Jay Bookman

By Firsty Mcfirsterson

November 25, 2008 7:38 AM | Link to this

Trying to beat the short bus delivering laid-off AJC employees to the Dumb school are you on the bus Bo Emerson?

Maybe I’m Secundus, but that’s ok

By TW

November 25, 2008 7:42 AM | Link to this

An indictment of our complacency. Those of us who know better are charged with keeping in check the ignorant masses amongst us who don’t - much the same as a parent is responsible for the unruly child.

Let us never again forget who we are and the true costs of our freedom.

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 7:54 AM | Link to this

I know that Obama can’t make a look back at the Bush Administration’s crimes a top priority, but he must prosecute anything actionable that he uncovers.

And I think we all know that no matter how good Bush’s boys are at covering their tracks, there will be a few smoking guns left lying around uncollected after 1.20.09.

As for our collective responsibility for this, sure. We do all share some of it. Some of us, myself included, could’ve worked harder to get Kerry elected in ‘04; all it took would’ve been a few thousand votes in OH, after all.

By RW-(the original)

November 25, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not—Eric Holder, new AG for Hopeandchange

Based on that, they were arrested and imprisoned for seven years, and perhaps subjected to torture as well

Or three hots and a cot with five prayer services a day and the full force of the whiner class of American media wringing their hands 24/7/365.

By Ray

November 25, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman,

Just what do we do, then, with the “worst of the worst?” Try them in American courts of law? Give the same rights as American citizens? Provide free legal representation in the form of a public defender? Pay for their room and board for the rest of their lives?
Amid all of your naval gazing about the evil Bush, you might give us your insight on how you would have managed the incarceration (if any), legal prospective and future of those dubbed “worst of the worst.” There must be at least three hundred of them down there. If they are that bad, it is a reality that they will be back. What would you do with them?

By gmk

November 25, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this

AMEN, Jay.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 25, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this

Gitmo is a national embarrassment.

Number of juveniles held at Guantanamo almost twice official Pentagon figure

I think American courts of law are just the place for these folks.The worst of the worst and the not so worst and the not even close to worst.

Don’t we hold that all men are created equal? That all men are endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Not just Americans but ALL men.

I have never understood why any one would fuss about extending American rights to all human beings. Isn’t that how democracy is most effectively spread? (The democracy at the point of a gun crowd has not been particularly successful)

Now let’s put them in front of a judge and a jury. Those that are terrorists go to jail, those that are not go home.

Ray

We are already paying their room and board.

By TW

November 25, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

If they are that bad, it is a reality that they will be back. What would you do with them?

We combine this with the immigration solution, which involves building a big old wall on our southern border. To appease those who have a problem with this wall, however, we will give Mexico the state of Texas before we build it, thus building said wall along what we currently know as Texas’ northern border. This will double as Texas’ punishment for giving us ‘w.’ And, really, with SRV and Ivins gone - who needs it?

We could then send the Gitmo Questionables there.

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

“Just what do we do, then, with the “worst of the worst?” Try them in American courts of law?

Yes.

“Give the same rights as American citizens?”

We don’t “give” rights, people either have the right of due process or they don’t.

“Provide free legal representation in the form of a public defender?”

We’ve already done that.

“Pay for their room and board for the rest of their lives?”

We already are doing that, basically.

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

“we will give Mexico the state of Texas before we build it”

Them Mexicans is prying Austin from my cold, dead fingers!

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

November 25, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

Jay, on behalf of all the unknown Americans, possibly family and friends, who did not die in terrorist attacks after 911, I must respectfully disagree with you and thank President Bush and his administration for keeping us safe, which is, after all, a President’s first responsibility.

Isn’t it remarkable that after a campaign in which PEOTUS was so negative on the Bush administration with respect to the economy and Iraq that PEOTUS looks to stay the course on Bush’s economic and Iraq policies. The only difference to date seems to be that PEOTUS wants to have a New New Deal, even though the first one was not effective in remediating the Great Depression.

By TW

November 25, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this

Them Mexicans is prying Austin from my cold, dead fingers!

I apologize for my oversight. You’re right. We’ll have to find a way to swap Austin and Cherokee County, GA before we build the wall.

By Ray

November 25, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this

Ms. G,

Your “global” prospective on people who are trying to kill us is liberal naval gazing at it’s best. Those rights you are talking about are extended to American citizens. Ask these same questions to some of the survivors of the Embassy bombings, the World Trade Center and numerous other invasions of our safety and security in this country and others. They do not have the right to be tried in an American court of law. They are not American citizens, do not have rights that Americans have. All men created equal…. Daniel Perle’s wife would love your comments. Let’s all gather ‘round and sing Kumbaya and blow smoke up their collective butts. Don’t be surprised if they are released that they are not back in a very short time with plans for your head on a pole. Maybe you would like to take one of them home with you and rehab him. Be very careful, however, he is a born killer and knows how to kill effectively and with dispatch. And he has a really high regard for women… you’ll be able to see that right away.

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

Actually, Wyld, it’s not especially “remarkable” that the way folks have interpreted campaign soundbites winds up somehow incongruent with how they look to play out in the the real world, three weeks after the election.

