Rep. Louie Gohmert: Democrats want another terrorist attack so they can pass a new jobs bill.
Rep. Louie Gohmert: Democrats want another terrorist attack so they can pass a new jobs bill.
Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other terrorism suspects will be tried in U.S. courts in New York City, which has prompted outrageous reactions from conservative politicians and pundits. One of the most extreme reactions came last night during an exchange between Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Fox News Host Neil Cavuto. When Cavuto questioned Gohmert about whether we should try 9/11 terror suspects in New York City, the Texas congressman “joked” that Democrats who support bringing the alleged terror conspirators there for trial are hoping for another terrorist attack so they can “create a new jobs bill” to rebuild the city:
GOHMERT: You’ve got millions of New Yorkers that would be put at risk [by trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City] … Unless they’re trying to create a new jobs bill by allowing terrorism back in New York, this is insane. And even that would be insane.
Watch it:
(HT: Media Matters Action)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
More baseless fearmongering.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pmWe have some on the right who claim this is nothing but a political show trial meant to bash Bush…and bash America…
November 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pmthis is insane
Well even a blind squirrel… It’s too bad representatives can’t be removed for mental instability – or can they?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pmLouis, Louis, why do you carry extra undershorts in your briefcase?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pmAnother Gohmert pile.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pmMore proof that one of the most plentiful elements in the universe is stupidity.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:05 pmThis is a classic case of Republican projection, it is the Republicans that want another terrorist attack so they can blame Obama. Cheney said as much within weeks of Obama becoming President.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pmAccording to a 2007 New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:
“Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%”
Based on the reactions of the Cons they have something to hide.
How many times did they torture this guy?
His confession is inadmissable.
Time to re-investigate 911.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pmOnly Republicans get away with accusing the other side of having a wet dream about another terrorist attack. If a Democratic member of Congress had said that, it would be plastered all over the news ad nauseam…
November 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pmCan someone please explain to me what the point of all this is? I’ve been ignoring politics for a couple of weeks because it was giving me high blood pressure, which I’m too damn young for, tyvm.
I come back after a short sabbatical and what am I greeted with? Republicans are actually arguing that abiding by the law – as in, trying people for crimes if you want to put them in prison….I know, what a novel and unusual concept that is, huh? – is dangerous.
I have three words for this situation and the people who think this is an effective argument:
What.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:12 pmThe.
Eff.
My sentiments exactly.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pmOver/under on Olby Sucks calling us terrorist symapthizers: Post #50.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pmAlso, why haven’t we heard from Guilliani on this? I seem to recall him saying back in the day that when the people responsible met with the justice system that he wanted it done in New York (which is both constitutionally mandated and logical). Did I dream that up, or can someone else confirm that?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pmThere’s enough evidence on KSM that was garnered without the use of torture (and plenty of confessions, too). Holder wouldn’t be going ahead with the trial if the government didn’t have airtight evidence.
Besides, he’s also wanted by Pakistan. And probably a few other countries, as well. Neither he nor the co-defendents will ever be free men again.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pmHere we go again. The fear card worked so well in 2006 and 2008, huh Repugs? Bringing up this crap REMINDS Americans that all the Repug have left IS the fear card. Jeez.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pmsmidget, Jon Stewart played video of the Guilliani flip flop on this issue the other night.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pmIt’s entirely possible there may be some highly embarrassing (to put it nicely) information to come out of the proceedings.
Embarrassing to the Cheney/Bush cabal, about what was known before the 9/11 attack, and how information which might have prevented the attacks was ignored, and information about the Bush Family relationships with Saudi Arabia, as well as Cheney’s relationship with the oil companies and their desire for an excuse to invade the Middle East.
This is what the shrieking neo-cons are so afraid of.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pmRep. Louie Gohmert: Democrats want another terrorist attack so they can pass a new jobs bill.
– - The entire GOP needs to sit in the corner and take a loooooong timeout.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pmLouie Gohmold: Repubs want another terrorist attack so they can steal more civil liberties, pass more tax cuts, cut more social programs…ad infinitum…
November 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pmOMG! Off Topic… These people waitiing for Sarah Palin at the book sighning are freakin nuts. they are the most clueless, ignorant dumbasses on the planet!
November 18th, 2009 at 3:21 pmI don’t care if the shrieking neo-cons are afraid. I’m pissed off that someone from Texas – far removed from the actual events of 9-11 – has the audacity to say ANYONE wants another terrorist attack so that the city I live in could be rebuilt. For crying out loud, it’s been over eight years and they haven’t been able to fill that damn hole at Ground Zero. Are they TRYING to make us as crazy as they are? The crap that spews out of some people’s mouth is just jaw-droppingly stupid and the constituents of those places are either complicit in keeping these jerks in power or too dumb and lazy to care who they put in these positions. Hopefully there will be enough smart people in those places to thankfully put these nutjobs out to pasture.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:21 pmI find it amusing that all of these Republican politicians who have no connection to NYC have strong opinions on something that is a local matter for NYC and the feds. So much for federalism when you are a Republican in Congress minding someone else’s business.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:25 pmnoseeum says:and information about the Bush Family relationships with Saudi Arabia,
I thinking thats a biggie,,,, as what 15 of the 19 were from Saudi,,,, thinking it would be bad to fine out that the king new what was coming.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pmBut will have to wait and see just what comes out at the trail.
I don’t recall this kind of fearmongering when the terrorists behind the 1993 bombing of the WTC were tried and convicted here in the United States. Or even over the fact that they are incarcerated here in the United States.
I also don’t recall any terrorist attacks being waged anywhere near the trial venue when the trial was taking place.
Furthermore, I doubt Al Qaeda or any other organized terrorist group (I’m not counting individual rogue hotheads like Major Hasan) would want to unleash a terrorist attack at that place and time, since it would only galvanize the world (including a lot of the Muslim world) against them. Remember, we currently have a President who has far more support in the Muslim world than what we had in 2001.
I suspect the REAL reason for the fear is that there are some rather powerful interests who don’t want certain information coming out as evidence at these trials.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pmRep. Louie Gohmert (Moron-TX)
…well maybe the Dems are already planning the next attack…
…with their Saudi friends….
…like Bush and Cheney did.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:28 pmPurple State says
November 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Over/under on Olby Sucks calling us terrorist symapthizers: Post #50.
____________________________________________________________
I’ll take under on that one. He’s due.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pmLet’s not bury the lead here – Rep. Louie Gohmert just admitted that the stimulus bill created jobs.
Hooray for Keynesian Economics!
November 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pmObama’s being blamed for attacks on the US that haven’t occurred. Why would any D think an attack would help any cause? It’s way beyond absurd.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pmlivelongandprosper says:
smidget, Jon Stewart played video of the Guilliani flip flop on this issue the other night.
