Palin: It’s War, not a Crime Spree

meme

New member
:readit:

A strong statement from the People's Governor:


President Obama’s meeting with his top national security advisers does nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our nation’s security. That’s what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September 11, 2001. This is a war on terror not an “overseas contingency operation.” Acts of terrorism are just that, not “man caused disasters.” The system did not work. Abdulmutallab was a child of privilege radicalized and trained by organized jihadists, not an “isolated extremist” who traveled to a land of “crushing poverty.” He is an enemy of the United States, not just another criminal defendant.

It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a common criminal. Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda rights. President Obama’s advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing to agree to a plea bargain – pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a suicide bomber. John Brennan, the President’s top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely claimed “there are no downsides or upsides” to treating terrorists as enemy combatants. That is absurd. There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals: terrorists invoke their “right” to remain silent and stop talking. Terrorists don’t tell us where they were trained, what they were trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with. Giving foreign-born, foreign-trained terrorists the right to remain silent does nothing to keep Americans safe from terrorist threats. It only gives our enemies access to courtrooms where they can publicly grandstand, and to defense attorneys who can manipulate the legal process to gain access to classified information.

President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on America. Now he must back off his reckless plan to close Guantanamo, begin treating terrorists as wartime enemies not suspects alleged to have committed crimes, and recognize that the real nature of the terrorist threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2010/01/palin_its_war_not_a_crime_spre.asp
 
I just wonder where all these Republican opponents to processing people who try to blow up planes as criminals were when Richard Reid was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced. I don't recall hearing one word, literally, about how processing him through the criminal justice system was the wrong thing to do.

Of course, I don't blame Palin for not having spoken out about it as she was just the mayor of Mousefart, Alaska at the time.
 
Richard Reid seems to be the only excuse the libs have to throw out there for the Messiah administration and his gang of keystone cops. it must too painful to live in the HERE AND NOW I guess..
 
Richard Reid seems to be the only excuse the libs have to throw out there for the Messiah administration and his gang of keystone cops. it must too painful to live in the HERE AND NOW I guess..


I'm not making any excuse. I'm saying that at bottom there is nothing at all to excuse as evidenced by the fact that there was exactly zero, none, zilch, nada opposition to trying Richard Reid in the criminal justice system.

I have no problem with treating the Underpants Bomber in the same manner as we treated the Shoe Bomber. It's not me that has to account for any inconsistency. Tell me, what is the crucial distinction between the two that warrants treating them differently?
 
I just wonder where all these Republican opponents to processing people who try to blow up planes as criminals were when Richard Reid was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced. I don't recall hearing one word, literally, about how processing him through the criminal justice system was the wrong thing to do.

Of course, I don't blame Palin for not having spoken out about it as she was just the mayor of Mousefart, Alaska at the time.


No no no!

She was the Mayor of MOOSEfart, Alaska.

Moose, not mouse...
 
I just wonder where all these Republican opponents to processing people who try to blow up planes as criminals were when Richard Reid was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced. I don't recall hearing one word, literally, about how processing him through the criminal justice system was the wrong thing to do.

Of course, I don't blame Palin for not having spoken out about it as she was just the mayor of Mousefart, Alaska at the time.

The difference is that it is believed that Reid acted alone, merely claiming to be part of al Queda, and that Abdulmutallab acted as part of an Al Queda plot.
 
The difference is that it is believed that Reid acted alone, merely claiming to be part of al Queda, and that Abdulmutallab acted as part of an Al Queda plot.


That would be quite a difference if it were true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Below is a link to the indictment against Reid which, in the second paragraph, states that Reid received training from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Nice try, though.


http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/01/reidindictment.pdf
 
No, the nice try was to once again turn a thread critical of the Messiah into a but but, Bush and Richard Reid...:palm:
 
Last edited:
Are these terrorists Nations? No there is not Nation to go to war with. These people are not even organized. So how can you have a traditional war when the reality these groups have no chain of command. These are just a bunch of fringe fanatics.An international criminals is all they are. Find a national target then you'll have a real war.
 
The 'war' mentality is pretty much crap. It's the rhetoric that makes us want to try to turn it into a country (Iraq) or a whole religion (Islam), because most Americans, and definitely politicians, cannot escape the traditional idea of "war" in their minds. It is extremely counterproductive.

Are there some elements of terrorism that could be characterized as "war"? Maybe, but it's still a bogus characterization. I don't know why people seem so determined to maintain it...
 
The 'war' mentality is pretty much crap. It's the rhetoric that makes us want to try to turn it into a country (Iraq) or a whole religion (Islam), because most Americans, and definitely politicians, cannot escape the traditional idea of "war" in their minds. It is extremely counterproductive.

Are there some elements of terrorism that could be characterized as "war"? Maybe, but it's still a bogus characterization. I don't know why people seem so determined to maintain it...

What will be interesting, God Forbid, if another incident like 9/11 occurs on Obama's watch what rhetoric and characterizations you will use.

Probably more of the same thing we've heard the last 9 years.

"It's Bush's fault".

I am eager to see demonstrable proof that our president has something that even remotely resembles cajones.

He gives good speech however and it would be grand if he could talk the terrorists out of another attack.

Hold your breath and plug your nose! I'm rootin' for ya!

:good4u:
 
No, the nice try was to once again turn a thread critical of the Messiah into a but but, Bush and Richard Reid...:palm:


My point, my dim-witted friend, is that there is nothing to criticize Obama for. You have failed to present any meaningful reason why the Underpants Bomber should be treated differently from the Shoe Bomber. Why should the two be treated differently?

Do you have a reason or do you just reflexively agree with everything that some lady posts on her Facebook page?
 
My point, my dim-witted friend, is that there is nothing to criticize Obama for. You have failed to present any meaningful reason why the Underpants Bomber should be treated differently from the Shoe Bomber. Why should the two be treated differently?

Do you have a reason or do you just reflexively agree with everything that some lady posts on her Facebook page?

you calling others dim-witted, now that is funny..you should look in a mirror
 
Last edited:
you calling others dim-witted, now that is funny..you should look in a mirror

One look at his avatar and the obvious statement should be:

You must be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit what you think or say.

:gives:

Talk about understated buffoonery. The guy's a complete dork who's head is so far up his own backside he's got to grin so he can see where to shave.
 
So your position is that Reid was processed through the civilian courts based on the verdict at his trial? Is that really the best you can come up with?

Better wingnuts, please.

Have you ever been sued or taken to court? An indictment contains just about any possibility to cover all bases at trial. The feds knew Reid was acting on his own; he was simply too retarded to be part of Al Queada.

You're grabbing at straws trying to equate these two terrorists.
 
Rassmussen has a poll out where over 70% of likely voters (includes democrats) want this guy handed over for military tribunal.
 
Rassmussen has a poll out where over 70% of likely voters (includes democrats) want this guy handed over for military tribunal.
There is a reason that the 2006 law was passed. We keep hearing how shoe-boy wasn't tried in a tribunal and we weren't crying about it then. There wasn't a military tribunal law (let alone one that passed SCOTUS scrutiny) at that time, there is now.
 
Back
Top