(Side note: Wow. Has it really only been three weeks? Feels like three months.)

As for “staying the course” in Iraq, there’s the matter of the Status of Forces Agreement yet to be hammered out. Until we have that, it’d be a little irresponsible for any PEOTUS to throw a spanner in the works.

(Oh, and kudos for using that acronym; I’d never seen it but it’s kind of cute, actually.)

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

November 25, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

DB, Gwinnettian

Thanks for the compliment on PEOTUS, its properly respectful.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 25, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

Ray

Your “global” perspective is conservative war and fear mongering at its very worst.

The rights we are talking about - those basic tenets of democracy - are what you and all the old war horses have been trying to force down the throats of people all over the world for years at the point of a gun.

The discussion of the rights of non-citizens in ongoing. It continues to be a matter that is up for interpretation. Bushies think one way…..like you. No rights. No way. No how.

Fortunately, the barbarians have been shown the gate.

Bring them up in front of a judge and jury.

Oh, I suppose the correct response to the dark ending of your post would be to say….perhaps you’d like to keep a few of them captive in your storage shed. You can do “things” to them. You can starve them and beat them. You can humiliate and abuse them. You can ridicule their faith, strip them naked and make them wear womens clothing. Be careful though, don’t let it get you too excited.

By RB from Gwinnett

November 25, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

Ray, you’re wasting your time with these fools. They actually think the only reason all those Gitmo residents want us dead is because of “Bush’s failed poliies”. They live in a fantasy world where all the world will love us once Obami the Great sits down with them and charms them to peace.

These dimwits aren’t smart enough to realize these same people were bombing our people during the Clinton administration long before W came on the scene. But reality has never been a concern for them as they blindly follow Obami to the scene of the next terrorist attack. Fools one and all.

By TW

November 25, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

Ray - your emotional 8:42 is precisely the reason we check our guns at the door to the bar.

By Taxpayer

November 25, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

Guantanamo is just one more mess in a long list of messes that the Bush administration has created and will leave behind for others to clean up. That’s quite the legacy that good old boy has built up. I’ll bet he makes his daddy real proud. He probably walks around saying that’s my boy.

By TW

November 25, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

These dimwits aren’t smart enough

Geez…that means so much coming from the fly resting atop the eight year dimwit pie it was instrumental in building…sigh…

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Deep thought:

When PEOTUS, POTUS and SCOTUS are pronounced out loud, they rhyme nicely. Someone really ought to work them into a pop tune.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 25, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

fools one and all

See?

They say A, and B it is!

By Taxpayer

November 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

The only WMDs found in Iraq were the ones the Bush administration shocked and awed the Iraqis with. Afterward, the country was easily occupied by terrorists that were looking for their next easy target. Bush could not have done a better job of breeding more terrorists if he had rolled out red carpets.

By "The Corporal"

November 25, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

As I read in the “Vent” this morning, just make sure they are all released into blue states.

By Taxpayer

November 25, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G at 8:59,

You left out letting them make movies of it all and post them on the Internet. Better yet, they could sell them.

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

November 25, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

One evening after taking a day away from those persons (who are different than us) that I don’t like with my grandson to go hunting, we read the bible and prayed at night. I asked my grandson if he prayed for our beloved Leader and he said yes. That little rascal was but ten when I heard him pray, in his exact words, to the Lord for the health and continued success of,

Our Leader, who art in the Whitehouse, George W. Bush is his name;

He beat Iraq;

He hit the terrorists back; and

He still holds their leaders down in Gitmo.

Still the most beautiful thing I have ever heard a child sweetly say as he expressed his pure love for the real America and her Leader.

By Let's get down to business

November 25, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

Wow,

We’ve had bin Laden in Guantanamo all these years and nobody ever told us. You need to get the word out, Byll. Yer sir, spread that wealth. Do it Republican style. Apply it to a field and watch those crops grow bigger than ever.

By Joey

November 25, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

Consider this:

If President Clinton had accepted the delivery of ben Laden and had detained him at Guantanamo: Would Bush have defeated Kerry?

By Mr Snarky

November 25, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

One of so many failures of the past 8 years. The bush administration will provide a rich historical model of how not to govern a nation. Hopefully future leaders and voters will pay attention and not repeat bush’s errors.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 25, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer

You’re right!

But don’t they leave that kind of thing to the underlings? Privates and Corporals? Like Lindy?

By Let's get down to business

November 25, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

Palin is coming to Georgia to stump for Chambliss. This is one time that I truly wish her as much success as she had with McCain, nationwide that is. Chambliss is a coward. He won’t even accept ownership for running his own big mouth and attacking the guy that blew the whistle on Imperial sugar. His whole life is built on deferments of one form or another. What a pathetic creature he is — a creature masquerading as a human being.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 25, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

Speaking of Chambliss….

