Giuliani: 9/11 Trials in NYC Will Lead to More Terrorism

[TrophyHusband 0]

i do not want the people who committed an act of war against our country to walk. call it what you want. justice, revenge, national security interest, whatever. these guys did it. we know they did it. even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The first thing the defense will do is demand a drop of charges since they were never miranda-ized.

Well, that depends upon a lot of things. Even with Miranda himself the illegally obtained evidence was suppressed, yet he was retried and still convicted, so suppression of evidence does not equal an automatic dismissal or win at new trial.

Furthermore, the evidence can still be used against a defendant if he testifies unless it was coerced. Mere failing to mirandize will suppress,bit won't give permission for the Def to lie.

So the Def can demand a lot of things, but we'll see what happens and how it turns out. If Dumb shit didn't open GITMO and decide civil rights to some, dump the issue off to the next president, then this could have been resolved years ago.

Quote

F**king idiots. This isn't some criminal off the street. These are combatants off a battlefield. DA Holder and President Obama have set the stage for a circus.

And your solution is to leave them at GITMO forever? Not only is that expensive, it defies our constitution and many worldwide rules of war.

Quote

The timing of the announcement is obvious, since the President is out of the country and it was a Friday morning.

GITMO is not a photo op, it's just one of the messes inherited from the previous mess.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

They committed an act of war against the United States so they are tried in a civil court? Bringing any detainees to the United States is not a good idea. The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be allowed to stay.

With the last administration and it's endless criminal acts I would think you might fear the slippery slope, so ensuring foreign enemies due process will keep ours inline.

Quote

Circus or dog and pony show, and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done.

I don't think Obama's reelection hinges upon the handling of these guys. As for Done, the placement of GWB being approx 6th worst of all time denotes he was done a long time ago, Obama's place in history at this piont is certainly > 50%, likely top 10. Reagan was top 5 I think I recall until lately as the debt becomes an issue, now he's 12 and falling. Clinton and GHWB came from low 20's to mid-high teens last I looked. The debt is going to be the 'decided' when it comes to ranking former presidents, fascist Ronnie will freefall once people see what he's done.

[rhys 0]

Quote

i do not want the people who committed an act of war against our country to walk. call it what you want. justice, revenge, national security interest, whatever. these guys did it. we know they did it. even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

Can you read or do you not want to see...

I asked you if they were proven to be innocent due to overwhealming evidence that somebody else did it (wink wink, think NEOCON adgenda!), would you still want them killed?

Have you chosen the Judgment before the trial? is that what you believe in?

they say they did it but where is the real evidence?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The first thing the defense will do is demand a drop of charges since they were never miranda-ized.

F**king idiots. This isn't some criminal off the street. These are combatants off a battlefield. DA Holder and President Obama have set the stage for a circus.

The timing of the announcement is obvious, since the President is out of the country and it was a Friday morning.

They committed an act of war against the United States so they are tried in a civil court? Bringing any detainees to the United States is not a good idea. The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be allowed to stay.

Circus or dog and pony show, and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done.

So, you're agreeing with me....right? As in, this is, so far, the single dumbest-idiotic-retarded idea to come from the White House...right?

Yes, I agree 100%. Sadly, it looks like a done deal. Hope this doesn't literally blow up in their faces. This shit isn't good for the country. Maybe BHO will invite his bedtime buddies: Chavez and Castro to view democracy in action.

Read the news much?

- Nobel Peace Prize for just getting elected and hoping we have a better direction.

- GPI from 97/140 to 83/140 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php

- World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1 http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/world-citizens-prefer-obama-mccain-nearly-4to1.aspx

I understand the conservative talking point is to blow people up who disagree, but so was Hilter's. We are moving in the right direction. They really meant to give the Nobel to teh American people, but they can't do that, to my understanding.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In another light, were the Nuremberg defendents granted constitutional rights? Don't think so.

Obviously Mirandad rights weren't an option in the mid-late 40's, and Germany had their own criminal laws, ironically the ones setin place by the very people who were tried at Nuremberg. The question is, did the Nuremberg defendants receive a fair trial? Were they actually guilty? I don't think anyone here is an expert of those trials, I read for a while about them and the immediate (10 days as I recall) and subsequent executions in the gymnasium, but I think the trials they received were comensurate with what the world was doing then. Remember, not all defendants were executed, a good portion were jailed. The real gory trials followed the primary one, they tracked down the guards, male and female and tried / hung them in real gory ways if they had a part in the selection of Jews to be exterminated.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

i do not want the people who committed an act of war against our country to walk. call it what you want. justice, revenge, national security interest, whatever. these guys did it. we know they did it. even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

Can you read or do you not want to see...

