Should Eric Holder Resign? (Held in Contempt!)

[Serbia]

Good. We can now shoot you and still maintain our moral superiority. Thanks, MeDeFe!

[Phatscotty]

Um, what's the background story here?

I know I can google it, but I may not find exactly what you guys are on about.

I decided I couldn't present such a farce in an unbiased way (modus operandi) so I decided either people know what's going on or they don't. hence the third option

I guess Frig summed it up rather nicely then.


Why the fuck should someone resign over standard procedure for prosecuting criminals?

Cuz he is being reversed, proving once and for all, like i have been saying all along, the he made the wrong decision. Turns out it wasn't, as you put it "standard procedure". Time is a beautiful thing.
Obama's Poised To 'Get Punked' On KSM Decision

the Obama administration is close to reversing its decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court and will instead recommend that the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind be prosecuted in a military tribunal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/0 ... 87341.html
(huffington post, just for you!)


Phatscotty 1 MeDefeck 0

HMMM this sundae is missing something...

You lose, be a man and admit it and take back all the mean things you said about me, and then suck my balls. I haven't showered in 3 days so they are extra vinegary.

[BigBallinStalin]

I remember there being a whole PhatScotty thread about "military tribunals and truth syrup." Withing that thread, I was of the opinion that the underwear bomber and KSM should be tried in civil court; however, I'd like to take this opportunity to reverse my stance on the matter.

Why?

Because they are not a US citizens but more importantly because he is a military combatant. He is fighting against the US. The organization that he works for and plans for has declared war on the United States and has killed many Americans; therefore, as a military combatant, he should be put in a military tribunal and sentenced to an appropriate punishment (death, most likely).

It doesn't make sense to give these guys the opportunity to weedle their way out via our legal system because they have all means to do so. They actaully have a too good of a chance to get off because it's possible for crucial evidence to be dismissed due to ridiculous but legal reasons.

A lot of murderers, rapists, and child molestors dodge the bullet in court due to numerous bungle-ups on part of those who procur and handle the evidence, so why the hell would the United States want to take that chance with a group of people who are not only non-US citizens but also part of an organization that has declared war on the US?? [directed at MeDeFe and Co.]


However, if an American citizen were to commit a terrorist act, then they should be tried in a criminal court.

[tzor]

I’m going to say “NO” (and in so doing surprise even myself) but here is why.

First, the idiot should have been treated as an enemy combatant until assumed otherwise, not the other way around. What part of “Al-Qaida is at war with the United States” don’t you understand? (OK probably the same part the President apparently doesn’t understand.) Reading rights and throwing him to a criminal trial completely blew any chance we had on getting a leg up on the Al-Qaida Yemen division.

Having said that, and while responsibility may lie with him, he was only carrying out the orders of the President. If he resigned would you get someone better or someone worse in his place? My gut feeling is the later.

[Phatscotty]

I’m going to say “NO” (and in so doing surprise even myself) but here is why.

First, the idiot should have been treated as an enemy combatant until assumed otherwise, not the other way around. What part of “Al-Qaida is at war with the United States” don’t you understand? (OK probably the same part the President apparently doesn’t understand.) Reading rights and throwing him to a criminal trial completely blew any chance we had on getting a leg up on the Al-Qaida Yemen division.

Having said that, and while responsibility may lie with him, he was only carrying out the orders of the President. If he resigned would you get someone better or someone worse in his place? My gut feeling is the later.

a fair point. I looked at Holders career. Very accomplished, yet very political. Now he has 10 people working under him in the justice department who have defended al-qada in the past, and Holder is refusing to name 8 of them. Enough is enough.

[bradleybadly]

Yes.

Next question.

Ok

Yes. He should be replaced with Alberto Gonzalez. Man, he was good.

Not as good as Janet Reno, who was more of a man than Eric Holder could ever hope to be.

[Phatscotty]

Yes.

Next question.

Ok

Yes. He should be replaced with Alberto Gonzalez. Man, he was good.

Not as good as Janet Reno, who was more of a man than Eric Holder could ever hope to be.

she had bigger nuts too

[Phatscotty]

Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law -- which is only 10 pages long.