From Think Progress, Amanda Terkel

Chambliss’s Profligate Spending On Golf Outings With Lobbyists»

Since 2005, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who is currently locked in a tough run-off election battle against Democrat Jim Martin, has been in charge of the Republican Majority Fund. The PAC, established in the 1970s, was set up to help fund GOP candidates. However, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports today, Chambliss has instead used it as a personal fund to ingratiate himself to lobbyists, reward his political contributors, and fund his golfing habit:

Under Chambliss, however, 68 percent of the Majority Fund’s spending – about $1 million – has gone for travel, golf events, meals and administrative costs, reports to the Federal Election Commission show. Political contributions comprised just 32 percent of the committee’s spending, or $472,500.

In 2007 and 2008, the Majority Fund’s political donations accounted for 26 percent of its spending, the second-lowest among the 25 largest leadership groups. […]

[O]f the top 10 recipients of the Majority Fund’s money since 2007, only one was a political organization.

Five were golf resorts.

Chambliss is an avid golfer. Despite having a “bum knee” that kept him out of military service in Vietnam, Chambliss ranked as the #2 golfer in the Senate and the 33rd best golfer in Washington, DC, according to a 2005 feature by Golf Digest. That same year, while his colleagues were in a closed-door session discussing pre-Iraq war intelligence, Chambliss took the day off to golf with Tiger Woods.

Therefore, it’s perhaps not surprising that two months after taking over the Republican Majority Fund, “Chambliss put on a golf outing at the Ritz-Carlton in Naples, Fla. — the first of 20 at top courses and resorts: Pebble Beach in California; The Breakers in Palm Beach, Fla.; The Greenbrier in West Virginia, among others. Chambliss’ companions on these trips were, with few exceptions, registered lobbyists and their clients.” In the past two years, Chambliss has also used these official funds to golf with lobbyists for defense contractors, AIG, and Fannie Mae.

In 2007, Chambliss even spent more than $7,000 of the Republican Majority Fund’s money on “golf supplies.” He must feel right at home with his colleagues in Congress and the Bush administration.

By Taxpayer

November 25, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

If only there were a Republican Army (also known as the Red Army based on political map colors) Corporal around to comment on that. Perhaps we could get some first-hand insight. There are plenty of GOP privates trolling the net but they don’t tend to be very well informed. It’s a challenge for them to even conduct a successful cut and paste mission.

By Joey

November 25, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Jay; Since you have such a fondness for polls, perhaps you could check on which service might have polled U.S. Citizens about their desire to close Guantanamo?

Rassmusen reports that less than 1/3 support closure. While 49% want it to stay open.

Damn polls. They are only useful when they support what you desire.

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Joey @ 10.00, if I could wave a magic wand and determine a particular area in which Americans could NEVER be permitted to descend into mob rule-ish direct democracy, it’d be over who’s entitled to due process and who isn’t, under the Constitution.

Because when you let that happen, stuff like this tends to occur.

By Paul

November 25, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

Jay

You cover a lot of points here. I’ve long held a major failure of the Bush Administration has been not defining procedures for dealing with enemy combatants. American criminal law had never been used (discounting the Clinton Administration – maybe that’s why the bureaucracy continued to pursue this route) and Geneva? Well, Geneva is a relatively recent development that applied only to signatories, but there was an early push to extend Geneva to nonsignatories because it was ‘right.’

So the Bush Administration shuffled along for years, with circumstances finally coming to a head in the last two Court decisions – wherein the Court held, regardless of previous instructions to Congress and the Executive, it would make policy.

So I’m not sure anyone can tell me exactly where we are, legally, in how we handle enemy combatants. We’re not where we need to be, surely. But given it’s not possible to take at face value that captured soldiers dressed in uniforms of enemy countries are enemies (because there are no uniforms, traditional command and control or a nation-state sponsoring) surely procedures to determine if those detained are who we think they are is not too much to demand.

G’morning, Mrs. Godzilla 8:26

[[Don’t we hold that all men are created equal? That all men are endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Not just Americans but ALL men.

I have never understood why any one would fuss about extending American rights to all human beings. Isn’t that how democracy is most effectively spread?]]

May I offer that is a wonderful prescription for getting people tortured and killed? By their own leaders?

Afghanistan: tell American soldiers and aid workers to instruct women they do not have to subject themselves to men, mullahs or Sharia law. Teach them how to express themselves. Then watch the mayhem begin.

Demand American companies in Saudi Arabia ensure their relationships with customers follow tenets of American democracy. Make sure Saudi procedures for hiring and treating women, foreign nationals and nonMuslims follow American standards. Organize nonSaudi workers into unions and have them demand rights. Watch the clubbing, imprisonment, torture and deportations begin.

But if you want to restrict your assertion to simply the American criminal justice system, by what criteria do you determine which ‘rights’ we will bestow upon enemy combatants? Miranda is the most obvious example. “Mr. Aziz, we see from the videotape that you took off your facemask when you brandishedt a knive and began slicing the skin from the captured American female soldier. As the torture went on for 18 hours before you sawed off her head, we have positive visual identification. However, the American Special Forces team that captured you did not properly Mirandize you. Neither did the authorities who processed you at the detention facility. This is a gross violation of your rights. You are free to go.”

Excuse the graphic excess, but getting theory to mesh with reality is the point. What rights do you grant, which do you deny, and what is the justification for the decisions?

As I’ve said, I think we need something other than criminal law and Geneva.