Okay, I didn’t see that, but I obviously didn’t dream that up. I’m not even slightly surprised that he’d reverse his position on this. If a Republican administration had brought KSM to trial in NYC, it would be the greatest thing that ever happened. But it’s a Democratic administration, so it’s clearly a bad idea.
Jeebus, these idiots are transparent.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pmIt’s because these ‘post 9-11 mentality’ midgets don’t give a flip about the United States anymore. The only thing, and I mean THE ONLY THING they are concerned about is regaining power. If they have to lie, steal and cheat to get it, they’ll do that. If they have to fearmonger, they’ll do that. So much for the Christian tenants they’ve managed to twist into as nice a bow as the underpants their wearing.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pmGood point, toasterhead!
I wish I could vote you up more than once.
Perhaps we should write the admins and tell them to change the headline.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pm“Why would any D think an attack would help any cause?”
I imagine because the Rs know that an attack helps a cause – the cause that puts money in their pocket through oil prospects, no-bid contracts for the military, and the use of mercenaries.
It’s yet another case of projection by the Republicans.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pmThis is right up there when savage said that libs wanted the towers to fall. Fck you both. I lived on LI NY for 34 years. I had the pleasure of going to the top of the WTC. I was there for the first year anniversary on 9/11. I stood next to the ramp where the family`s walked up with pictures of their loved ones who were murdered. As long as I live I will never experience the emotions that I did that day. To say that libs want a terrorist attack is sickening. Savage and Gohmert, I wish you were fcking dead, our country will be alot better off without you.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:34 pmnah,
November 18th, 2009 at 3:34 pmbecause only repukeliscums root for the failure of america. case and point: the stimulus
wanting to let the big three tank
the tea bagging terrorists
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I do hope the Democrats can find a legitimate candidate(they did not have one last year) to run against this moron because not will I be voting for whoever they get, but I will be involved in that campaign. I do not like being registered to vote in the 1st District of Texas when it is being represented by an idiot like Gohmert.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm“Stop politicizing THE WAR ON TERROR!”
pretty funny tard, coming from the party that played with the “terror alert” system right before the 04 elections. now, sit down and shut up, shitstain, you have zero credibility on this issue.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pmMr. Gohmert, the terrorists have never left New York. It’s called the Zionist Criminal Network. Wise up.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pmNo need to bring them to NY and increase the already high risk of a terrorist attack. Stop politicizing THE WAR ON TERROR!
LOL Boo! Now go back under your bed.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:42 pmFVNY says:
Stop politicizing THE WAR ON TERROR!
November 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
____________
Do explain how a war on an abstract concept isn’t already an inherently politicized entity.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pmFVNY
You’re an idiot. The Constitution applies to all people who are brought up under the justice system of the United States. You’re a complete moron who apparently thinks it knows what’s going on. You don’t, as evidenced by your stupid comment re: the Geneva Conventions. Hey, moron, try reading the conventions. They clearly lay out protections for both military and non-military citizens.
It’s YOU who’s politicizing the war on terror by making the justice system a political debate. You don’t deserve citizenship in this country, because you clearly don’t believe in the rule of law, and therefore you don’t believe in America.
You need to find another country, you un-American fascist.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:44 pm#35 – FVNY says:
—————————————————
“The Constitution only applies to American citizens and the Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed soldiers.”
November 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Yet again, Mr. “Twist your words to suit my opinion” is back in full force!
Why do you hate America, and why do you hate our Troops!?!?!?
When you can bring yourself to stop twisting others words to suit your opinions, I’ll stop twisting your words! The difference between the two of us is that I admit what I’m doing, you’re still in denial about your twising others words to suit your opinions!
November 18th, 2009 at 3:44 pmIt’s time for Democrats to start feigning indignation and incredulation at these inflammatory, rude and boorish Republican statements…
even if we know that is all we can expect from them.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pmBTW, FVNY – I didn’t bring up the Constitution. I said “law.” Are you too stupid to know the difference? Wait, don’t answer that. It’s obvious that you are.
The better question is what the hell got into your head to think you could come on this site and hold your own with a bunch of people who are clearly smarter than you.
Why do you go back to eating the paste and let the adults handle the serious issues?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pmThe stupid troll is wrong on both points. The Constitution does not apply exclusively to citizens and the Geneva Conventions are not limited to uniformed combatants.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pmThe Constitution only applies to American citizens and the Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed soldiers. These terrorists should have been tried in a tribunal and executed. No need to bring them to NY and increase the already high risk of a terrorist attack. Stop politicizing THE WAR ON TERROR!
Oh, good grief. I live in New York. I’m not afraid of them. And why are you trying to parse justice? Who are you…Eric Holder? (I’m talking about some alleged terrorists coming to New York for trial, while others are submitted to the military commissions.) So let’s see…if they are tried and then executed, is it because they are guilty, or because they found themselves caught up in your War on Terror? I, for one, am glad Holder had the (somewhat) decency to put our vaunted legal system to the test. YOU, unfortunately, think the only way to deal with this is a show trial by military commission and then summary execution. How…how like China you are!
November 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pmIt’s amazing the things that pass as “common knowledge” amongst the stupid trolls.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The only oversight was when your mother forgot to call Planned Parenthood.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pmThe Constitution only applies to American citizens and the Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed soldiers. These terrorists should have been tried in a tribunal and executed. No need to bring them to NY and increase the already high risk of a terrorist attack. Stop politicizing THE WAR ON TERROR!
I corrected this same statement yesterday. The Constitution applies to all citizens and persons in the US. You do not need to be a citizen to exercise constitutional rights. Even illegals get an administrative hearing if they challenge deportation.
Whether the terrorists are tried in court or military tribunals is a decision for the President and Attorney General. If Republicans do not like this course of action, then they can pass a law to stop the trials. I wouldn’t bet on this bill even getting out of a committee in Congress. The decision to try the terrorists in NYC is a matter for NYC and the federal government and is not the business of any people outside those entities.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
FVNY says:
“I’m sorry, let me correct my previous comments.
and the Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed soldiers.”
well, shitstain, we agree on one point…how sorry you are and better get “correcting” again unless you can provide a link to the exact article of the geneva convention which proves this statement.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:54 pmThe Republican leadership: Chickenhawks and Chicksh*ts.
The Republican base: ignorant self-loathing racists.
Wasn’t that a party?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:55 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
FVNY, do you think of yourself as a decent person? If so, why do you want to torture people? Is it because you are afraid? Or are you just here to inflame an already heated issue? Either one of those will get you the same treatment in the end as you are advocating. Stop being stupid and start being a real human being. I had friends who died in those Towers, and I want the perpetrators brought to justice – the American way with trials and objections and, yes, even the ability of the accused to ’spout their jihad in court.’
November 18th, 2009 at 3:55 pmIllegals get a trial in the justice system if they are accused of a crime. The hearing is related to deportation, and of course it’s not the same scenario as citizens face, since a natural born citizen can’t actually be deported.