I asked you if they were proven to be innocent due to overwhealming evidence that somebody else did it (wink wink, think NEOCON adgenda!), would you still want them killed?

Have you chosen the Judgment before the trial? is that what you believe in?

they say they did it but where is the real evidence?

sorry, i didn't read your post correctly, my bad. if there's overwhelming evidence that they are innocent, then of course i don't want them to be found guilty. i just don't believe that to be the case. so yes, i have chosen judgement before the trial.

as far as your scenario, the "NEOCON agenda" thing is just rediculous conspiracy theory bullshit.

is it possible that these guys said "hey, let's claim reponsibility for this so we can become martyrs when the us executes us"? i suppose, be i doubt it.

i can't answer the question of where the real evidence is, but i believe there is some. the reason is that obama must believe there's real evidence. otherwise he wouldn't have holder virtually guarenteeing a conviction.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

first of all, i think the intention here is to put the bush administration on trial. many on the left want to see this, but it is being done at the risk of either letting these guys walk or making a mockery of our legal system.

That attitude prevails by conservatives thinking their guy was perfect and they can't understand all the hooplah. Anything Obama does to rectify America's acts to the world are appreciated by the world, considered slanderous to conservative Americans. The world has put the Bush Admin on trial over the last decade, cleaning up yet anothe rof his messes is just that, nothing hidden.

Quote

if we are going to put them through our legal justice system, we have to follow the law. this means that if the the charges should be dropped, then we have to drop the charges. the rules for what evidence is allowed must be followed, etc. they also need to have an impartial jury. they need to get a fair trial. this is where you can shed some light on this andy. how do they get a fair trial? how do they find an impartial jury? if a judge should throw this case out for whatever reason, how does he do that? if he doesn't do what he's legally obligated to do, the whole trial becomes a farce. if he does throw it out, his life is in immediate danger.

If you think the US follows these flowery words, look no further than the OJ trial in Nevada. 5 jurors disagreed with the 95 acquittal. Also, all the blacks were made alternates at the last moment.

Quote

i just hope that there is enough legally* obtained evidence to convict these guys.

Yep, if they're guilty, I hope so too.

Quote

*reguardless of whether or not it was "legal" at the time, i highly doubt any information gathered under "inhanced interigation techniques" will be allowed.

Well, "inhanced interigation techniques" means waterboarding, so it's not. That evidence would never come in under Miranda, but evidence obtained w/o torture and w/o miranda could come in if the defendant testifies.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

...even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

If they get off "using" our system, meaning if they get off due to us not using our system, right? The error is not the defendant's, it's ours.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

first of all, i think the intention here is to put the bush administration on trial. many on the left want to see this, but it is being done at the risk of either letting these guys walk or making a mockery of our legal system.

That attitude prevails by conservatives thinking their guy was perfect and they can't understand all the hooplah. Anything Obama does to rectify America's acts to the world are appreciated by the world, considered slanderous to conservative Americans. The world has put the Bush Admin on trial over the last decade, cleaning up yet anothe rof his messes is just that, nothing hidden.

this is not the proper avenue to take reguarding bush or the views of the rest of the world.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

...even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

If they get off "using" our system, meaning if they get off due to us not using our system, right? The error is not the defendant's, it's ours.

but where is the error? i think the error would be in deciding to try them in criminal court. when they were detained and the evidence was collected, the thought didn't even cross their minds that this should be treated as a criminal case and everything should be handled as such. there was no reason to think that. you and i might disagree where the error occurred, but we do agree that the error is ours. this doesn't mean that these guys should ever walk free.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

There really are only 2 lawful options as far as I see it:
- Consider them prisoners of war, and subject them to the Geneva Convention, or
- Consider them criminal defendants, entitled to the Constitution protections and due process that any other person charged with assault, homicide and weapons charges would be entitled to.