By Davo

November 25, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

“The Bush administration nonetheless claimed and exerted such power”

…and where was the opposition party? The dems did nothing to stop these serious transgressions of our Constitution. To think that all of a sudden the Dems will grow a spine to address this treason is ridiculous; this is just (deserved) Bush bashing and political pandering. No new foreign or domestic policies will come from the new administration.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Paul

“May I offer that is a wonderful prescription for getting people tortured and killed? By their own leaders?”

You can offer it all day long, but I don’t buy it.

We are talking about folks we’ve held here. (And anybody left in our black site suites) I think we are about finished with the silliness that is imposing our way of life in other countires, that hasn’t worked out too well.

Human beings held in our custody, on our property, in our cells, dungeons and torture rooms…..they deserve American justice.

By Joey

November 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

DB-Gwinnett(10:08):

I do not agree that mob-rule determined who was sent to Guantanamo. Nor how one is treated once there.

Yes, what happened to Leo Frank is terrible. I do not concur with your implication that this kind of travesty still occurs in the U.S.

Will you acknowledge that if you wanted, you could also find many examples of situations where lives could have been saved if only the person who took those lives had been detained? Or worse, had not be released after he had been detained?

By AJC/DNC Management

November 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

I have been asked before to prove my claims that kookman and his fellow pinkos at the AJC are al Qaeda propagandists, and lo and behold, they are at it again-

and perhaps subjected to torture as well.

Why would someone even insinuate such a thing knowing full well that it is not true?

On who’s behalf do we make such a claim?

Saying crap like this only serves one purpose and that is to obtain the release of captured al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.

The detainees at Gitmo were not tourists wantonly snatched off the streets of America, or some innocent sheep herders, as these liberal democrats would have you believe, these people were caught on the various battlefields, out of uniform, attempting to kill American soldiers or innocent civilians.

And considering the new direction the war on terror is heading, that being headlong into the impotent US judicial system, it will come as no surprise to me when one of these released killers returns to waste some American city.

I know I wouldn’t want to live with the knowledge that I helped it happen.

By Paul

November 25, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla

As I said in my first post, if you want to restrict American rights only to those enemies we’ve captured (and not to those with whom we deal), then by what criteria do we determine which rights we grant and which we don’t?

American criminal law is replete with safeguards for the accused. How do we grant some of these rights and not others? Do we tell people they have the right to hear all the evidence against them (even classified information, which revealing could spell the death of the informant) and a speedy trial, but not the right to (pick one)?

That is the problem with relying on the criminal justice system.

But for your assertion you don’t buy that women or men who challenge mullahs or their government over Sharia law or societal standards face torture and death…. you may want to browse Amnesty International or other human rights websites. Many of these countries and societies are cesspools when it comes to American ideals.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 25, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Breaking News….literally

Ann Coulter has broken her jaw and has had to have it wired shut.

Ah the wonder of Karma.

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

Joey, fair question, and I think the principle of preferring a hundred guilty men go free to one innocent man being jailed applies to your hypothetical @ 10.33.

Obviously nobody wants a hundred guilty men going free. I’m just sayin’, that principle ought to drive this discussion. It’s never easy to implement.

By Paul

November 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

AJC/DNC Management, Mrs. Godzilla

Many refute the claim that in some circumstances we afford better treatment to captured al Qaeda than we do to Americans within our criminal justice system.

Can we agree, at the outset, that Americans who subject detainees to sleep deprivation or exposure to loud music will be subject to penalty? We can? Good.

Well, the good old Rocky Mountain News reported:

[[FORT LUPTON — Barry Manilow’s “I Write the Songs” may begin with the line, “I’ve been alive forever,’” but for noise ordinance violators, listening to Manilow may feel like forever.

Fort Lupton Municipal Judge Paul Sacco says his novel punishment of forcing noise violators to listen to music they don’t like for one hour has cut down on the number of repeat offenders in this northwestern Colorado prairie town.

About four times a year, those guilty of noise ordinance violations are required to sit in a room and listen to music from the likes of Manilow, Barney the Dinosaur, and The Platters’ crooning “Only You”

“These people should have to listen to music they don’t like,” said Judge Paul Sacco for a segment about the program that aired Friday on Denver’s KUSA-TV.

Sacco began the program years ago when he noticed that many of the repeat offenders simply showed up at his courtroom to pay their fine with cash…

Video of a recent class showed teenagers with long faces shifting in their seats or looking up at the ceiling.

“You can’t fall asleep,” said teenager Rueben Fuentes right before letting out a bit of a sigh…]]

So, AJC, Mrs. Godzilla, there you have it.

By AJC/DNC Management

November 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

By mister.earl November 25, 2008 7:57 AM AJC/DNC Management It was a stunning acknowledgment of how weak the Bush presidency has become and how dangerous it would be to spend the next two months meandering from crisis to crisis. But that’s the road we’re on. When I get frustrated with Paulson’s zigzags and reversals, with his overnight decisions to buy huge companies or write hundred-billion-dollar checks, I remind myself that he doesn’t really have a president to work for. The poor man may stumble here and there, but he’s dancing as fast as he can.