What’s saddest about your abject stupidity is that you seem to think you’re smart. How the fcuk did the delusion get this far without someone pointing you at a therapist? Doesn’t anyone love you enough to help you?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:55 pm“Save the planet, terminate a child!”
in a war of choice in the middle east right, tard?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pmAll I hear are the teabaggers will carry out the terrorism not the radical Muslims.
Dumbf0ucks like gohmert are fueling the flames.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pm“Rep. Louie Gohmert: Democrats want another terrorist attack so they can pass a new jobs bill.”
Here we go again. More fearmongering. Gohmert and the GOP Party are becoming The Party of Fruit Loops. No intelligent ideas, no plans, and no brains. Pass the popcorn..
November 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pmFVNY
I don’t support random abortions, but fascist don’t deserve life. If you don’t believe in the rule of law, then you’re a fascist, and thus don’t deserve life.
Change my mind. Prove that you’re not a disgusting piece of garbage. Good luck, by the way.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pmFVNY says:
Save the planet, terminate a child!
November 18th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
_____________
As long as it’s a Christian child, we liberals are all for it.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pmsooo, one would assume FVNY would favor trying right wing domestic terrorists like the dude who gunned up the national holocaust museum under the same rules he advocates for other terrorists.
right, fvny….right?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pmActually the Constitution applies to all people in the United States not just citizens. That is why Bush sent the detainees to Gitmo to avoid the Constitution. If there is anyone can cite a paragraph in the Constitution that says it applies to Citizens only please let me know.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pmFVNY says:
Yes, an administrative hearing. Not the same as the rights afforded American citizens under the Constitution.
This statement is also wrong. All the Constitutional rights are afforded illegals except a trial by jury. Any person is free to appeal the administrative ruling to the Federal District court and on up to the US Supreme Court.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pmFrom section 2.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Nothing there about the accused needing to be U.S. citizens. The fact is that it’s the right of the American people, to try those accused of heinous crimes, that takes precedence in cases like these.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pmWould somebody put Gomer back in his box? And lock it this time. And put some duct tape over his yap, too.
OTOH, we should all appreciate the fine job Gomer is doing in making the Republipimps look like perfect arseholes. Oh, sorry, cancel that; nobody’s perfect.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:00 pmWell, Biloxi, that means they won’t get back into power anytime soon, then. If Gohmert continues spewing this crap, most people will be really turned off…except for FVNY – who gets all wet thinking about another terrorist attack.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:00 pmspeaking of abortions, fvny,
how do you feel about the RNC knowingly providing their employees with optional abortion coverage as part of their insurance package?
if i were you, i’d be pretty pissed off about being played for a fool by the RNC about the whole abortion issue.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:00 pm#48 – FVNY says:
——————————————————-
“I apologize for the oversight!”
November 18th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Too bad Mr. “I twist your words to support my extremist, right-whining, lie-believing, calumny spreading, head-in-the-sand to ingore reality OPINIONS” can’t bring himself to apologize for his intentionally twisint other people’s words!
Why does FVNY hate America?
Why does FVNY rape children and animals?
Why does FVNY want to replace America with his twisted vision of a fascist state?
Inquiring mnds want to know, FVNY!
It’s you right-whining, kool-aide drinking lemmings that don’t question your false assertions and simply swallow them whole without engaging their brains!
November 18th, 2009 at 4:01 pmsmidget,
A minor point. I don’t think that “fascist” is quite accurate when speaking of stupid trolls. Most are actually anarchists.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:02 pmGohmert’s name looks like the Albanian word “Gomar”
“Gomar” means jackass.
His name suits him to ‘T’.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:04 pmChill out people. When Texas secedes Gohmert will be out of a job and we won’t have to listen to him any more. BTW I used to work for his first cousin and he was the most racist misogynist SOB I ever met.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:05 pmYou’re right pete. I wasn’t really calling him a fascist by the technical definition, just throwing out a random insult. It’s not like it would know the difference anyway.
Although, it is suggesting authoritarian rule instead of rule of law, and that is pretty fascist sounding.
I suppose it’s not really smart enough to embrace the other concepts necessary, though. I’ll go with the anarchy thing. You convinced me. Congratulations. :)
November 18th, 2009 at 4:05 pmIf rights are inherent and self-evident, why would they be limited to a certain citizenry? Why Declare these truths, then turn around and limit who they apply to?
Then there’s this little thing:
November 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pmAmendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“Well, Biloxi, that means they won’t get back into power anytime soon, then”
And at this rate, the more that the GOP talk and act insane and buffoons, the more nails in the GOP coffin come 2010 and 2012 elections. And I know that alot of folks will never forget the GOP who stall and voted no on the unemployment benefits bill come election time.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm“BTW I used to work for his first cousin”
Is that also his father?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
FVNY
” It only elevates the risk of attacks”
really? can you provide a link to the attack that happened after the first group who tried to blow up the WTC were tried, convicted and sent to jail?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pmDo you understand that your opinion doesn’t matter even in the slightest? The prisoners WILL be brought to NYC for trial because the Constitution, which applies to all those under the American justice system whether you like it or not, requires it. Get over it.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm“Better a terrorist swallow a little water rather than innocent Americans die”
if that’s the case then why did beyotch boy hannity refuse to man up and put his money where his mouth was to get waterboarded for charity?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pmA further reading of Article 3, Section 2, establishes the limited jurisdictions of federal courts. This includes the following:
Alienage jurisdiction: cases between
* a state and a foreign state;
November 18th, 2009 at 4:14 pm* citizens of a state and a foreign state;
* citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; or
* a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state, where the state is the initial plaintiff.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
“if that’s the case then why did beyotch boy hannity refuse to man up and put his money where his mouth was to get waterboarded for charity?”
For the same reason that there’s no way in hell Bildo will donate $10,000 to the SPLC. Just because they said it then doesn’t mean it’s binding now. They’re Republicans. They’re allowed to twist reality to fit their own ideals no matter who it screws over.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pmSounds like a lie to me there, aaronk/FVNY. Not too long ago you said you lived in Indiana.
Incidentally, considering how you admittedly struggle with the impulse to commit acts of gun violence on your fellow Americans, I don’t think your mental health or your patriotism are sound enough for anyone to take your recommendations on terrorism seriously.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pmWow, someone’s sarcasm meter is broken.
Oh, wait. That’s FVNY again. Nevermind. It’s not intelligent enough to understand humor that doesn’t hinge on a wet fart.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:16 pmThis statement doesn’t even make sense.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:18 pmpete
Based on that passage, it would seem that it is not the feds, but rather the People of the State of New York get the honor of bringing the perpetrator(s) to justice.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:18 pmi get the feeling FVNY is afraid of me. are you afraid of me, FVNY, is that why you’re not asnwering my questions directly addressed to you because you’re afraid?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:18 pmYou can CONTACT Rep. Gomer here and tell him what you think:
http://gohmert.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=36§iontree=36
November 18th, 2009 at 4:18 pmSo, you see, stupid troll? Our most cherished laws require that the accused be tried with first chance going to the state where the crimes were committed. The Constitution clearly and unequivocally demands said trial despite any perceived risk.