There is no third category. This is crucial: it simply does not exist under American law.

i'm trying to get a better understanding of things here, so my questions to you are simply our of curiosity. if you know the answers off the top of your head, great. if not, i don't expect you to do my homework for me.

i thought that military tribunals had always been around. after a quick google search it appears that they were created by the bush administration. is this correct?

what about them is unconstitutional?

historically, how were people who committed acts of war against our country tried?

with a quick google of detainment under the geneva convention i found this:

"Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, [1955] 6 U.S. T. 3316, 3406, T. I. A. S. No. 3364 (“Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities”). See also Article 20 of the Hague Convention (II) on Laws and Customs of War on Land, July 29, 1899, 32 Stat. 1817 (as soon as possible after “conclusion of peace”); Hague Convention (IV), supra, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2301(“conclusion of peace” (Art. 20)); Geneva Convention, supra, July 27, 1929, 47 Stat. 2055 (repatriation should be accomplished with the least possible delay after conclusion of peace (Art. 75)); Praust, Judicial Power to Determine the Status and Rights of Persons Detained without Trial, 44 Harv. Int’l L. J. 503, 510—511 (2003) (prisoners of war “can be detained during an armed conflict, but the detaining country must release and repatriate them ‘without delay after the cessation of active hostilities,’ unless they are being lawfully prosecuted or have been lawfully convicted of crimes and are serving sentences” (citing Arts. 118, 85, 99, 119, 129, Geneva Convention (III), 6 T. I .A. S., at 3384, 3392, 3406, 3418))."

clearly we can keep these guys as long as there are hostilities*, but i think we are all on the same page in wanting the hostilities to end long before these guys die. that being the case, they have to be tried and convicted in order to ensure they never go free. is criminal court the only way we can do this? are there other world courts that re an option.

*we can argue endlessly over what constitutes "hostilities", but do we really need to get into that? probably not.

finally, how do you try someone when some of the evidence or methods for collecting the evidence are classified? does the decision have to be made to either declassify it or just not present it, or are there other options?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

first of all, i think the intention here is to put the bush administration on trial. many on the left want to see this, but it is being done at the risk of either letting these guys walk or making a mockery of our legal system.

That attitude prevails by conservatives thinking their guy was perfect and they can't understand all the hooplah. Anything Obama does to rectify America's acts to the world are appreciated by the world, considered slanderous to conservative Americans. The world has put the Bush Admin on trial over the last decade, cleaning up yet anothe rof his messes is just that, nothing hidden.

this is not the proper avenue to take reguarding bush or the views of the rest of the world.

What is not? I posed a few issues there, not clear what you're saying.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

these guys did it. we know they did it. even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

This is shocking to hear from anyone who's ever taken an American high school civics course, much less an intelligent, educated person such as yourself. Thousands of criminal trials are held in the US every day, and some of them result in Not Guilty verdicts - not because of "technicalities", or "weak evidence", or "bleeding hearts", etc., but because sometimes people who are accused of wrong-doing really are not guilty. If you don't understand that most core principle of any legitimate system of laws, then there's no point to discussing it any further.

Quote

so yes, i have chosen judgement before the trial.

If that becomes the acceptable standard, then 2 centuries of US veterans have fought, bled and died for nothing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

If they get off "using" our system, meaning if they get off due to us not using our system, right? The error is not the defendant's, it's ours.

but where is the error? i think the error would be in deciding to try them in criminal court. when they were detained and the evidence was collected, the thought didn't even cross their minds that this should be treated as a criminal case and everything should be handled as such. there was no reason to think that. you and i might disagree where the error occurred, but we do agree that the error is ours. this doesn't mean that these guys should ever walk free.

Whether they walk free will be determined by the process. You shouldn't use an ends-justify-the-mean process here, IOW's, don't let em walk regardless of actual guilt or not. We need to folowo the process and quit deiating as with the OJ case.

And here is the error:

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

Prisoners of war MUST be:

- Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honour.
- Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture.
- Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels.
- Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects.
- Supplied with adequate food and clothing.
- Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor's troops.
- Given the medical care their state of health demands.
- Paid for any work they do.
- Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards) .
- Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease.

Prisoners of war must NOT be:

-Compelled to give any information other than their name, age, rank and service number.
- Deprived of money or valuables without a receipt (and these must be returned at the time of release).
- Given individual privileges other than for reasons of health, sex, age, military rank or professional qualifications.
- Held in close confinement except for breaches of the law, although their liberty can be restricted for security reasons.
- Compelled to do military work, nor work which is dangerous, unhealthy or degrading.

The fourth Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War") covers all individuals "who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power".


Protected civilians MUST be:

- Treated humanely at all times and protected against acts or threats of violence, insults and public curiosity.
- Entitled to respect for their honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.
- Specially protected, for example in safety zones, if wounded, sick, old, children under 15, expectant mothers or mothers of children under 7.
- Enabled to exchange family news of a personal kind. - Helped to secure news of family members dispersed by the conflict
- Allowed to practise their religion with ministers of their own faith. Civilians who are interned have the same rights as prisoners of war. They may also ask to have their children interned with them, and wherever possible families should be housed together and provided with the facilities to continue normal family life. Wounded or sick civilians, civilian hospitals and staff, and hospital transport by land, sea or air must be specially respected and may be placed under protection of the red cross/crescent emblem.