Bushie should tell Oblahmi’s new Treasury Secretary to ease up?

But Geithner’s involvement in several ultimately ill-fated efforts to buttress the American financial system is the very reason some Wall Street CEO’s — a number of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of piquing the man who regulates them — question whether he’s up to the challenge.

“We have only two things to say about Tim Geithner, who we do not know: AIG and Lehman Brothers,” said Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics. “Throw in the Bear Stearns/Maiden Lane fiasco for good measure,” he said, referring to the site of the New York Federal Reserve, where many rescue discussions took place.

“All of these ‘rescues’ are a disaster for the taxpayer, for the financial markets and also for the Federal Reserve System as an organization. *Geithner, in our view, deserves retirement, not promotion.”

“He was in the room at every turn of the crisis,” said another executive who participated in several such confidential meetings with Geithner. -International Herald.

Ouch.

bwa.

By Let's get down to business

November 25, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

It’s easy to argue that one set of laws doesn’t fully apply and another set of laws don’t either. Eventually, you have to move beyond arguing though and actually do something. How many years does it take. Perhaps there’s more to some of these so-called arguments than meets the eye. Perhaps laws were broken by some who would just as soon not admit it. Perhaps bringing up the atrocities committed by others is a convenient way to mask a different set of atrocities. Maybe be “holier than thou” is not all it’s cracked up to be. Unless you don’t mind being the very thing that you so vehemently argue forever about. Maybe some people are just born hypocrites just like some claim that there are born killers.

By Paul

November 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G my 10:53 (didja notice - that rhymed?)

So in light of my 10:53, isn’t the more important question “when are we going to afford Americans in our criminal justice system the same rights and privileges we afford detainees at Gitmo?”

:-)

By getalife

November 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Andy,

He let one fail and one be socialized. Batting 500 on those two. From what I am reading and hearing from Paulson, there is no solution. Just throwing trillions at it and giving it the ole college try.

Iceland, bankrupt. England close to it and us, well, I doubt they will tell us the truth. Not sure how bad it is effecting Russia and China but think they will emerge as world market regulators. w failed miserably, as usual, regulating the world markets.

By "The Corporal"

November 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

This is all a classic case of why these people should have never left the battlefield ……………

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 25, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Paul

So your reasoning for not offereing American justice to folks we have held captive for years and years and tears is that we might have a hard time deciding which rights to give them?

Simple fix. Offer them all rights under the law. Then put them in front of a judge and a jury.

I’m sure you simply misunderstood me, because I made no such assertion ….. Tick off a mullah and your butt is sod indeed.

My statement relates to those we hold in our custody, other than taking over a soveriegn nation I don’t see how we can offer American rights to it’s citizens.

We can and should set the example with those we have detained.

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

November 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

By AJC/DNC Management 10:55 AM

AJC?DNC Management - Ol’ Wyld Byll was all over that one yesterday and the liberals, particularly Let’s get down to business, were plenty snarky andmean to the pure o’ heart, Wyld Byll.

What’s yer source for the info on Geithner’s complicity and surprisingly clean shoes.

By Dusty

November 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Bookman and his accusations…nothing new…all against anything Bush has done even if it is protecting the country.

Ah, but let us not dibble and dabble here. I HAVE THE SOLUTION FOR GUANTANAMO! Yes, indeed. Take all the prisoners from Atlanta Fed Penitentiary and put them in the Tropical Prison Resort Guantanamo. Voila!

THEN TAKE ALL GUANTANAMO PRISONERS AND PUT THEM IN THE ATLANTA FEDERAL PENTITENTIARY. Then they will know exactly how it feels to be treated like an American citizen. No beach, no sunshine, just steel and concrete and human rights. No prayer rugs, just a nice chaplain of all faiths who never read the Koran. They will love it. Bookman, et al, will say how great it is that they have American rights (even though they are NOT Americans).

As to the nohomie radical Chinese, send them to TW’s house. He knows all about everybody’s “rights” and is a flag protesting “left radical”. So he will be ideal. TW’s Safe House…right next to Bookman’s Humanity House and Cuban Boat Rescue Team of Terrorists.

I hearby award Bookman the Guantanamo Rescue Medal, given only to those who know that there is NO terrorism. The prize consists of a one way ticket to the Himalayas of Pakistan and a new sword to be delivered when you arrive. Enjoy!

By AJC/DNC Management

November 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Oh by the way, like we were gonna forget-

Bush has promised $15 million in aid, yet there may be over 100,000 dead in south asia. And that $15 million compares to his inauguration, which will cost $40 million. Its disgusting to hold a $40 million party in the wake of such a disaster and so much suffering. Make it a mantra, write to the editor of your paper, write to your congresspeople, Bush should cancel the parties and donate the $40 million to relief.- Democrat Underground

Hahahahaha, ahh, yes.

Shall we see the Oblahmi kult scale back thee Grand Opening because of all the financial suffering?

Or will he do it in your face?

By Paul

November 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla 11:06

I’ll answer as I read through:

[[So your reasoning for not offereing American justice to folks we have held captive for years and years and tears is that we might have a hard time deciding which rights to give them?]]