BTW, that’s also why Bill0 and others have been saying “to Hell with the Constitution” in their calls for summary vigilantism. They, at least, are well read enough to realize that the Constitution is not on their side.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pmActually Louie has it ass backwards. It is we republicans who want another terrorist attack within our country because it would lead to much political gain for the GOP and we need all the help we can get.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pmOnly the republicans would want another terrorist attack on American Soil. By the way, Gitmo was never attacked by any terrorist while the prisoners were there. Go figure.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:23 pmI don’t tink so, smidget. Rather, it establishes a federal jurisdiction that has the power to hear cases between states, or between states and foreign nationals.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:23 pmAh, yes. Projecting again, Gomer??
November 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pmAnyone surprised this POS is from Texas??
I work about 50′ from the WTC EMPTY HOLE. What can anyone say about this disgusting little man who is shaking in his boots about all the TORTURE intel that may come out during a trial, we all know this to be true . .
November 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pmMy old friend Prescott Bush used to fondle Adolph’s wiener schnitzel
November 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
By Mr. Gohmert’s reasoning, Rudy Giuliani should never have prosecuted all those mob guys.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The way your post reads, it sounds as though you are enumerating the limitations on federal jurisdiction. Additionally, another post of yours said that the “first chance” goes to the state.
I’ll take your word that you mean the opposite of what I thought you said because I frankly don’t have the time to read the Constitution right now and check it out for myself. Plus you’re a pretty smart guy, and proven to be rational and trustworthy, not prone to just making stuff up. So take this as me saying “My bad.”
But regardless, it is still required that they be brought to New York for trial. Whether they have a trial in the a NY Court or a US Court is fairly inconsequential.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:27 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Let us not forget….People elected this jackass to congress!!!!
November 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pmWhy do you think the Bush administration had Saddam Hussein hung so quickly after his first trial even though he had two more trials coming? Because the second trial was about Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people and we didn’t want the world to find out that the USA under Ronald Reagan who sold chemical weapons to our good friend, Saddam.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pmapparently, my beyotch-boy FVNY needs me to give him a reading lesson
“ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States”
which means states cannot make laws which supercede the rights provided in the constitution.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pmFVNY says:
The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It states:
“ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States
How on Earth would that apply to this case?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pmFVNY
MY GOD you are stupid. The Constitution does NOT apply to only citizens. Read it you moron it says PERSONS not citizens. Ya think the founding fathers didnt know the difference? The Geneva ConventionS thats plural you moron do NOT apply only to uniformed soldiers read it sometime you brainwashed pile of dogshit
November 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pmBozo posted this once, you stupid assh0le, but I’ll post it again since you’re too dumb to scroll up and read a little.
“Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Following the prescribed rule of law and the rights of the accuser and the accused when the accused happens to be a non-citizen is in no way abridging any privileges or immunities of citizens. In fact, denying them the right to bring the perpetrators to trial is abridging their privileges.
You have no logical thought process to speak of, do you? That’s so sad. Is it because you’re only 12, the brain damage, or the inbreeding that caused it?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:31 pmFVNY no oversight. We already knew you were a soulless moron and an ignorant piece of garbage without even the semblance of decency. What a piece of shit you are
November 18th, 2009 at 4:32 pmMr.Duke says:
Whatever it takes to kill the dollar, pile on more debt, and, eventually, “spread the wealth, baby.”
************************************************************
November 18th, 2009 at 4:32 pmMr. Duke, I like the system the way it is now too. The middle class spreading the wealth to the upper class. We wealthy elitists deserve all of the tax breaks and tax loop holes since we are who built this great country of ours, not the whiny American laborers.
Mr DUKE why are you so PROUD of being a stupid brainwashed pile of dogshit?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:33 pmAnd I don’t disagree with waterboarded terrorists to thwart another 9/11 type plot. Better a terrorist swallow a little water rather than innocent Americans die.
You do understand, do you not, that the purpose of waterboarding is to elicit false confessions and statements, just like every method in the so-called “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”? Every expert agrees that you cannot get reliable intelligence from torturing people.
Revenge is not a justification for torturing people.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:33 pmMr. Duke used to be my towel boy at the Turkish bath house. I loved how he dabbed my ass crack dry with his tongue.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pmFVNY you are NOT talking issues. You are far too stupid to even KNOW them. You are talking NONSENSE and DELUSIONS. Mostly the rightwing LIES you have been programmed with
November 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pmFVNY says:
I’m talking cherry picked issues and avoiding any questions which i cannot answer since if i do i will be clearly proved wrong and you’re talking about Sean Hannity. You’re a weirdo Bozo!
fixed it for you beyotch boy.
you’re welcome.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pmThe purpose of torture for COWARDS like FVNY is to make HIM feel better. He doesnt care how much American values are destroyed. He doesnt care about the Constitution, he doesnt care about decency. He cares ONLY about himself and he is a COWARD. So while he hides under his bed the fact someone brown is being tortured somewhere makes his useless little thingy hard. He defines pathetic
November 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pmThe projection is awesome.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pmLouie Gohmert: Democrats want another terrorist attack so they can pass a new jobs bill.
Obama must have been workin out the specifics on that for awhile i guess.. cause I’m a bit shady on how the strategy works..
1) Get terrorists to attack
November 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pm2)….
3) Pass jobs bill
Mr. Duke is just playing with you all. He, just like his hero “W” think the constitution is just a God damned piece of paper.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pm(Haven’t used this one in a long, long time):
BOO!
Scared?
Vote Republican (never mind the fact while in control, CONservatives failed to prevent the biggest terrorist attack on US soil, and basically ran the economy into the ground)
November 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pmtest
November 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pmNo need for a “my bad”, smidget. I wasn’t being clear and I’m not much of a lawyer so I often make mistakes in translation. Let’s try this again.
Article three establishes the jurisdiction of federal courts. As such, state courts aren’t really part of the article. The only time the states figure is establishing a venue. In this case, the crimes occurred in New York so they get “first chance” as a venue but the prosecution is still federal because there are federal laws that take precedence.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
RLH@118,
November 18th, 2009 at 4:43 pmmr. puke is “playing” with himself. he gets his rocks off on abuse which he gets in abundance around here.
On a related note, does anyone know why Bin Laden and company haven’t been tried in absentia? It used to be used quite often for terrorists.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pmFVNY,
don’t you trust our judicial system?
or,
are you afraid about what will be revealed on the record about the previous administration?
which is it, beyotch-boy?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pm“On a related note, does anyone know why Bin Laden and company haven’t been tried in absentia? It used to be used quite often for terrorists.”
because that would piss off the saudi royal family and the bushes wouldn’t want that to happen would be my best guess.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:46 pmFVNY,
don’t you trust our judicial system?
or,
are you afraid about what will be revealed on the record about the previous administration?
