Starting to smell like Watergate, "Investigations begin: Dem Senator seeking
Bush orders, 'torture' memo... Developing..."
blueflame, The only thing that bothers me about your link is the produer, "Betty the Crow Productions."
cicerone imposter wrote:It's my belief that LSM has the same brain disorder as GWBush.
Thanks, GWBush is the president of the United States....what's your claim to greatness? Posting insults & making asinine statements?
blatham wrote:Quote:The intercepted phone calls have saved terrorist acts from being realized.
That is a claim that has been advanced. What leads you to the conclusion that the claim is factual?
Quote:If the dems want to stop that,
I've seen no statement from any dem which suggests surveillance ought to be stopped. The protests, where they occur, have to do with matters of judicial oversight.
Have we been attacked here since 911?
again with the we haven't been attacked since 9/11 bullshit.
That's five years.
Are you equaly fawning over the fact that between 1993 and 1-20-2001 we weren't attacked on Clinton's watch? That's 8 years, even longer than the current period of no attacks.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:again with the we haven't been attacked since 9/11 bullshit.
That's five years.
Are you equaly fawning over the fact that between 1993 and 1-20-2001 we weren't attacked on Clinton's watch? That's 8 years, even longer than the current period of no attacks.
Ah, how soon you fotget. WTC 1993 was attacked, 6 dead, many injured, two American Embassies in Africa was attacked, over 200 dead, including 12 Americans, numerous injuries, the USS Cole, 17 US sailore dead, many injuries, & a few others. Are you
fawning over Clintons ineptness?
The big difference between 1993 and 2001 was the simple fact that Bush was warned about an attack in the US. After 1993, he should have taken heed of the warning.
& you of course have proof of that?
Another thing that we should never forget is, WACO!!! That was Bill Clintons baby, 123 men, women, & CHILDREN were burned to death because BC wanted to make a statement, he couldn't act like a man & honor his draft notice, so he showed his manhood by killing AMERICANS!!! What did BC say? He blamed Janet Reno, he showed his
bravery again!!
LoneStarMadam wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:again with the we haven't been attacked since 9/11 bullshit.
That's five years.
Are you equaly fawning over the fact that between 1993 and 1-20-2001 we weren't attacked on Clinton's watch? That's 8 years, even longer than the current period of no attacks.
Ah, how soon you fotget. WTC 1993 was attacked, 6 dead, many injured, two American Embassies in Africa was attacked, over 200 dead, including 12 Americans, numerous injuries, the USS Cole, 17 US sailore dead, many injuries, & a few others. Are you
fawning over Clintons ineptness?
Interesting that you include attacks on embassies and military personnel when talking about Clinton. If we do the same thing for the Bush years we have been attacked multiple times since 9/11. MULTIPLE TIMES. The new embassy in Iraq takes morter fire every so often. June 2002, US consulate in Pakistan has a bomb explode outside it. Dec 2004, 4 people killed in US consulate in Saudi Arabia when terrorists attack it.
Make up your mind LSM. Do attacks on US embassies count as attacks here or not? Because if they do then Bush is losing this big time.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Another thing that we should never forget is, WACO!!! That was Bill Clintons baby, 123 men, women, & CHILDREN were burned to death because BC wanted to make a statement, he couldn't act like a man & honor his draft notice, so he showed his manhood by killing AMERICANS!!! What did BC say? He blamed Janet Reno, he showed his
bravery again!!
I love it when RWers argue that Clinton is reponsible for everything that happened in the first 2 months he took office. Then they turn around and absolve Bush of things 6 years after he took office.
LoneStarMadam wrote:& you of course have proof of that?
Proof? ROLFMBO.. if you didn't live in a cave you would know about "Bin Laden determined to attack in US"
LoneStarMadam wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:again with the we haven't been attacked since 9/11 bullshit.
That's five years.
Are you equaly fawning over the fact that between 1993 and 1-20-2001 we weren't attacked on Clinton's watch? That's 8 years, even longer than the current period of no attacks.
Ah, how soon you fotget. WTC 1993 was attacked, 6 dead, many injured, two American Embassies in Africa was attacked, over 200 dead, including 12 Americans, numerous injuries, the USS Cole, 17 US sailore dead, many injuries, & a few others.
Well, the Bear said "between
1993 and 1-20-2001", so he already included the first attack on the WTC.
You're counting all kinds of terrorist attacks on US citizens abroad. That should basically answer your question if there was an attack since 9/11, but let me ask you right out: Are you claiming that no US citizen has died in a terrorist attack since 9/11?
parados wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:again with the we haven't been attacked since 9/11 bullshit.
That's five years.
Are you equaly fawning over the fact that between 1993 and 1-20-2001 we weren't attacked on Clinton's watch? That's 8 years, even longer than the current period of no attacks.
Ah, how soon you fotget. WTC 1993 was attacked, 6 dead, many injured, two American Embassies in Africa was attacked, over 200 dead, including 12 Americans, numerous injuries, the USS Cole, 17 US sailore dead, many injuries, & a few others. Are you
fawning over Clintons ineptness?