Nope, not at all. I am arguing for a system of justice. Just not American criminal or Geneva. I’d hoped that was clear from my first post wherein I said those incarcerated should be speedily processed to see if we should hold them or not.

I agree with you about distinguishing between those we’ve captured and those we interact with in the normal course of events. Whew.

[[Offer them all rights under the law. Then put them in front of a judge and a jury.]]

It seems to me you default to all rights and protections afforded under the criminal justice system. I see that as a huge problem, which is why I pulled the Miranda example. Under our system, if a defendant was not properly Mirandized (informed of their right to counsel, right to not say anything without a lawyer present) they walk.

Under our system, if a defendant is confronted with physical evidence that was not properly obtained (warrant, restricted search area) the evidences is tossed. So you can rest assured if a detainee was captured and components for IEDs were found in his home, a lawyer will challenge the admissibility of evidence if American forces entered the home without a warrant. And the bomb maker would be set free.

See the point? So to footstomp, put in bold and italics: we need procedures. We need safeguards. But the American criminal justice system and Geneva both present problems. A third way should be found.

By Taxpayer

November 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

This talk could also be extended to include warfare and collateral damage. The basic question that seems to be overlooked in many scenarios is whether you would accept being a part of the “damage” in order to insure that the “enemy” was killed. How about your spouse or your children? Apparently, it’s all in how you phrase some of the questions for some people. Back to Guantanamo. What if you were an innocent person being held indefinitely. What if your spouse or child were there even though there was no evidence to support their incarceration. What about it. How do you justify becoming that terrorist yourself. Do you justify it by being more merciful than the other terrorist. Do you take away some of the blood and guts and say *Oh look, it’s all better now.” We’re so humane. Why, we even use the word euthanize instead of kill. We’re so good. Don’t it just make you want to puke.

By Let's get down to business

November 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Wyld Byll,

Would you care to provide some source material from yesterday of my apparent “mistreatment” of you along with your definitions of “snarky” and “mean” just so this so-called “snarky and mean” one will have a better understanding of how that gray matter of yours is wired. While you’re at it, I’d like to know how you determined that I am a “liberal” — just for some added fun. Go for it. Then again, perhaps you will just dismiss my questions and comments once again on the basis that they’re just too “snarky and mean” for your pure heart. Riiiight!

By AJC/DNC Management

November 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

“GUILTY is a much-needed reality check on a Left gone wild,” declares the book’s jacket.

“When it comes to bullying, no one outdoes the Left. Citing case after case, ranging from the hilariously absurd to the shockingly vicious, Coulter dissects so-called victims who are invariably the oppressors. For instance: While B. Hussein Obama piously condemned attacks on candidates’ families, his media and campaign surrogates ripped open the court-sealed divorce records of his two principal opponents in his Senate race in Illinois.”

Anybody want to bet this outsells Blinky Pelosi’s book?

By about 4 million copies?

By Paul

November 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G

One last point before I go - it would be entirely possible for an Administration to say “We’re going to treat detainees as follows: we’ll have this system to determine if they are in fact detainees. Bribes paid to an informant doesn’t cut it. Captured while shooting at Americans does. We’ll treat them with ‘dignity’ but if they assault their captors, the captors can strike back. They’ll be tried in this kind of a court with these rules of evidence. Appeals will be heard through this system.”

You get the idea. The Bush Administration had its chance and in my opinion, blew it. Maybe the Obama Administration will do better. But I have a feeling creativity and recognition of the new reality will go out the window and they’ll revert to their American legal training.

out for a while -

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Veering away from the topic, but…

Looks like it’ll be about 500 billion in the latest cash-for-crap scheme.

(h/t to Atrios.)

Oh, and a Deep Thought:

If the AJC/DNC thing spamming us were one one-hundredth as clever or witty as it thinks it is, it’d be marginally dangerous.

By CherokeeDave

November 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

JB:

On the issue of being treated inhumanely, are you really that ignorant? These “suspects” of being involved with terriorist activity have been treated with “excuse me” the utmost of respect by the greatest nation on this planet. Or have forgotten how Al-queda treats their prisoners of war, with a razor sharp knife across the neck plastered all over the internet. How many of these prisoners did they release upon findings of innocence?? C’mon Jay, quit being intellectually stupid. Qitmo has had its problems with some bad military apples but thats it. Our country has been exemplary versus the BS distributed by our own lliberal journalist and media groups.

By DB, Gwinnettian

November 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Cherokee Dave @ 11.50, we don’t generally adjust our standards of justice to fit the level of loathing we may have for the accused.

If you would enjoy living in such a nation where they do, might I suggest you move there?

Seriously, how much longer are the less-enlightened among the righties going to be wailing away with their “you liberals just don’t seem to remember how BAAAAD and EEEEEVUL these monsters really ARE” business?

We know they’re nasty folks. So are a lot of guys who’ve been processed by our Justice department. And? So? This is going to change fifty years from now? You’re going to eradicate “terror” by being extra-super-specially mean to the terrorists this decade?

Oy. I am so looking forward to having damned grown-ups in charge for a change. 1.20.09 really can’t come soon enough.