________________________________________
Just because the trial is happening in NY in a US Court doesnt mean the terrorists are getting a fair trial. Do you really think Obama would allow that to ruin his legacy?
November 18th, 2009 at 4:49 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
pete
I follow totally. On a re-read, I think you had it right the first time, I think I just misread it. Thank you, btw, for bringing some intelligence to the discussion. I don’t bother with idiots like FVNY. Nothing rational will sink in, so I jump straight into playing with them. I’ve kind of been on an insult roll today. Glad I had the chance to lob a few of them at this one, to be honest about it.
FVNY
The Amendment in question is the 9th, not the 14th, you complete retard. Learn to read, you unbelievable dipshit.
To repeat, YET AGAIN, for the uber-stupid among us:
November 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pm“Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
FVNY says:
Pretty obvious to me. Take these degenerate swine to GITMO and waterboard the shit out of them before executing them in the most painful way imaginable.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
____________
How very Christian of you.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pmLet me guess, everyone just shit themselves and jumped on Google really fast to try to refute my interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Losers!
November 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pmThere’s been nothing eloquent come out of you. Perhaps you need a dictionary so you may look up the word “eloquent.” Or better yet, you’re already on the internet, try using Google. Genius.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pmA fair trial of a guilty person would, by definition, end in conviction.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pmTo repeat, YET AGAIN, for the uber-stupid among us:
“Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
___________________________________
Use whatever amendment you want, “people” refers to citizens dipshit!
November 18th, 2009 at 4:54 pmFVNY says:
“Pretty obvious to me. Take these degenerate swine to GITMO and waterboard the shit out of them before executing them in the most painful way imaginable.”
FVNY,
“Just because the trial is happening in NY in a US Court doesnt mean the terrorists are getting a fair trial.”
look at my little beyotch boy backpeddling. a minute ago he was advocating no trial now he’s worried about a fair trial.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:56 pmWhy would anyone try to refute the interpretation of an Amendment that has only been called into question by you,
fcuktard.
Perhaps you could answer to the actual amendment in question – the NINTH. In case you failed math as well as history and civics, 9 comes before 14, and the definitions laid out in the 14th amendment apply only to the 14th amendment. That is how law works. It’s complicated, that’s why they don’t let people like you do it.
This is a true example of the failing of society. Anyone this stupid should have been killed off by natural selection years ago.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:57 pmsmidget,
Always a pleasure. Once in a while the stupid trolls do interject an interesting point. Generally by making a spectacularly stupid comment that causes me to look up whatever they are so spectacularly wrong about.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:57 pmI find it fun to rile them up. When a thread as pretty much progressed as far as intelligent discourse can take it, watching their heads explode is better than cable TV. :)
November 18th, 2009 at 4:59 pmBozo The Neoclown says:
——————————————————————————–
FVNY says:
“Pretty obvious to me. Take these degenerate swine to GITMO and waterboard the shit out of them before executing them in the most painful way imaginable.”
FVNY,
“Just because the trial is happening in NY in a US Court doesnt mean the terrorists are getting a fair trial.”
look at my little beyotch boy backpeddling. a minute ago he was advocating no trial now he’s worried about a fair trial.
_______________________________________________
Did your mother name you Bozo? It fits!
You asked me if I trusted our judicial system. I said that I wasn’t worried about the terrorists getting acquitted because there was no way Obama would let that happen. I do feel that rather than trial in NY, they should be tried and executed in GIMO but waterboarded first to make sure they’ve given up all information.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:59 pmFVNY you are incredibly stupid. You dont GET to put words in the founding fathers mouth. If they had MEANT citizens they would have WRITTEN citizens they said PERSONS for the obvious reason that they meant PERSONS YOU IGNORANT BRAINWASHED PILE OF DOGSHIT
November 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pmFVNY Your post will get more votedowns because it is ignorant brainwashed NONSENSE. Only someone as stupid as YOU could take it seriously. When CITIZEN is meant CITIZEN is SAID. My GOD you are stupid.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:04 pmWhy would anyone try to refute the interpretation of an Amendment that has only been called into question by you,
________________________________________________
God you’re stupid.
The 9th amendment refers to the rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The 14th amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship.
Which do you think is more appropriate for a discussion on whether unlawful enemy combatants should be afforded the constitutional rights that apply to US citizens?
Really, youre making yourself look stupid. Sign off, and come back later.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:04 pmnoseeum says:
It’s entirely possible there may be some highly embarrassing (to put it nicely) information to come out of the proceedings.
Embarrassing to the Cheney/Bush cabal, about what was known before the 9/11 attack, and how information which might have prevented the attacks was ignored, and information about the Bush Family relationships with Saudi Arabia, as well as Cheney’s relationship with the oil companies and their desire for an excuse to invade the Middle East.
This is what the shrieking neo-cons are so afraid of.
exactly right, Nosee, except you didn’t say they were TRAITORS against the USA and EVERYTHING it EVER stood for.
Allow me…
November 18th, 2009 at 5:05 pmFVNY is a COWARD. He wants people tortured BECAUSE he is a coward. He doesnt care about whether it works, he doesnt care it is EVIL, he only cares about himself and making him feel better that SOMEONE is torturing brown people somewhere. FVNY is a pathetic COWARD
November 18th, 2009 at 5:05 pmNo FVNY he is making YOU look stupid which is easy because YOU ARE STUPID. The constitution limits the GOVERNMENT. It says how the government can use its JUDICIAL powers and when they are using them against ANYBODY the restrictions apply. Only the stupidest people IMAGINABLE would argue that only CITIZENS get protection of the constitution in court trials. You are so stupid your ignorance is warping the very space time continuum
November 18th, 2009 at 5:08 pmFVNY you are incredibly stupid. You dont GET to put words in the founding fathers mouth. If they had MEANT citizens they would have WRITTEN citizens they said PERSONS for the obvious reason that they meant PERSONS YOU IGNORANT BRAINWASHED PILE OF DOGSHIT
_______________________________________________
Is a liberal like yourself Debs asking that the Constitution be strictly adhered to? Surprising. I thought you believed it was a living document. You’re such a dirty liberal hypocrite.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:09 pmThere’s no need to refute your interpretation of the 14th Amendment because it’s irrelevant to the discussion, stupid troll. Article 3 is the relevant portion as it establishes that it’s the right of the good ol’ U.S.A. to try people of foreign extraction in federal courts.
This trial isn’t for their benefit, it’s for ours. It’s our right and duty to try these people.
As for military tribunals, the Bush Administration got themselves in a bind. The only way for a military tribunal to satisfy international law is if it’s in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. As we all know, Bushco threw out the Conventions so? There’s really no way to set up tribunals that would satisfy international law.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pmThere’s no need to refute your interpretation of the 14th Amendment because it’s irrelevant to the discussion
____________________________________________________
The 9th amendment refers to the rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The 14th amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship.
