……….. duh gee george duh i dont under stand george duh tell me again george.its funny how they refuse to take the word of a judge over this,”dont be a pinhead” excuse me who told him mr,grand high pooba of upper butt crack i am a legend in my own mind mr.billo that he was lord and master of all rules in the world..i hope they show the trials i want them to come here.we as americans can go and show them how much we want our justice to come to them,im sure they want to die and we should give them what they wish!
We just don’t think the privileges, protections and rights provided by the United States Constitution applies to foreign War Criminals/Terrorists.
“Tennessean says:
Of course. No criminal has ever walked due to technicalities in our judicial system. No reason to expect it could happen in this instance.”
Are you concerned that the torturing of KSM will interfere with his conviction?
“We just don’t think the privileges, protections and rights provided by the United States Constitution applies to foreign War Criminals/Terrorists.”
Whoever “we” is, I’m glad you’re not in charge. The Constitution was established to protect people from the government more than anything else. After the “forming a more perfect Union” part comes “to establish Justice”. Habeas corpus was so important to its authors that it was the only basic right specifically stated in the main body of the document and not added by amendment.
Not only did the Bush Administration go on a witch hunt to find “enemy combatants” in this country and all over the world, they created laws that circumnavigated the Constitution in order to effectively suspend habeas corpus so that those detained would have no legal recourse whatsoever. It took a SCOTUS decision to restore it.
The basic question is, “Are the people being detained at Gitmo protected from the government by the Constitution?” You cannot protect some and not others. You cannot decide that the ones presumed innocent get protected and the ones presumed (or even confessed as) guilty do not. You cannot punish someone for a crime they haven’t been convicted of yet. KSM and the others should have be tried in federal court years ago – it should have been over and done with by now.
Frances, in this poll, “we” is between 54% and 64% of the population.
“When it comes to dealing with people suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks against the United States, which would you prefer:
40% Trying them in open criminal court with a jury, and a civilian judge
54% Trying them in a closed military court with a military judge?”
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/
And according to CNN Polls (ya’ gotta love that source): “The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court.”
You ask, “Are the people being detained at Gitmo protected from the government by the Constitution?”
My thoughts and opinion are “No”. Not unless they are United States Citizens. If they are not, then the issue is, at the very least, open for discussion.
Isn’t that what we are doing? (At least as long as we aren’t simply criticizing each others thoughts?)
A public opinion poll does not trump the Constitution. Sorry. Don’t take it personally.
Frances, I guess therein lies the intransigence of our opposing positions.
I don’t believe these people are entitled to the privileges and rights provided by the Constitution of the United States. You do.
And where this Administration is concerned, it is becoming increasingly apparent “Public Opinion” means little to them. I think they may become a bit more concerned at election time.
TN, it is not up to what you or I believe. Our opinions don’t matter. The Constitution and the rule of law must prevail. That is the only way to protect ALL people from the government.
Frances, I disagree. I think the opinion of the majority of Americans has to be a factor. I don’t think this is a clear cut issue. I think there is room for debate on both sides. And yes Frances, the opinion of a large majority of Americans SHOULD matter.
You never answered my question about KSM and torture.
As for debate – you’ve stated what you believe, but the fact is that popular opinion cannot be allowed to overrule the Constitution. Your belief is based on the mistaken notion that KSD has been officially classified by the US Gov. as a war criminal. Show me an official declaration by the US Government. If war criminals cannot be tried in federal courts, then KSM cannot be a war criminal – otherwise he would be tried by a military tribunal. Even Eric Holder must know that.
You’ve also stated that you do not believe that people charged with terrorism should have any rights under the Constitution. Legal precedent has proven that to be false. Even when a prisoner is foreign being held in a foreign land under US control, they have rights despite all the efforts of the Bush Administration to withhold them.
When you argue against the rights of others, you argue against your own. There were innocent people held at Gitmo for several years without any rights. What is your opinion of that?
Frances, “You never answered my question about KSM and torture.”
I am not of the opinion he was tortured.
KSM is not a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a clear cut issue he should be tried in a Federal Court OR offered the rights, privileges and protections of the Constitution.
You said, “You’ve also stated that you do not believe that people charged with terrorism should have any rights under the Constitution.”
That is not true. I have not said that. I think non-U.S. Citizens are not automatically afforded protection of the Constitution. The “automatically” part is obviously unclear and up for debate.
I’m not arguing against the “rights” of any American Citizen. Not even yours!! ;-)
We don’t agree on this one. No matter how many comments we exchange, I doubt we ever will. I’m for moving on.
Ta-taa.