Protected civilians must NOT be:

- Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. - Forced to give information.
- Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.
- Punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. - Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution.

For more information see the Red Cross web site.



So it depends upon how you view these defendants, either military or civilain, they had not been exteded rights under Geneva, so now we'll take a shot at giving them rights under American domestic law. Of course conservatives, so-called sticklers for legal detail, disagree with this. You guys made your bed, quit bitching cause it sucks to lay in it.

[rhys 0]

Quote

as far as your scenario, the "NEOCON agenda" thing is just rediculous conspiracy theory bullshit.

he he, where have I heard that before?

Go to this page, read it, follow your nose and do some research. You'll find they pretty much acuse themselves.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This is shocking to hear from anyone who's ever taken an American high school civics course, much less an intelligent, educated person such as yourself. Thousands of criminal trials are held in the US every day, and some of them result in Not Guilty verdicts - not because of "technicalities", or "weak evidence", or "bleeding hearts", etc., but because sometimes people who are accused of wrong-doing really are not guilty. If you don't understand that most core principle of any legitimate system of laws, then there's no point to discussing it any further.

Hey, if they're in handcuffs, they're guilty. One has to laugh at conservatives who call the media liberal when most of the time in high-profile cases these guys are tried in the media and then the prosecutor goes to the judge to gag the case before the defense can get to the media.

Quote

If that becomes the acceptable standard, then 2 centuries of US veterans have fought, bled and died for nothing.

He has decided the D is guilty based upon waterboarding-generated admissions, is it really necc to further this insane line of questioning?

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Reagan was top 5 I think I recall until lately as the debt becomes an issue, now he's 12 and falling.

Depends on how/who is determining the rankings and which poll you choose to believe.

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx

Lots of different polls listed on wiki. Scroll down to see them all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/archive/index.php/t-138669.html

Quote

fascist Ronnie will freefall once people see what he's done.

Only time will tell. But for now, according to the 2009 C-SPAN poll, it's not true. He actually gained in the rankings from the 2000 poll.

"The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and "professional observers of the presidency" who ranked presidents in a number of categories initially in 2000 and more recently in 2009"

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

i thought that military tribunals had always been around. after a quick google search it appears that they were created by the bush administration. is this correct?
what about them is unconstitutional?

They are very rare in American jurisprudence, and in my opinion, they were/are unconstitutional. The unconstitutional aspects include, for example, abandoning the use of impartial civilian juries which the defense can participate in selecting; no pretrial probable cause evaluation of evidence to detain people pending trial; lack of speedy trial; inadequate opportunity for defendants to have private access to attorneys; inadequate opportunities for defense attorneys to conduct investigations and inspect evidence; improper relaxation of the basic rules of the competency and admissibility of evidence at trial; inadequate opportunity for the defense to challenge and cross examine prosecution evidence; relaxed standards of proof; restricted defenses allowed to be presented by defendants.

Quote

historically, how were people who committed acts of war against our country tried?

Sometimes lawfully (in my opinion), sometimes not. I discussed this in posts up-thread. As I said, you either have to try them under American law with constitutional guartantees, or you try them as war criminals with a valid international tribunal (and I do not consider the Nuremburg tribunal to have conducted fair trials), or you treat detainees as prisoners of war. (But do not use that as an excuse to detain them indefinitely because of self-defined, or self-perpetuated, "ongoing hostilities"). To repeat: past wrongs do not make present rights.

Quote

they have to be tried and convicted in order to ensure they never go free.

Wrong! They have to be tried, and then either convicted or acquitted, based upon the evidence. A trial with even the slightest hint of a pre-decided outcome, in which the trial is being conducted for the sake of form and not substance, is no trial at all. History is replete with examples of sham trials. The US should never be a party to such things.

Quote

*we can argue endlessly over what constitutes "hostilities", but do we really need to get into that? probably not.

Absolutely we do. Otherwise, the detaining nation will be able to "define" the detainee into life imprisonment without trial. The "war on terror" can be as never-ending as, say, the "war on crime", or the "war on drugs." To address this very real concern, during the Bush administration, it was proposed that an international tribunal be convened to make this threshhold determination. The Bush Admin rejected it.

Quote

finally, how do you try someone when some of the evidence or methods for collecting the evidence are classified?