"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Obama picked some reallly good people...

talk about "acting stupidly"

[Symmetry]

Obama picked some reallly good people...

talk about "acting stupidly"

What does a picture of Eric Holder's face have to do with his suitability? Is there something we should notice about him that would immediately say he was stupid choice?

Elaborate.

[spurgistan]

Obama picked some reallly good people...

talk about "acting stupidly"

What does a picture of Eric Holder's face have to do with his suitability? Is there something we should notice about him that would immediately say he was stupid choice?

Elaborate.

To be fair, mustaches are hilarious.

[Phatscotty]

Obama picked some reallly good people...

talk about "acting stupidly"

What does a picture of Eric Holder's face have to do with his suitability? Is there something we should notice about him that would immediately say he was stupid choice?

Elaborate.

it's more for the leading choice in the poll which is "Who the F is Eric Holder".

Why would you think his face had something to do with Obamas decision?

[InkL0sed]

What are you, 10 years old?

[Phatscotty]

What are you, 10 years old?

I think even a 10 year old would have enough sense not to opine for weeks about a bill that he later admitted he has not read...

RESIGN!

[Phatscotty]

It looks like maybe he will be impeached! It looks like they might actually defund the department of justice. This could get hot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yCN93ZNJEM

[Metsfanmax]

What are you, 10 years old?

I think even a 10 year old would have enough sense not to opine for weeks about a bill that he later admitted he has not read...

RESIGN!

Well, one can make statements about a bill they haven't read if they've read about what it does, but the fact that the Attorney General was doing so is rather embarrassing indeed.

[Phatscotty]

What are you, 10 years old?

I think even a 10 year old would have enough sense not to opine for weeks about a bill that he later admitted he has not read...

RESIGN!

Well, one can make statements about a bill they haven't read if they've read about what it does, but the fact that the Attorney General was doing so is rather embarrassing indeed.

+1

[thegreekdog]

I have a question that I don't think has been answered (by anyone here or by the attorney general) - Why aren't the Black Panthers being prosecuted?

[BigBallinStalin]

I have a question that I don't think has been answered (by anyone here or by the attorney general) - Why aren't the Black Panthers being prosecuted?

Perhaps it's due to previous actions of the Death Squads that have led to some sort of compromise.

[Woodruff]

If I were any member of the administration or the Democrat party I would resign. They have recklessly placed our economy in a precarious position for their own political gain rather than doing anything for the good of the country. They should be embarassed and ashamed of their behavior.

As opposed to, for instance, John Boehner?

[stahrgazer]

If I were any member of the administration or the Democrat party I would resign. They have recklessly placed our economy in a precarious position for their own political gain rather than doing anything for the good of the country. They should be embarassed and ashamed of their behavior.

I think you have dems mixed up with republicans; it was Bush and company's policies that recklessly placed our economy in precarious position for their own political gain rather than anything for the good of the country.

The current (Dem) regime's major fault is being unable to fix an 8-year-economic-f*ck in 2 years. The current Republican major fault is to blame the Dems for the rape... hence, continuing to use their reckless economic policy for their own political gain rather than anything for the good of the country.

I mean, sheesh, Obama wants to enhance our infrastructure with things like high-speed trains. How ridiculous that he wants to 1) employ Americans to do the work 2) help alleviate our reliance on foreign oil by helping Americans get out of their autos and into public transit... and my Florida (Republican) governor can't see why a high speed train to help alleviate traffic on the (two, count them, TWO - I-95 and Turnpike) major arteries that lead north/south in Florida and help tourists get around the major vaca spots here that would also employ Floridians (who still have a very high unemployment rate) would be a good thing so he refused the money?

Nothing at all to do with Eric Holder, of course. It's just that one person doing something questionable shouldn't blight an entire party. As for Holder, I'm not sure the fact suggest he should resign - at least, not yet. He should carefully weigh the consequences either way, though.