Which do you think is more appropriate for a discussion on whether unlawful enemy combatants should be afforded the constitutional rights that apply to US citizens?
Stop! You lose! Its over!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:13 pmwhy such a bedwetter, fvny?
and why are you stalking people here?
and who ya votin’ for in 2012, friend!!!!!??????
youbetcha!!!!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:17 pmand who ya votin’ for in 2012, friend!!!!!??????
______________________________________________
kind of early for that!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:19 pmHey JeffyB/FVNY/TTTC.
Um, you got some jiz on your chin there son. You need to be a bit more careful when you are servicing your *cough* studs.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:19 pmaaronk/FVNY, really, we get it. You blame the left for all your problems and you’re filled with murderous hate. It’s clearly important to you to try to get a rise out of the posters here. Is that how you’ve decided to deal with your fear about the future and your hostility for your fellow man?
Maybe by targeting this discussion forum for your vitriol, you’re trying to work up the courage to commit acts of terrorist gun violence like you talked about. Or maybe you see this forum as an outlet to blow off steam so you don’t succumb to your impulse to shoot your fellow Americans. Either way, normal people don’t behave like this.
You should really get help before it’s too late.
See ya.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:19 pmStop! You lose! Its over!
—
November 18th, 2009 at 5:19 pmI know and just when I was enjoying our little Reagan supported terrorism discussion. Maybe you will have better luck next time you try and play in a league above you….
Article 3 is the relevant portion as it establishes that it’s the right of the good ol’ U.S.A. to try people of foreign extraction in federal courts.
______________________________________________
yeah, it gives the courts power to try foreigners in US courts. It says nothing of granting those foreign citizens the same rights as US citizens have under the constitution.
You guys are making this way too easy on me!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:20 pmkind of early for that!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:21 pm—
Then why not be proud and share your votes in the last 4 cycles? Are you embarassed by them or is it that doing so would blow they they are the same charade?
FVNY
A liberal like me DEFINITLY wants the constitution strictly adhered to. I know you are far too stupid to understand the CONCEPT or really any concept, but the constitution was written NOT in specifics but in broad concepts so it COULD evolve. However YOU dont get to change words IN the constitution in order to twist it to your IGNORANT BRAINWASHED AGENDA. My GOD you are so stupid. Only a complete moron would argue those writing the constitution didnt know the DIFFERENCE between persons and citizens.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:22 pmMaybe by targeting this discussion forum for your vitriol, you’re trying to work up the courage to commit acts of terrorist gun violence like you talked about. Or maybe you see this forum as an outlet to blow off steam so you don’t succumb to your impulse to shoot your fellow Americans. Either way, normal people don’t behave like this.
_____________________________________________
Thanks for the concern TrollSpotter! Don’t worry though, no acts of violence. America needs me on the streets and in the voting booth to protect her from the LEFT!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:22 pmSigh… It’s really hard to argue with someone who isn’t arguing about the relevant subject. I’ll try this, again, real slow.
Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the jurisdictions of Federal courts. Included in the explicit duties of federal courts is the prosecution of foreign nationals who commit crimes within the United States. The 14th and 9th Amendments have nothing to do with it.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pmfvny just LIVES to create a distraction that’s “all about him” and his puny bigoted misunderstanding of what exactly the country he lives in stands for…
how boorish.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pmA liberal like me DEFINITLY wants the constitution strictly adhered to. I know you are far too stupid to understand the CONCEPT or really any concept, but the constitution was written NOT in specifics but in broad concepts so it COULD evolve. However YOU dont get to change words IN the constitution in order to twist it to your IGNORANT BRAINWASHED AGENDA. My GOD you are so stupid. Only a complete moron would argue those writing the constitution didnt know the DIFFERENCE between persons and citizens.
______________________________________________________
Sorry but you can’t have it both ways Debs.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pmAmerica needs me on the streets and in the voting booth to protect her from the LEFT!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:24 pm—
Since when is there a LEFT Party? How do you protect against them in a voting booth?
FVNY You are too stupid to even be IN this conversation. Read the fourth and fifth amendment. THAT talks about the RIGHTS of those accused. Does it say CITIZENS or does it say PERSONS. You are so stupid and so brainwashed communication with a moron like YOU is frankly impossible. Find a reasonably bright six year old to explain this to you.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:24 pmpete says:
There’s no need to refute your interpretation of the 14th Amendment because it’s irrelevant to the discussion, stupid troll. Article 3 is the relevant portion as it establishes that it’s the right of the good ol’ U.S.A. to try people of foreign extraction in federal courts.
This trial isn’t for their benefit, it’s for ours. It’s our right and duty to try these people.
As for military tribunals, the Bush Administration got themselves in a bind. The only way for a military tribunal to satisfy international law is if it’s in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. As we all know, Bushco threw out the Conventions so? There’s really no way to set up tribunals that would satisfy international law.
Correct.
REAL Americans KNOW this.
Not FVNY, of course…
November 18th, 2009 at 5:24 pmSorry but you can’t have it both ways Debs.
—
November 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pmAs you wish to with regard to defining terrorism?
Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the jurisdictions of Federal courts. Included in the explicit duties of federal courts is the prosecution of foreign nationals who commit crimes within the United States. The 14th and 9th Amendments have nothing to do with it.
____________________________________________________
Actually its Article 3 and it gives the courts power to try foreigners in US courts. It says nothing of granting those foreign citizens the same rights as US citizens have under the constitution.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pmYou are making this way too easy on me!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pmFVNY
Oh my GOD you are stupid. It ISNT having it both ways to say the constitutions broad concepts leave room for growth and new situations and that it DOESNT mean you get to change the wording of it to get YOUR interpretation. Just how stupid are you anyway. You ignorant pile of dogshit. You are getting spanked AGAIN you do realize this dont you? You are the stupidest pile of garbage imaginable
November 18th, 2009 at 5:26 pmyou’d better hope not – R’s best get their act together real fast if they’re going to stand a snowball’s chance – imho it’s already way too late for them, given their inch-deep pool of lukewarm talent….
November 18th, 2009 at 5:26 pm——————————————————————————–
FVNY You are too stupid to even be IN this conversation. Read the fourth and fifth amendment. THAT talks about the RIGHTS of those accused. Does it say CITIZENS or does it say PERSONS. You are so stupid and so brainwashed communication with a moron like YOU is frankly impossible. Find a reasonably bright six year old to explain this to you.
_______________________________________________________
I said that the terrorist aren’t citizens and therefore do not enjoy the rights afforded citizens under the Constitution. I then explained how the 14th amendment defines a citizen, which is the purpose of that amendment. You choose not to see the truth. Not my problem!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:28 pmThat’s what you say now. Earlier:
As I said, normal people don’t have to “fight the urge” because the thought of murdering our fellow Americans doesn’t tempt us. Not so with you.