Interesting that you include attacks on embassies and military personnel when talking about Clinton. If we do the same thing for the Bush years we have been attacked multiple times since 9/11. MULTIPLE TIMES. The new embassy in Iraq takes morter fire every so often. June 2002, US consulate in Pakistan has a bomb explode outside it. Dec 2004, 4 people killed in US consulate in Saudi Arabia when terrorists attack it.
Make up your mind LSM. Do attacks on US embassies count as attacks here or not? Because if they do then Bush is losing this big time.
& Bush didn't isn't doing anything about it? Whether you agree or disagree with Bush, he did/is at least doing something other than "firing a 2 million $$ missile at a camels a** & hitting a $14 tent".
The point was raised, "Bush was warned about 911" (no proof of course that he was) Clinton KNEW after the first WTC attack that these burka/baggy pants wearing people weren't playing, what did Clinton do? He put US attorneys on their tail.
Then turned around & pardoned the group of terrorists known as FALN. Don't try to make Billzeebubba into a hero, his pansy a** gives him away.
parados wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Another thing that we should never forget is, WACO!!! That was Bill Clintons baby, 123 men, women, & CHILDREN were burned to death because BC wanted to make a statement, he couldn't act like a man & honor his draft notice, so he showed his manhood by killing AMERICANS!!! What did BC say? He blamed Janet Reno, he showed his
bravery again!!
I love it when RWers argue that Clinton is reponsible for everything that happened in the first 2 months he took office. Then they turn around and absolve Bush of things 6 years after he took office.
Right back at'cha good buddy. Clinton ok'd Reno sending the FBI & BATF after those women & kids in Waco.
I'm not surprised that you find it a laughing matter.
LSM is getting all butch on us.....
old europe wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:again with the we haven't been attacked since 9/11 bullshit.
That's five years.
Are you equaly fawning over the fact that between 1993 and 1-20-2001 we weren't attacked on Clinton's watch? That's 8 years, even longer than the current period of no attacks.
Ah, how soon you fotget. WTC 1993 was attacked, 6 dead, many injured, two American Embassies in Africa was attacked, over 200 dead, including 12 Americans, numerous injuries, the USS Cole, 17 US sailore dead, many injuries, & a few others.
Well, the Bear said "between
1993 and 1-20-2001", so he already included the first attack on the WTC.
You're counting all kinds of terrorist attacks on US citizens abroad. That should basically answer your question if there was an attack since 9/11, but let me ask you right out: Are you claiming that no US citizen has died in a terrorist attack since 9/11?
Of course I'm not claiming that no American has died due to terrorist attacks since 911, unlike the claim of
nothing happend on Clintons watch. I'll let you in on a secret here, an attack against one American, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE, is an attack against ALL AMERICANS, or at least any American that IS AN AMERICAN!! Anither little secret, ALL AMERIOCAN EMBASSIES, are American property, an attack on them is an attack against us. Get it?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:LSM is getting all butch on us.....
It seems that is the most understandable language here.
Reno Files Challenge to Terror Law
Nov 20, 10:27 PM (ET)
By MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials filed court papers Monday arguing that the Bush administration is setting a dangerous precedent by trying a suspected terrorist outside the court system.
It was the first time that Reno, attorney general in the Clinton administration, has spoken out against the administration's policies on terrorism detainees, underscoring how contentious the court fight over the nation's new military commissions law has become. Former attorneys general rarely file court papers challenging administration policy.
Suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is the only detainee being held in the United States.
The former prosecutors challenged the Justice Department's right to bring al-Marri before a military commission.
A citizen of Qatar, he was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He had faced criminal charges until authorities designated him an enemy combatant and ordered him held at a naval base in South Carolina.
The Justice Department said in court papers last week that a new anti-terrorism law strips detainees such as al-Marri of the right to challenge their imprisonment in court.
"The government is essentially asserting the right to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United States indefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those people criminally - perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain a conviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raise embarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for other reasons," the former Justice Department officials said.
Some of the eight attorneys named in the document are now in private practice and represent detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most served under President Clinton, though the list includes former U.S. Attorneys W. Thomas Dillard and Anton R. Valukas, who served under President Reagan.
"The existing criminal justice system is more than up to the task of prosecuting and bringing to justice those who plan or attempt terrorist acts within the United States - without sacrificing any of the rights and protections that have been the hallmarks of the American legal system for more than 200 years," the attorneys wrote.
The al-Marri matter is before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and is one of three appeals court cases that will help determine the scope of the new military commissions law. That law allows the CIA to use tough - but undefined - interrogation techniques and says detainees may not use civilian courts to challenge their imprisonment.
Human rights groups have challenged the law. The former prosecutors wrote that they worried the government would increasingly use the law to avoid criminal trials "and the rights associated with them, such as the defendant's right to counsel and the government's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
The government was standing behind its position, Justice Department spokeswoman Kathleen Blomquist said in a statement Monday night.
"These are complex and difficult legal issues, and while we respect the right of other legal minds to be heard on these issues, we believe we are on firm legal footing in this case as both the magistrate judge and district court concluded," Blomquist said.
Last weekend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the nation's handling of the detainees. He said they are afforded more rights than required.
"What is extraordinary, in other words, is how much - not how little - our law protects enemy combatants," he said.