[Phatscotty]

I remember there being a whole PhatScotty thread about "military tribunals and truth syrup." Withing that thread, I was of the opinion that the underwear bomber and KSM should be tried in civil court; however, I'd like to take this opportunity to reverse my stance on the matter.

Why?

Because they are not a US citizens but more importantly because he is a military combatant. He is fighting against the US. The organization that he works for and plans for has declared war on the United States and has killed many Americans; therefore, as a military combatant, he should be put in a military tribunal and sentenced to an appropriate punishment (death, most likely).

It doesn't make sense to give these guys the opportunity to weedle their way out via our legal system because they have all means to do so. They actaully have a too good of a chance to get off because it's possible for crucial evidence to be dismissed due to ridiculous but legal reasons.

A lot of murderers, rapists, and child molestors dodge the bullet in court due to numerous bungle-ups on part of those who procur and handle the evidence, so why the hell would the United States want to take that chance with a group of people who are not only non-US citizens but also part of an organization that has declared war on the US?? [directed at MeDeFe and Co.]


However, if an American citizen were to commit a terrorist act, then they should be tried in a criminal court.

Nice....

[BigBallinStalin]

I remember there being a whole PhatScotty thread about "military tribunals and truth syrup." Withing that thread, I was of the opinion that the underwear bomber and KSM should be tried in civil court; however, I'd like to take this opportunity to reverse my stance on the matter.

Why?

Because they are not a US citizens but more importantly because he is a military combatant. He is fighting against the US. The organization that he works for and plans for has declared war on the United States and has killed many Americans; therefore, as a military combatant, he should be put in a military tribunal and sentenced to an appropriate punishment (death, most likely).

It doesn't make sense to give these guys the opportunity to weedle their way out via our legal system because they have all means to do so. They actaully have a too good of a chance to get off because it's possible for crucial evidence to be dismissed due to ridiculous but legal reasons.

A lot of murderers, rapists, and child molestors dodge the bullet in court due to numerous bungle-ups on part of those who procur and handle the evidence, so why the hell would the United States want to take that chance with a group of people who are not only non-US citizens but also part of an organization that has declared war on the US?? [directed at MeDeFe and Co.]


However, if an American citizen were to commit a terrorist act, then they should be tried in a criminal court.

Nice....

It's all arbitrary when it comes to certain laws.

For example, women and blacks were denied rights enjoyed by most white men. All sorts of reasons were used to defend such an injustice, until of course the whole game was up and such rights had to be extended to others (Because they're all US citizens, or because of X, or Y, and Z).


However, I've got a question: If enemy combatants, guerrilla fighters, terrorists, or (whatever label you'd like to use) are caught trying to bomb some US building and are then tried by a military tribunal, then why shouldn't a US citizen who committed the same act be tried by a military tribunal (and not in civilian courts)?

[Phatscotty]

if he's a civilian, then he gets civilian court. If he is in a militia or an organized army, i think it might depend on the circumstances and it could be military tribunal. I see where this is going, and I get that uncomfortable feeling in my stomach.

Lets fast forward right to it. Al Qada in America. American converts, citizens.....

[Woodruff]

I remember there being a whole PhatScotty thread about "military tribunals and truth syrup." Withing that thread, I was of the opinion that the underwear bomber and KSM should be tried in civil court; however, I'd like to take this opportunity to reverse my stance on the matter.
Why?
Because they are not a US citizens but more importantly because he is a military combatant.

Incorrect. They absolutely are not military combatants. If they were, they would be wearing a readily-identifiable military uniform of that nation's keeping.

[Night Strike]

I mean, sheesh, Obama wants to enhance our infrastructure with things like high-speed trains. How ridiculous that he wants to 1) employ Americans to do the work 2) help alleviate our reliance on foreign oil by helping Americans get out of their autos and into public transit... and my Florida (Republican) governor can't see why a high speed train to help alleviate traffic on the (two, count them, TWO - I-95 and Turnpike) major arteries that lead north/south in Florida and help tourists get around the major vaca spots here that would also employ Floridians (who still have a very high unemployment rate) would be a good thing so he refused the money?

When Amtrak can exist on its own without government subsidies, we'll allow the government to build high-speed rails.