Decent Americans deserve better safety than your assurance that you will “fight the urge.”
Get help before it’s too late.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:28 pmSection. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If FVNY’s analysis is correct, then there would be no need to use the word “citizen” in the first restriction and the phrase “any person” in the second and third restriction. Clearly, the Constitution defines citizens and indicates that they have particular rights not afforded to non-citizens (such as the right to vote) and at the same time, just as it states, all people are afforded basic rights and protections of the law for every thing else. Well, clear that is to anyone who cares.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:28 pmFVNY
You MORON. The constitutions limits government rather than GIVE RIGHTS. The specific wording OF the constitution when speaking of what the government must NOT do to the accused speaks of PERSONS not CITIZENS YOU MORON. We try foriegn nationals UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONS. If they are charged with murder they are treated the same as citizens. You not only have no idea what you are talking about you are too stupid to even BE in this conversation you dont know enough. There is no QUESTION that the rights of the accused as they are known apply to PERSONS under the egis of law and not only to citizens. My GOD you are stupid
November 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pmAbsolutely right. It’s the 3rd Article. Then we move on to the fifth Amendment.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pmNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Uh, early in the Obama presidency, didn’t Rush et al really get on a high horse, saying that THEY hoped that there would be a terrorist attack to make Obama fail ?
November 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pmFVNY no you didnt you lying MORON. First it doesnt matter how the 14th amendment defines citizen since the constitutions judicial restrictions on government do not apply ONLY to citizens. That is just the stupidity you were TOLD to believe. It is ludicrous. It is FALSE. Second you tried to CHANGE the wording of the 14th amendment to mean what you want it to mean. The only thing you showed is how stupid and uninformed you are
November 18th, 2009 at 5:32 pmGlenn Beck guest Scheuer: “The only chance we have as a country right now is” for bin Laden to “detonate a major weapon” in U.S.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906300039
November 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pmPLC
FVNYs analysis woud fail a third grade logic course
November 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pmIf the Constitution was supposed to mean what FVNY thinks it means it would have said:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of; deprive life, liberty, or property of, without due process of law; nor deny within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws to citizens of the United States.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pmFVNY is a MORON. Even the screechmonkeys that pushed this bit of stupidity knew better. No one believes the constitution applies ONLY to citizens except where it SAYS citizen. They just knew there were people like FVNY out there STUPID enough to regurgitate the talking point without knowing how plain ignorant it was
November 18th, 2009 at 5:40 pmYou MORON. The constitutions limits government rather than GIVE RIGHTS.
______________________________________________________
I guess you’ve never heard of the Bill of Rights. That’s the first 10 amendments put in by the Anti-Federalists to ensure that they rights of the people were not trampled.
The 14th amendment was added to redefine citizenship to include the freed slaves. It was obvious that the classification as a citizen, and the rights afforded to those citizens, only applied to natural born or naturalized citizens.
You guys can try twisting it all you want to give the terrorist a trial in Downtown Manhattan but that don’t make it right!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:40 pmFVNY, I wish to quote one of your buddies:
TTTC says: You went to which law school?
November 18th, 2009 at 5:42 pmYou guys can try twisting it all you want to give the terrorist a trial in Downtown Manhattan but that don’t make it right!
—
November 18th, 2009 at 5:43 pmAnd you can pisss and moan all you want but no one will care…
FVNY, I wish to quote one of your buddies:
TTTC says: You went to which law school?
_____________________________________________
You’re right PLC, I should just shut up and let the government define what the constitution means to me. Thanks!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:44 pmFVNY
My GOD you are stupid. Of course I have heard of the bill of rights you MORON. I even know what is says like CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Now you tell ME is that bestowing a RIGHT or is it limiting the government. Why dont you just STFU before you further embarass our entire species by showing how ignorant you are.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pmYou’re right PLC, I should just shut up and let the government define what the constitution means to me.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm–
Or you could let the Supreme Court handle that….
My GOD you are stupid. Of course I have heard of the bill of rights you MORON. I even know what is says like CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Now you tell ME is that bestowing a RIGHT or is it limiting the government. Why dont you just STFU before you further embarass our entire species by showing how ignorant you are.
_______________________________________________
You’re splitting hairs Debs because, like usual, you have a weak argument and failed ideology.
Until tomorrow traitors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:48 pmFVNY is new Bond Girl: dip$hit galore
November 18th, 2009 at 5:51 pmFVNY says:
You’re splitting hairs Debs because, like usual, you have a weak argument and failed ideology.
Until tomorrow traitors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:54 pm—
Like your terrorism gig you ran away from? See ya tomorrow. I will be here willing to help you make a fool of yourself. Just a heads up the pretending you don’t see me pwning you left and right is a really bad strategy. It just makes me f uck with you more….
Take care….
Seriously Dbadass, what’s the point you’re trying to make about terrorism? Do you think thats the first time I heard about the Reagan -Terrorism connection? And I told you that I didn’t support terrorism (intentionally killing innocent civilians) no matter what. So how exactly was I avoiding you?
November 18th, 2009 at 5:59 pmThe d is lowercase.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:01 pmI was talking about this thread. I already was awarded the early round. Now can you explain about this use of the voting booth to protect against the left? How does that work?
Oh so can you do me a solid and just go on record that you were personally revolted by Reagan’s support for terror? That way we could put that one to rest.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:02 pmIt’s not about safety, it’s about not allowing the defendants to cross-examine their accusors in a public forum. When Cheney’s minions fail at stopping the trials, they will next try to keep the press from reporting on the proceedings. Watch and see.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:02 pm.?????????
the only “failed ideology” belongs to Dick, Dubbie, and their “conservative” chums.
get real kid.
who do you think’s going to buy your line of hokum?
go jabber with the baggers.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pmOn second thought dBadAss, I’d like to amend my previous comments. I think that civilian casualties are a result of the US military trying to police the world, which needs to end.intentionally killing civilians though aint cool.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pmsorry kid –
dbadass is a strict constructionist.
no amendments for you!
November 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pmFVNY still valiantly getting his ass handed to him i see. on a meth binge, beyotch-boy?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pmIs there a reason you are intentionally spelling dbadass incorrectly? Can you just take a stand on the Reagan matter on way or the other. Is supporting those that intentionally kill civilians cool?
November 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pmSorry, not sure how you want me to refer to you.
Supporting those that intentionally kill civilians is not cool.
But what’s your take on say bombing a city during a war? You know innocent people will die but you’re also trying to destroy your opponents ability to wage war.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:49 pmSupporting those that intentionally kill civilians is not cool.
But what’s your take on say bombing a city during a war? You know innocent people will die but you’re also trying to destroy your opponents ability to wage war.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pmWhat does your example have to do with the Contra situation?
November 18th, 2009 at 7:06 pmSorry, not sure how you want me to refer to you.