By RealityKing

November 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

Another terrorist attack due to our liberal complacency will be deemed an unforgiveable presidential failure..

By Soothsayer

November 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

“The Fed was really adamantly opposed to any form of regulation whatsoever. I guess if I had to do it over again, I certainly would have pushed for some way to give greater transparency to products which turned out to be injurious to our markets.”

This is a great read (although long) about how we got into the shape we’re in now.

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

November 25, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Let’s get down to business - 11:40 AM

You are correct, you were neither snarky or mean. I apologize that I have wrongly and unforgiveably drug your user name through the cyber mud. I made a mistake and ask for your forgiveness.

It was, in fact, Full Employment that was so snarky and mean that Jay offered to remove posts. I guess that now that we are out of power I got overexcited at my chance to finally be the victim who was wronged by the man.

Let’s get down to business, i hope you will accept my aplogy so that we can start anew.

Regards,

By AJC/DNC Management

November 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

By DB, Gwinnettian November 25, 2008 11:48 AM Oh, and a Deep Thought: If the AJC/DNC thing spamming us were one one-hundredth as clever or witty as it thinks it is, it’d be marginally dangerous.

A “deep thought,” eh?

Just wondering, then why do you feel the need to whine about me?

By Mike

November 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Jay. We should do like the Clintons did when they started extraordinary rendition in which we just silently sent them to Syria with no process at all. That’s a much more humanitarian way to go about it.

Why no criticism of Clinton’s role in this, Jay? Could it be that you really aren’t outraged at all, but just want an excuse to hate people who don’t share your narrow view of the world?

By Bosch

November 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Guantanamo, yes, one of the greatest stains on the great American fabric.

Real simple. Close it, put the prisoners on trial. Guilty? Go back to jail in our system. Innocent? Go home.

Isn’t that how things are done in the civilized world?

This whole argument that the prisoners aren’t U.S. citizens is lame. We’ve tried, convicted, and imprisoned non-U.S. citizens before. There is a precedent for that and it should be followed here. Do we not remember the guy who claimed to be the 20th hijackers? Isn’t he still sitting in a jail cell in the states now?

I’m all for applying the same set of justice.

Holding people prisoner because we THINK they might hurt us is the basis for a witch hunt and not one for justice.

By AJC/DNC Management

November 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

Does anyone else see the sheer idiocy and psychosis of standing behind a podium with a fake, juvenile “office of the president elect” sticker on it with you babbling on about there being no more “business as usual,” while you are in the middle of appointing former KKKlinton officials to your administration?

Are we not screwed?

Considering that this bozo doesn’t even root himself in reality, is it any wonder that Russia is eyeballing it’s neighbors again?

By Let's get down to business

November 25, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Wyld Byll,

OK. However, you do realize that you have now blown my chances of being “snarky and mean” and I have been known to do it justice (assuming your definition is comparable to mine) from time to time or at least that’s what some people have told me after I had chopped their heads off, figuratively speaking, of course.

By Taxpayer

November 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

Andy,

I could not disagree with your opinion more. Then again, what’s new.

By RealityKing

November 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

We are bickering about conflict formalities while Congress is spending trillions. Is this our new audacity of hope??

By Jake

November 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

Gitmo, while despicable to many, probably saved American lives. If unlawful combatants refuse to identify themselves and choose to hide among civilians, why does that obligate us to sort them out? Those inaliennable rights in an earlier post were just Jefferson’s attempt at taking the high moral ground and justifying revolution against the lawful authorities. It’s never been part of U.S. law as we have routinely denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to our citizens let alone foreign unlawful combatants. When the Islamofacists invade us I just pray I’m not stuck in a foxhole with the coward Jay Bookman!

By what the ...

November 25, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

ms. g is back with her blubbering….again.

By Call it Like it is

November 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

Amen Ray, Taxpayer, & Jake.

Yea, let’s undermind our military once Again Jay and Play the Blame America Liberal Game!

Unbelievable, these prisoners got what they deserved.

Get it?

They HATE AMERICAN AND AMERICANS!

Enough Said!

By SaveOurRepublic

November 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Most of you folks are missing the major issue here…the (oh-so) slippery slope. Through un-Constitutional legislation like the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act & the (so-called) “Patriot” Act…American citizens can now be labeled “enemy combatants” & have their Constitutional rights stripped away! If one’s stance/beliefs fall “too far” Right or Left, the Feds can put you in their collective crosshairs. As for Gitmo, it’s a potential foreshadowing of things to come & sets a precedent for (FEMA) detainment camps for U.S. citizens if/when martial law is declared (after the next false flag attack (ala 9/11) or total economic collapse). If you question the legitimacy of this, just do some quick research on “Rex 84”, “Operation Garden Plot”, “NSPD 51” & “FEMA Camps”.

By Lee

November 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Al Queada has declared war on the US when it attacked us. Thus, any prisoners we find attacking us or planing to attack us can be placed in prisoner of war camps, just like the Nazi soldiers, the Japanese soldiers and the Italian soldiers were during World War II. They can be released when Al Queada signs a peace treaty or surrenders to us. Since Al Queada is not a national state but a hazy group of individuals, that will never happen, and we can keep these prisoners indefinately, and without trial. We must obey the rules of the Geneva Conventions, but that won’t be hard.

