America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I heard OBL threw his puppy-dog at the Seals....

i didnt know fuzzy was a housband!? it all makes sense now!

Seems to me that if he was unarmed, they coulda taken him alive. Not complaining, just sayin'.

ive read a few articles, even the libs on msnbc agree it would have been complicated if we took him alive. who would defend him, the long agony of the trial, publicity hound attorneys, where would he be buried, crazies would be rallying around the world for him, would he be brouhgt on US soil, to get a fair defense, he would have to be allowed access to confidential documents, etc. The simple execution and subsequent dump at sea was the best solution IMO. i think obama called this one right.

the WH should have kept their mouth shut about the whole thing IMO. obamas speech was fine but they keep releasing details then changing them. its no ones business but ours. no one is going to say a d@mn word to us about it. Like you said, he resisted and was shot in the process. end of story, no more details, no photos, nothing. Also i hear he was shot across the face which would follow the resisting storyline.

what are you going to do? try the USA in international court? good luck!

good ol cloak and dagger is a dying thing. The brits used to be great at it.... back when they were actually an empire. It was pretty cool that a little crappy rock could controll so much of the world.

A lot of the misinformation has been from the press who have assumed stuff, or the information came before the President spoke and it's still out there. Whle they were all live on tv waiting for him to talk people were saying all sorts of crap.

I watched the presidents press secretary and brennan live say that OBLs wife was killed, she was used as a sheild (although they did not say if it was choice or force) etc. It was monday after the Prez spoke. There was no press filter involved. It was misinformation directly from the admin that has now been corrected. Apparently Brennan confused the chick downstairs with obls chick upstairs.

But they really should not be releasing any of this info. We may want to know (I do). But we shouldn't. We should give zero info out.

Remember when the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior? Good times.....good times!

That was the French? I thought it was mechagodzilla

DO NOT question his facts!

You getting a bit frustrated HD? Losing your edge.

And...there...we...go. Fuzz is back to his liberal idiocy. How may posts that it finally take?

The reason why Habeous Corpus does not exist so that we can continue to interrogate people like KSM without continuious legal intervention from idiot liberal saps like yourself. KSM is not a legitimate enemy combatant under the Geneva Convention, he is not a US citizen. He is essential a walking side of beef. He has no rights.

Just like waterboarding is OK, which we now are finding out got us started down the path to killing Osama bin Laden.

Bush had it 100% correct.

However, you revel in the death of a man, but condemn the people and the methods that facilitated his assassination. And now you want to join in on the festivities?

If you had any principles whatsoever, you'd be OUTRAGED that the man was not given a trial, allowed to defend himself, or even be granted a lawyer. After all, you've been the one spouting all of this "we're better than that" crap when it came to Gitmo, interrogations, and all of your inane BS.

At the very least, you'd garner more respect by sticking to your alleged principles. However, you've now made it real clear that you've never had any in the first place.

The fact is, I have more respect for a guy like Rickamaven - who voted for Idi Amin Jr., and then was outraged when he got Bush Redux - because he's actually fairly consistent. He may be a loon, but he's consistent with his beliefs. He may be wrong, but he sticks to his guns for the most part.

You, on the other hand, are such an attention-craving little child, you'll throw what you claim to believe overboard, just so you can either claim some laughable sort of victory, or join in on the festivities.

In short: you're nothing more than a political hack. Your principles are a joke. Everything you claim to believe in is a lie.

At least the rest of us were consistant. Terrorists are little more than spies. The don't have the rights of enemy combatants, and they are not citizens of the US. If apprehended, they have the rights of a sirloin steak. You can "torture" them, hold them indefinately, and blow their head off if you can get a SEAL team in to do so. End of discussion.

So spare us all of your intellectual gymnastics (which assumes you have enough brain cells for it to be qualified as actual intellectual activity). We pretty much see you for what you are: a fraud.

We didn't, doorknob. The law on the exclusions to Habeous Corpus are very explicit. Lincoln did the exact same thing during the Civil War.

If you want to do something to which Habeous Corpus still applies, don't run around claiming you're going to violently overthrow the United States government.

Nice try...fraud...




Leon Panetta already admitted that water-boarding and other "extreme" interrogation methods were responsible for the information that helped locate Osama bin Laden.

You should try reading a paper some time...fraud...



Yes, because holding prisoners for an extended time is far less preferable to killing them. In fact, we're doing them a favor by killing them, right Fuzz?

(Seriously, you are such a dumba**.)