—
November 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pmWell dbadass seems reasonable. Do I not address you as FVNY?
But what’s your take on say bombing a city during a war? You know innocent people will die but you’re also trying to destroy your opponents ability to wage war.
—
November 18th, 2009 at 7:09 pmWould this not justify the actions of the terrorists who conducted the 911 attacks? If in their minds they felt they were at war would they not be able to justify their actions using your very paradigm?
I agree. The terrorists in my opinion are soldiers for their cause. But because they don’t wear uniforms and fight out in the open they don’t deserve the rights of typical soldiers.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pmI thought they didn’t like New York in Texas.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pmFVNY:
November 18th, 2009 at 7:26 pmIs there a reason you will not take a stand on the matter of Reagan’s support of terrorists? It is sort of hard to respect you when you refuse to have any principled principles that you will stand up for. I am starting to think you just wanna post random crap for the sake of attention. Was Reagan’s support of the Contras and Reagans Arms for Hostages program morally wrong? Yes or No? Please don’t make me have to pull out the Pussy For Life trophy….
Not sure what you’re getting at dbadass. I already told you that I didn’t support the killing of iinocents. Now you want to turn this into a discussion of proxie wars as if reagan invented them. You seem to have a problem staying on topics.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pmThan simply type that Reagan’s support of the Contras and his Arms for Hostages program was morally wrong in your opinion.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:02 pmIf you can’t explain why you can’t.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:03 pmI think proxy wars to free foreign people from dictatorial regimes is wrong. It was wrong under Reagan, wrong under Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43. Freedom needs to be achieved by those people and not the US. I’m sorry that the Nicaraguans had to live under the oppressive regime of Senor Daniel Ortega and the socialist Sandanistas. And sorry that more people have died under socialism/communism than all other types of government. But that’s not my problem.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pmAnd sorry that more people have died under socialism/communism than all other types of government. But that’s not my problem.
Actually, more people have died at the hands of Authoritarian regimes than of any other.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:00 pmBut that’s not my problem.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:46 pm—
Isn’t the plight of others the problem of all caring people?
You make me laugh. You lack the balls to even make a simple declaritive statement. You are in fact Pussy For Life and you wear your title proudly I see…
November 18th, 2009 at 9:48 pmHave you ever noticed how Republicans like to make wild charges but never offer a reason why. Why, for instance, is it insane to hold the trials in NYC? Terrorists have been successfully tried there before without consequence. What would be different this time. And how would it be better if the trial was held in, say, Alanta. What’s insane are those flapping their jaws without any idea of what they are talking about.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:58 pmFVNY says:
And sorry that more people have died under socialism/communism than all other types of government. But that’s not my problem.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Seriously? You’re going to have to cough up some evidence of that one, ding dong.
BTW, the SCOTUS called to say thank you for taking over the job of interpreting the Constitution — but you really suck at it.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:01 pmFVNY splitting hairs?? My God you are just so stupid it is astonishing. Congress shall make no law is very clear. It is limiting gov NOT bestowing rights just like I said. What kind of moron are you anyway. Do you just toss magnet words against the refridgerator and post whatever sticks? Your ignorance is palpable. I didnt split hairs I DESTROYED YOUR IGNORANT ARGUMENT. That is easy enough for anyone to see. What an ignorant putz you are
November 19th, 2009 at 12:22 amFVNY BuhBYE Stick it up your ass you cowardly, un-American pile of dogshit
November 19th, 2009 at 12:27 am.
Dear FVNY…
The 14th Amendment that you quoted @122…
… It also states “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Funny, YES?
That the sentence before what I quoted says “CITIZEN” yet the “CITIZEN” is dropped in the last two subsections to become ANY PERSON.
Care to parse how the Founders screwed THAT up?
Because by YOUR measure, it should read “CITIZEN” all the way through…
… Yet it doesn’t.
FUNNY, YES?
.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:15 am.
Hey everyone,
FVNY is NOT tough on terrorism.
… Because the tough one’s are the one’s who are ready and willing to exercise the totality of the Judicial mechanisms afforded WITHIN the Justice system, NOT cower from utilizing that Tough Justice.
Or is FVNY suggesting that the American Justice System is NOT good enough and is inherently flawed to the point where it can not try prisoners correctly?
My gut says FVNY supports terrorism and torture thus bringing these detainees to Justice will only FORCE the issues of WAR CRIMES and TERRORISM ABROAD AT THE HANDS OF THE USA into light, NO?
.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:23 amMax I keep pointing that out to him. He is COMITTED to being stupid and brainwashed. If Rush didnt tell him then he cant absorb it
November 19th, 2009 at 2:39 amWow Debs, you’re posting your garbarge in the middle of the night. You must really have no life.
DallasNE, you are demanding a trial in federal court in NY. My question is why? KSM has already agreed to a trial and execution via military tribunal.
zooey, are you really going to question if more people died under socialism/communism in the last 150 years? Don’t make excuses for guys like Stalin and Mao because you agree with their economic policies.
dbadass, you try to turn a debate over terrorism into a discussion of proxy wars and containment just so you can call Reagan a terrorist. You fail to remember that both parties have supported these policies for a very long time. You think you’re going to paint me into a corner so I will label the right wing as guilty. But I won’t let it happen. I am always willing to admit the GOP is wrong on alot of issues. You my friend live in a fantasy world where one party is right and the other always wrong. So you can take your pussy for life trophy and shove it up your socialist ass!
November 19th, 2009 at 8:57 amWow.
I can’t believe this moron is still posting.
It won’t answer for Article 3, which gives the people the right to bring these guys to trial, it keeps claiming that calling these guys “enemy combatants” means anything other than that they were civilians who fought back, it keeps claiming that the amendment which defines citizenship somehow also means that rights aren’t afforded to non-citizens. It was challenged by Zooey when it said that communism and socialism have killed more people than any other type of government, and then added “in the last 150 years” 50 posts later.
And the whole time, it thinks it’s actually been correct. It has to have shoved its head so far up its ass that it can’t even read the words on the screen to think that, but clearly that’s what happened.
For the first time I feel sorry for this dipshit. This is one of the most pathetic and yet persistent displays of idiocy I’ve ever seen. Someone should print this out and send it to the Department of Ed. I want them to see how massively the educational system has failed. No one should grow up this incredibly stupid and completely ignorant of reality. It’s just sad.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:48 amDamn fool progressives…. continually on the wrong side of history. These terrorists committed and act of war on this country. They did not just attack NYC, they attacked our capital as well. KSM was not on American soil when taken into custody. There is absolutely no reason to try them in our court system, which is for American citizens, but you fools want to extend the constitution to foreigners, taken into custody on foreign soil. Just another can of worms being opened by morons… and had Bush done this very thing, you’d be up to your eyeballs in conspiracy theories about some shady goings on because of it. But because the dipshit in chief we have in charge now does it, you’re all for it.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:30 am