Um, yeah ?!? GWB sent a planeload of Bin Ladens out of America after 911. The proof is in the pudding. A bit more than a phonecall to some arrested suspect being psychologically abused in breach of the geneva convention by americans stationed on Cuba. What do you want to do with GWB for his assosiation with terrorists and fundamentalist muslems ? It surely is enough to detain him and send him to Guantanamo. Meybe he has immunity against prosecution like Berlusconi.
That was not George btw your still stuck in Michael Moore mode. You got to get that nonsense out of your head.
i need a transcript to read i'm not listening to a file that i could mishear.. i want to read what someone else misheard... and having not listened to it... why should i be surprised that US senators are having smoochy deep conversations with 'terrorists' since i think they're all part of a conspiracy anyway?
That was George. The family had dealings with the Bin Ladens as well as other saudi hot-shots. The political impossibility of detaining the saudi nobles made it expedient to evacuate. Probably a wise move, but not according to national legal protocol. I still dont see the problem with politicians talking to detainees. It is not likely to be a question of corruption. Michael Moore has many good points. NRA dont. They have only one, and that point is moot in light of the issue of freedom.
Ok you don't have your facts right and are spouting the Michael Moore / George Soros talking points verbatim. Nonetheless members of the Bin Ladin family are not Osama are they? The family denounced Osama years ago as a matter of fact he was kicked out of his country. You sould listen to the recording and then tell me what you think about it.
Is is just me, or did that sound like Phil Hartman doing an impression of Ronald Reagan? Either way, I for one would consider it torture to have to sit through Britney Spears videos. The Horror....
That is true, but the same kind of argument can be used for a lot of the detainees. I admit there is a practical flawline between the rights of a sitting president and that of common people "protected" by regimes and ideas unable to protect them, but I hope you admit the ideal goal of the ideology of democracy and equality under the law. As such you should be proud that us politicians take such interests.
It's not perfect but it's the best out there so far. At this point I think its time to turn away from the political correct ideals of equality. For example screening random passengers at airlines. I say its the Arabic ones that need to be concentrated on we are at war you know.
"War on" is an americanism that somewhat resembles the term "Jihad". War on poverty or drugs is not really war. Neither is "war on terror".
You have to see it from the perspective of legal mumbo jumbo. It is not a nation that has been for years attacking America as well as other free countries throughout the globe. It is an ideology specifically the fascist ideology of Muslim extremists. To declare war on terror has the benefit of preventing the executive branch of government from having to go to the legislative branch for approval every time the theater of war moves to a different country. The fourth column of government (the media) with its severe socialist leanings would have almost total control through the use of intimidation, manipulation, and cohersion of the legislative branch. We would have given up before it actually started if the party of power were to be conservative. And this is the case.
You should recheck this statement. From the point of legal mumbo jumbo you are skating on very thin ice. Legal mumbo jumbo, allso called the rule of law, has some positive sides you know.
Certainly no doubt about that and the rules are setup as a means of checks and balances. In this case it’s a good thing trust me.
