How To Stp the Illigal Non-Military Trials of Terrorists--& Why It Must Be Done

@Maggiepie (7821)
United States
November 29, 2009 2:01am CST
[b]"Feminists" loathe Phyllis Schlaffley (sp?), but ignore their sexism. She's brilliant, & she's right every time she talks. Go find out what she says re the title matter, & learn the simple legal reason why we can't allow this nonsense ever to occur in NON-military courts! http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2009/nov09/09-11-27.html Maggiepie "GLOBALLY ACCEPTABLE 'TRUTH'" IS UNAMERICAN![/b]
1 person likes this
5 responses
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
30 Nov 09
Were you and Phyllis Schlaffley so upset when the other 100+ people accused in terrorism-related cases have been tried in federal courts? I'd say it's a matter opinion whether "she's right every time she talks," with all due respect. By the way, I happen to KNOW I'm not "UNAMERICAN" no matter what anyone says! I'm as All-American as one can get! Annie
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16689)
• Boston, Massachusetts
30 Nov 09
KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. So what do we get out of bringing them to federal court? Well, we get to put the United States on trial, which is exactly what KSM's lawyer has announced they will do. We also get to allow classified information to be shared in discovery with KSM's lawyers. This is exactly what happened at the trial of the 1993 WTC bomber. Later those documents were found in an Al Qaeda camp in Pakistan. Why try them in New York? We can put the Bush administration and the CIA on trial. We can release sensitive information that can and will be used against us. We can do what they did in the case of the 93 bombing that led to 9/11. We can endanger the security of the nation out of what is either a petty desire to bring accusations against a former administration and take the focus off the present administration's troubles or it is something much more sinister. The idea that someone has done something foolish or made a mistake in the past is never a good reason for doing it again.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
30 Nov 09
Annie, I challenge you, name one person who we have captured on a battlefield who has been tried in civillian court. It doesn't happen.
1 person likes this
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
5 Dec 09
[b]ROLLO & XFACTOR: Thank you for your wise relies! Some folks (the Koolaid swillers) will never "get it," but they've eliminated themselves, to my way of thinking, as being worthy of our attention. So let's not waste time with such. Let's instead concentrate on getting our country back into balance, & pray to God that He gives us the time, the decency, the strength of will & the courage to do it! Maggiepie STALKERS BEWARE! ATTACK CAT INSIDE!___^..^
@thea09 (18324)
• Greece
29 Nov 09
As I say to everyone Mags so no special treatment for you, you link doesn't work, please provide a synopis.
1 person likes this
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
29 Nov 09
[b]Tell me how, & I will! Gladly! But...why doesn't it work to just copy & paste the URL into a search field? That's what I'd do. Maggiepie STALKERS WILL BE EATEN BY AN ATTACK CAT!___^..^
@thea09 (18324)
• Greece
29 Nov 09
It's a quirk of mine. I think it's a cop out to introduce a discussion in someone elses words, I want the posters opinion not a source to read. It's like being asked to read a newspaper article and give an opinion, that's not a discussion in my mind. Also I did a discussion on links as introductions and it showed that most people never open them (okay maybe in politics) and people are more likely to respond to an introduction in someones own words. I may not be interested when I've opened the link but I'll know that straight away if I read an introduction, and thus not waste my time.
2 people like this
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
2 Dec 09
[b]But there's far too much info there just to relate it here. I figure if anyone's really interested, they'll take the time to look anyway. Since I already knew the info in her article from other sources, I didn't want to do a retread. But she is a very careful writer, so I think people would like to read her words, anyway. More than mine, at any rate. Do you know how to make a blue link, by the way? If so, let me know, & I'll make one here for her site. Maggiepie STALKERS WILL BE EATEN BY AN ATTACK CAT!___^..^
@vandana7 (65019)
• India
29 Nov 09
Hi Maggiepie, how could you come up with such interesting discussion towards the end of the month? I have other commitments that have to be cleared on or before December 1st. So I will be gone for just a couple of days. Do wait up for me. I promise a nice and lengthy reply on this one.
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
29 Nov 09
[b] Sorry! Bad habit, I guess! (Just saw your other post!) Sure I'll wait--since it's you! Maggiepie "GLOBALLY ACCEPTABLE 'TRUTH'" IS UNAMERICAN! [/b]
@vandana7 (65019)
• India
5 Dec 09
Sorry, fellow Indian, and "crime has a sad background". :)
@flowerchilde (12518)
• United States
5 Dec 09
Very good article. I especially liked "The U.S. Constitution can rescue us from the Obama Administration's latest push toward "remaking America." Our Constitution is on the people's side to stop Obama from turning the judiciary into a platform for America's sworn enemies to spread their propaganda and even use our own laws against us. Our Constitution's framers foresaw the probability that power-hungry men would try to take over the judiciary. So, they gave us the tools to maintain a government based on the separation of powers." and ""Federal District Courts shall have no jurisdiction over any case involving unlawful enemy combatants, as that term is defined in the United States Code (title 10, section 948a)." - And how many know about this? "Before Eric Holder became Attorney General, he and other Justice Department lawyers were in law firms that represented detainees at Guantanamo. Those lawyers should all be disqualified; they shouldn't have ever been hired by the Justice Department." Or do they even care? Or care or consider this: "There are many bad consequences to staging the trial of KSM in New York City. If he is given all civilian constitutional rights, the government will be required to turn over to him vast amounts of U.S. intelligence and information that will imperil national security and put us in danger of future acts of terrorism."
1 person likes this
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
5 Dec 09
[b]I knew there were those such as you, who know the Constitution, thus get it, immediately! He has to be stopped, & these are the tools with which to do it! It's up to such as we to get the word out! Maggiepie STALKERS BEWARE! ATTACK CAT INSIDE!___^..^
@Rollo1 (16689)
• Boston, Massachusetts
29 Nov 09
Just one more sensible and correct thing that Congress will not do. The frustrating and saddening thing is that we the people have no one standing up for us in Washington. The ones who would do the right thing are so much in the minority and the ones on the fence are too spineless to go against the party line, even when they know it is of great importance and a matter of national security to do so. When our congressmen will sell our country's future to buy their jobs or to curry favor, we must realize that the nation is doomed. They must all go, every one of them. It's time to elect representatives of the people. Phyllis Schlafly is a successful woman with a successful career. She should be lauded by feminists but she doesn't support all of the positions held by NOW and the liberals. This means she cannot be admired for any of her accomplishments. They do not even believe in their own supposed vision, that a woman should be free to be whoever and whatever she wants to be. She must be what they want her to be. That is just oppression of a different sort.
1 person likes this
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
2 Dec 09
[b]Congress...is that becoming a curse word, I wonder? I don't strictly follow any party, though since I vote primarily Conservative, & most of those land in the GOP, that's usually where my vote goes, almost by default. But I. Have. Had. It. With RINOs! Yes, Phyllis is an amazing woman. Intelligent, thoughtful, brave, altogether admirable in every way (unless you're Far Left). I went to hear her once, here in Austin, & I was happily surprised at the composition of the crowd (University of Texas students)--largely Conservative (judging by the applause). Those who didn't agree at least behaved themselves; the Berzerkley method of censorship hadn't made it to Austin then. Maybe it never did. Hey, miracles happen. She will never fly with the Left because she's not falling down & worshiping gender politics, & because she's obviously not a brainless wonder, as all Conservative women are painted by the Far Left. I wish she'd run for President! Maggiepie STALKERS WILL BE EATEN BY AN ATTACK CAT!___^..^