President Bush and the others went astray when they wanted to torture the prisoners and place them outside the US territories. If they had dumped them into some can in the middle of the American SW desert somewhere, no one would have a leg to stand on about their rights, except those under the Geneva Convention. And it would cost less to the taxpayers than Gitmo, too.

Make them POW, and they’ll never go home again, and never bother us again, either.

By Jake

November 25, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

SaveOurRepublic - Please post again when you’re actually incarcerated in that FEMA detention camp! We do need some reasonable balance between protecting our freedom and protecting our civil rights. However, 99.9% of the protesting over loss of civil liberties is just lefty whining. Who has been illegally detained, searched, or arrested due to the wiretapping? No one as far as I know, but there are some indications it wa useful in preventing terrorist acts.

By Roger D Smart, PO1, USN, Retired

November 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

All Atlantans, just want you to hear this rubbish. Why is our government wanting to give our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba a court trial? Why is it that our government wouldn’t even listen to our lawyers when our case of the ULSG went before the lawyers in Alexandria, Va? Don’t we have double standards here in the US? We, being the military retirees of this country are trying to get our own Congress to abolish the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act? This act gives the state judges to treat our “RETAINER PAY” as a division of marital propertry in a military divorce case. Here is an example; This female enlisted or officer just completed 20 years in one of the services and finds out the man or male which is the dependent has filed for divorce. When the male dependent gets his lawyer, the lawyer knows that with the USFSPA act, he can get anywhere from 30 to 50% of her retainer to the male for LIFE. What if the male dependent cheated on the female? What if the male has been abusing the female military member? This act is wrong and its very bias. Not only bias, it is strictly ILLEGAL. Our media of this country including radio, newspaper will not publish or air anything about this wrong doing of our Congress! Even our Senators of this state of Georgia will not hear us! What does this statement say to the people of Georgia? They all say they support our troops, but really they are just saying this to get into office. People of the state of Georgia, I urge you to wake up and take notice of the unfairness of our government. Go to “www.ulsg.org” and get all the information you need to write to your Representative or Senator and tell them how unfair this law really is.

By sboat

November 25, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

There has to be a foreign language someplace where Jay Bookman translates to WRONG AGAIN!

This guy is absolutly, positively, never, ever in any universe, right about anything!

By Me Again

November 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

I think it is so funny that Jay Bookman and the rest of the libs throw these accusations without providing any alternate course of action. Or what they would have done. Monday morning quaterbacking at it’s best. Certainly don’t want to handle the terrorist situation like Clinton did…do nothing and let the next guy take care of it. Unbelievable, but certainly not surprising.

By SaveOurRepublic

November 25, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Jake @ 1:49 PM - I’m primarily referring to the precedence set by that legislation (I alluded to in my 1st post here). It gives “Uncle Scam” too much power & leeway to decide who’s a “enemy combatant”….even among U.S. citizens. When the start incarcerating Americans en masse, it’ll be far too late! BTW, it’s standard Neocon M.O. to use “terror” (whether legit or not) as a pretext for a police-state & an Empire building/Globalist undertaking at the expense of American soldiers’ lives & billions of (fiat) taxpayer dollars.

http://www.infowars.com

By Mr Snarky

November 25, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

One of so many failures of the past 8 years. The bush administration will provide a rich historical model of how not to govern a nation. Hopefully future leaders and voters will pay attention and not repeat bush’s errors.

By williebkind

November 25, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

Mrs Gzilla and all:

After WWII we caught many of the Nazi’s and tried them by military court. The Nazi’s that were murderers were hanged and the others got prison time. The world, assisted by the jews chased down other Nazis all over the world and brought them to justice. Some were also given the death penalty and/or committed suicide. During this era the Japanese who did exactly the same as the Nazis but most of them got lighter sentences due to longevity of the court system. Now the point is—since it has taken so much time to determine the fate of these murderers because of the pacifist, you are willing to send them to jail at my expense. I want to hang them. Just like they did the Nazis. The American jurors seem to make decisions based on sympathy and relationship than law and justice. i.e. the case where the jury found the manufacturer guilty of the death of a child in a day care center instead of an lawnmower operator or the day care center itself. who would allow children around an area where a machine is running? They found the manufacturer responsible. Is that the kind of justice I would see from your courts?

By JackLeg

November 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

I guess those of you who feel that Gitmo was such a big failure can do all of us 2 favors; tell us all the information so we can make an informed decision as to their guilt, then Mrs. Godzilla should adopt them. Her loser left wing agenda would kill them quick.

By Veteran Observer

November 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Yes there are a few who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But once again it is simple math people. Since these scum have been incarcerated and treated humanely(much better than Vick’s dogs), no airliners, no cruise ships, no tourist buses, and no attacks on American soil have taken place!!!We have the goods on most of these baby-killing scum and tribunals are reviewing those with any doubt! These are modern day pirates, who have put themselves outside of the protection of American or International law by their actions in killing civilians! International law is clear, that they may be killed immediately upon capture, but we let them live! They should be thankful for that and we should praise our President for the co