You cannot run around and claim that torture is bad, and extended imprisonment is bad because of someone's alleged "rights", and then revel in the execution of a member of their very same community without trial. Last time I checked, a right to trial, and a right to face ones accuser is a fundamental human right.

Then again, I'm the guy saying that they have no rights, and for specific enumerated reasons. So I'm the one being consistent here. All you can do is put out a bunch weaselly, albeit incoherent, double-talk.

Again: you are a fraud. And it seems to be that you're not even smart enough to see that.



That's probably the smartest thing you've probably said in your previous post.

Oops, forgot something.

I have read the paper. And it says that torture did NOT lead to bin Laden's capture.

"Prisoners in American custody told stories of a trusted courier. When the Americans ran the man’s pseudonym past two top-level detainees — the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed; and Al Qaeda’s operational chief, Abu Faraj al-Libi — the men claimed never to have heard his name. That raised suspicions among interrogators that the two detainees were lying and that the courier probably was an important figure."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html

The name was not given up until years later after these 'enhanced interigations' had ended.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches” and says the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/DonaldRumsfeld-gitmo-waterboarding-osamabinladen/2011/05/02/id/394820?s=al&promo_code=C30F-1

The Big Lie: Torture Got Bin Laden

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html

You can't have it both ways. He is either an enemy combatant that can be killed on sight for no reason (not merely because he was a criminal "in the wild") and is not subject to our judicial system, or, he's a criminal and should have been captured alive since he didn't have a gun in his hand, then read his Miranda rights and tried in Federal court. I of course am not hypocritical and say he is an illegal enemy combatant and it was okay to shoot him and would have been great to have waterboarded him if somehow he was captured alive. I see some of the wackjobs like Michael Moore and Alan Dershowitz are at least being consistent on this, unlike you.

Okay, glad we've got you on the record as being inconsistent. It will be hard for you to defend your positons going forward.

Robert while I appreciate the attempt.... it makes me smile... there is no one in here that has EVER been 100% consistent. It is not possible.

I'm a hypocrit all the time. meh.

If folks were honest, and held to the standard you intend to hold fuzz then no one in here has a solid position on anything. So while I recognize you are in a pissing match, I also recognize it's absurd.

One could also argue there was a team prepared in the event of arrest, the kill was made because there was resisitence, they were in another country uninvited, there was war declared at least one direction, the whole custody thing....what is it and when is it etc. Your position is not as clear as you think.

But give fuzz credit. While he could have hidden behind any number of facts that disagree with your view he didn't. He just said he wanted him dead and didn't care if it was inconsistent. He at least recognized that emotion sometimes trumps logic or even rule of law. Doesn't make it right, but it just is a fact of life.

Many in here on a daily basis do not recognize when their emotions drive things and they call things facts that are not. It is practically a cottage cheese industry in here.

The only way to find out is to water board them both.

no, we arent pulling out till JUNE 2011! he has a few more weeks!


im with Teedubbya, waterboard everyone!

Well, at least you admit it TW.



And by saying "give fuzz credit" for being inconsistent, if it was the opposite would you also say "give fuzz credit for being consistent?" Seems like to you Fuzz can't lose.

And the reason I said what I said earlier is that Fuzz is the one here who continuously makes outrageous statements that he claims are based on principles, so if we're going to be subjected to them it's worth pointing out that he really ISN'T consistent.

Dude take off your blinders. Fuzz being consistent would have been to bait you into an argument neither of you could win using all the possible ammo I listed before. You would be convinced you won clearly, when in fact no one did. He didn't do that, it was not his norm. "Seems like to you Fuzz can't lose." honestly how childish can you be? I've been ripping on Fuzz's thoughts off and on for the last week. I even defended Bush against him. Get a grip.

Cool enough. You pointed out he wasn't consistent, he admitted it. You won this one. *shrug*

But to extraappleate (if I'm gonna misspelt it I may as well do it gud) that to every future argument when the dude admitted he wasn't consistent on this one is silly. When I read it I head the voice of Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds saying it. It is silly.

By the way... Fuzz is not the only one here who continuously makes outrageous statements that he claims are based on principles. His ideas and "principals" just happen to differ from most in here. There is major groupthink in here to the point that expressing the common statements based on principals are just considered fact but stating the opposite is outragous based on "principals".

ya... alot of guys just make stuff up around here... you gotta stay sharp...

Yea. You are with me or againt me. Grunt

Lol

That comment made no sense in this context. It was sort of random lol. I defended bush so I'm about to fall to the left. Good one.