Republicans say the darndest things! Or rather, the DUMBEST things

[Ramo]

When did I say I was talking about the Administration's views?

Then what was Buchanan whinging about?

You can summarily execute unlawful combatants.

Not in detention. Their status has to be adjudicated in at least an Article 5 tribunal.

[Ben Kenobi]

They relieved him because he resigned, you dishonest hack. *You* are the one trying to spin it as a negative for Martino and somehow repudiation of Martino's words, when in fact there is zero evidence to support your assertion. The Vatican has never repudiated them, not at all.

Neither has the Pope confirmed him. You keep spinning it as an endorsement.

And you keep digging your own grave. Why development and peace only? Benedict has kept him on for other things despite the resignation.

As you said, his resignation was mandatory. You seem to think it was from his own initiative...

As I said, your smearing of the reputation of a Cardinal of your own church by lying about him being dismissed is simply appalling. I suggest you bring this up in the confessional.

Honestly, I find it appalling to have friends of Castro in such high places in the Vatican. He's been a good cardinal in many many things, just not in development and peace. Unsurprisingly, he was relieved of his duties in this one instance, but kept his other ones.

[Guynemer]

Pat Buchanan is wrong. We are NOT at war, not in any traditional/international sense of the word. We are not at war with any foreign government. There are a bunch of foreign wackos of various nationalities who want to blow **** up here in the US; they are criminals, nothing more. Treating them as more than criminals simply gives them the legitimancy they crave.

[Drake Tungsten]

We are NOT at war, not in any traditional/international sense of the word.

1. You cannot be serious.

2. If you really think we're not at war, then you must support the cessation of military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Zevico]

Who are we at war with, exactly?
According to international law, war occurs between states. Not between individuals who happen to sympathise with an ideological cause, or with a state. If this guy acted alone Geneva wouldn't apply to him. Also, Geneva has no application to terrorist organisations. If you want to change how the US treats them legally, that's another matter. It's not about Geneva though: it's about introducing laws that apply to terrorist organisations (or, possibly, lone actors). Personally I'm opposed to laws that apply to lone actors--though I couldn't really tell you why. But terrorist organisations, yes, I think new rules need to be made for them.

[Berzerker]

thats pre-9/11 thinking

[Boris Godunov]

Neither has the Pope confirmed him. You keep spinning it as an endorsement.

When the Cardinal who heads a Vatican Pontifical Council, part of the Roman Curia, issues a statement, and it isn't at all contradicted, denounced or denied by the Vatican, I'd say that's pretty clear.

I'm sure if a senior White House official made a statement about something, and no one in the WH made any effort to contradict or deny it, wouldn't you assume it was the view of the White House? I know you would.

And you keep digging your own grave. Why development and peace only? Benedict has kept him on for other things despite the resignation.

It's not meant to be a lifetime appointment. I'm shocked you know so very little about your own church. They have rules about retirement ages from positions, you know.

Are you asserting Cardinals Roy, Gantin and Etchegaray were also removed for malfeasance? Each was president of the council, each retired from that job and continued duties with the Church. You're a moron.

As you said, his resignation was mandatory. You seem to think it was from his own initiative...

Retirements are usually of one's own initiative. I can provide a list of dozens of Cardinals who retired from posts. Were they all sacked?

Honestly, I find it appalling to have friends of Castro in such high places in the Vatican. He's been a good cardinal in many many things, just not in development and peace. Unsurprisingly, he was relieved of his duties in this one instance, but kept his other ones.

Martino's trip to Cuba and his statements about Gitmo were made in 2006, yet he didn't leave the post until 2009. That's a mighty slow termination procedure there.

Friend of Castro? You are truly despicable. Hey, look who else are "friends of Castro:"

http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Cuba/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-170731624.html

[Drake Tungsten]

As I said...

'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty

Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that's the way the system usually works.

But pressed today by Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about what might happen "if, by some one in a million fluke, one of the defendants were acquitted," Holder responded in effect that they won't be released.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-in-9-11-case-ksm-won-t-walk-free-even-if-found-not-guilty.aspx

It's good to see that we're circumventing a perfectly good military tribunal system in order to uphold the finest traditions of American justice with obvious show trials.

[KrazyHorse]

Errr....I actually heard that exchange. Holder responded "they won't be released into the United States"

I took that to mean that they would be deported.

[Lorizael]

That's kind of disgusting.

[Asher]

Errr....I actually heard that exchange. Holder responded "they won't be released into the United States"

I took that to mean that they would be deported.

You mean they're not going to be released into Manhattan, given a pile of money, full American citizenship, and a harem of young Christian girls?

Ben lied.

[DinoDoc]

As I said...

'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty

Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that's the way the system usually works.

But pressed today by Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about what might happen "if, by some one in a million fluke, one of the defendants were acquitted," Holder responded in effect that they won't be released.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-in-9-11-case-ksm-won-t-walk-free-even-if-found-not-guilty.aspx

It's good to see that we're circumventing a perfectly good military tribunal system in order to uphold the finest traditions of American justice with obvious show trials.

This so totally going to be a the Milosevic trial times 2. Not only is it going to be an unseemly show trial serving to give the defendents a mouthpiece they would otherwise lack, but it's also an obvious source of intelligence leaks.

[Drake Tungsten]

I took that to mean that they would be deported.

To where? Nobody wants them. They're going back to Gitmo (or whatever the sucessor to Gitmo is).

[DinoDoc]

Errr....I actually heard that exchange. Holder responded "they won't be released into the United States"

I took that to mean that they would be deported.

further down that blog post:
"if one of these terrorists" in the future were found not guilty or given a short sentence, Holder agreed that the Justice Department would still retain the authority to lock them up as enemy combatants.

[KrazyHorse]

I took that to mean that they would be deported.

To where? Nobody wants them. They're going back to Gitmo (or whatever the sucessor to Gitmo is).

They're actually going to get convicted. Unlike most Gitmo detainees there is some sort of reason to be holding these guys.