Admittedly, this is a problem; but the solution is not to disallow adequate defense access to the evidence, and yet still admit it. The only solutions are to either allow defense access to the evidence, or not permit that evidence to be admitted at trial. But to allow the evidence to be admitted without affording the defense full opportunity to evaluate and challenge it, the trial becomes a sham.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

these guys did it. we know they did it. even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

This is shocking to hear from anyone who's ever taken an American high school civics course, much less an intelligent, educated person such as yourself. Thousands of criminal trials are held in the US every day, and some of them result in Not Guilty verdicts - not because of "technicalities", or "weak evidence", or "bleeding hearts", etc., but because sometimes people who are accused of wrong-doing really are not guilty. If you don't understand that most core principle of any legitimate system of laws, then there's no point to discussing it any further.

Quote

obviously i do understand that core principal and if i wasn't clear before, let me re-iterate, if we are going to put them in criminal court, they must get a fair trial under the rules for a criminal trial. my question is whether they are entitled to such a trial. i do not beleive they are, but as you can tell by my post in which a pose some questions, i'm trying to get a better understanding. if you think there's no point in discussing it further, then don't respond.

Quote

so yes, i have chosen judgement before the trial.

If that becomes the acceptable standard, then 2 centuries of US veterans have fought, bled and died for nothing.

i don't think its acceptable for a judge or a jury to judge before a trial, but private citizens are certainly entitled to make judgements before someone has been tried in court. if they get called for jury duty, they also have an obligation to say that they've already made up their mind. "innocent before proven guilty" applies to the courts, not private citizens.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

these guys did it. we know they did it. even if they get off using our legal system, they are still guilty.

This is shocking to hear from anyone who's ever taken an American high school civics course, much less an intelligent, educated person such as yourself. Thousands of criminal trials are held in the US every day, and some of them result in Not Guilty verdicts - not because of "technicalities", or "weak evidence", or "bleeding hearts", etc., but because sometimes people who are accused of wrong-doing really are not guilty. If you don't understand that most core principle of any legitimate system of laws, then there's no point to discussing it any further.

Quote

so yes, i have chosen judgement before the trial.

If that becomes the acceptable standard, then 2 centuries of US veterans have fought, bled and died for nothing.

Justice has been served in prior conflicts; justice that you scoff at now because of the liberal bias that has consumed this administration. This selfish president never thought of the innocent civilians or the 200 years of military service you speak of. Have you forgotten, the word "terrorism or terrorist" is not acceptable to him.

Its a done deal, the "enemy combatants" will get their dog and pony show".

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

i don't think its acceptable for a judge or a jury to judge before a trial, but private citizens are certainly entitled to make judgements before someone has been tried in court. if they get called for jury duty, they also have an obligation to say that they've already made up their mind. "innocent before proven guilty" applies to the courts, not private citizens.

...which really is separate from what you said above. But let's move past that. Neither you nor I know the evidence against (or in favor of) most of the individual detainees, nor do we know the circumstances or basis of their original detention. Sadly, many people believe that the police would never arrest someone unless he is guilty. Unfortunately, I see the same mind-set being applied to people detained by the military - the detainee must be guilty, or the military would never have detained them. And that's just not a lawful standard to apply.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Justice has been served in prior conflicts

No. It hasn't. Once again it's as if you don't even bother reading. I'm not going to waste time and energy with you.

Quote

liberal

Once you start spouting that stupid horseshit, you take yourself out of the discussion with me. Go back to school and develop some basic literacy in high school civics. This isn't about taxes or gay marriage, so keep the silly FoxNews rhetoric out of it.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

liberal

Once you start spouting that stupid horseshit, you take yourself out of the discussion with me. Go back to school and develop some basic literacy in high school civics. This isn't about taxes or gay marriage, so keep the silly FoxNews rhetoric out of it.

No Fox new here bud. You're the snopes guy. Now tell me yes or no: has this administration refrained from the use or even changed the words "terrorism or terrorist"? You just keep putting your liberal slant on the 200 years of military justice. Civics? How about putting your head into some military history.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,116]

>Why would I pray for the death of innocent civilians Bill?

Same reason other right wingers are, I suppose. They want Obama to fail, and they see some innocent deaths as the lesser of two evils. In their eyes, that's our "only chance."

Michael Scheuer (on FOX): The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

>You must have pulled those figures, like most of your
>emotional outbursts, right out of your ass.

Sorry to hear you despise the US justice system so much. I am sure there are other countries that would be more to your liking.