Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ebuddy · Nov 19, 2009, 08:00 AM

KSM will be convicted and executed.
Wow. So the POTUS has already tried, convicted, and sentenced Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to death in a statement to NBC News yesterday regarding those offended about the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial; "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." Why are we bringing these folks back to the US for this dog and pony show again? Oh that's right, due process.

It seems our esteemed Attorney General has also tried, convicted, and sentenced the henchmen; "Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result." This of course would mean the death penalty; a notion Holder is notably opposed to. How will he sleep at night?

Mohammed's defense may be Charles Manson who attempted mistrial by showing Nixon's presumption of his guilt in the paper. It didn't work that time, but hey- with "CHANGE" and all, we've come a long way. In a world where liberal bias in the news is a right-wing fabrication, it'll be interesting to see if as many rags touch on this little gem.

ctt1wbw · 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In a world where liberal bias in the news is a right-wing fabrication, it'll be interesting to see if as many rags touch on this little gem.

I laugh whenever I hear this. I think of Chris Matthews when I hear this.

BadKosh · Nov 19, 2009, 10:40 AM

Reminds me of Stalin. Even more pathetic is just how clueless the Attorney General is about moving KSM from military jurisdiction to the public circus. Graham made his point that the AG had no clue and the heming and hawing from the AG just made him and Obama look stupid.

Laminar · Nov 19, 2009, 11:10 AM

Countdown to hytecitfjlsdkfj post in 3...2...1...

BadKosh · Nov 19, 2009, 12:13 PM

I think the AG looked so stupid that the libs won't defend him.

Dork. · Nov 19, 2009, 12:23 PM

What do you expect the Attorney General (who is untimately in charge of this prosecution) and his boss to say? If Holder and Obama weren't speaking with such certainty, wouldn't those of you who don't agree with the decision be getting on their case anyway?

You can argue with whether we should be trying KSM in a civillian court or a military court if you like. But now that the decision is made, you can hardly fault the prosecution for speaking confidently that they have a case.

Chuckit · Nov 19, 2009, 12:36 PM

So the reason it's bad that Obama did this is because a horrible mass murderer lost his trial after claiming another president did something kind of similar. Do you even read this stuff before you post it? Would you care this much if it had been Bush or McCain boasting?

Chongo · Nov 19, 2009, 12:40 PM

An interesting conversation.
YouTube - Senator Graham Questions Attorney General Eric Holder

stupendousman · Nov 19, 2009, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So the reason it's bad that Obama did this is because a horrible mass murderer lost his trial after claiming another president did something kind of similar. Do you even read this stuff before you post it? Would you care this much if it had been Bush or McCain boasting?

Probably not. The reason being that they'd never move him to the U.S. in order to claim to give him fair due process, then essentially make the claim that it was a done deal anyways. Bush and McCain would have had him tried by a military court and wouldn't make the case that he needed the same protections regular American citizens got.

BadKosh · Nov 19, 2009, 01:03 PM

The 0bama admin is pulling this stuff out of their butts, and have no clue as to the consequences. Sounds like typical Obama admin operation on just about everything they have put their inept hands on.

The Final Dakar · Nov 19, 2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

The 0bama admin... Sounds like typical Obama admin...

C'mon, man, you're less consistent than John Kerry!

BadKosh · Nov 19, 2009, 01:28 PM

Not according to Joe Biden..LOL!

The Final Dakar · Nov 19, 2009, 01:33 PM

Don't you mean 'L0L'?

OAW · Nov 19, 2009, 01:49 PM

Seems to me that the last time someone blew up the WTC the guy was convicted in federal court just fine. As was the guy who did the Oklahoma City bombing. To claim that federal court is such a problem all of a sudden in this case is rather disingenuous.

OAW

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 02:12 PM

So where did Pres. Obama say "KSM will be convicted and executed"? He said "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him".

It's a conditional statement.

Sounds like a bunch of word twisting and changing it's meaning.

What "will" happened "when" a condition is met.

It's like saying "Americans will have their day of justice when Bin Laden is captured, tried in court, and put to death."

Or I "will" buy myself a house "when" I become a millionaire.
Or I "will" buy myself a new car "when" I get my drivers license.
Or he "will" but executed "when" he is found guilty of murder.

BadKosh · Nov 19, 2009, 02:13 PM

And he wasn't designated a war combatant, and it was before 2001.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 02:22 PM

So New York Post own by Rupert Murdock shows Right Wing Bias with headlines like "KSM will be convicted and executed"

smacintush · Nov 19, 2009, 02:26 PM

So…what are the ramifications of convicting a man in civilian court who was held for years without being mirandized and charged formally, and who was subjected to what THIS administration has declared to be torture?

turtle777 · Nov 19, 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

So where did Pres. Obama say "KSM will be convicted and executed"? He said "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him".

It's a conditional statement..

No, it's not.

He said when, not if.

-t

turtle777 · Nov 19, 2009, 02:28 PM

This whole thing is so idiotic, it just shows how far removed the Obama administration is from reality.

Where do they get all the crack from ?

-t

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 02:30 PM

New York Post - A Gossip Rag

smacintush · Nov 19, 2009, 02:32 PM

Congratulations on attacking the messenger without addressing the message.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

No, it's not.

He said when, not if.

-t

He said "when". Exactly. Not "will".

"when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him".

turtle "will" finally become a man "when" he grows some balls.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Congratulations on attacking the messenger without addressing the message.

Did you missed it?

I addressed the issue, then attack the messenger.

Here it is again in case you missed it the first time:

So where did Pres. Obama say "KSM will be convicted and executed"? He said "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him".

It's a conditional statement.

Sounds like a bunch of word twisting and changing it's meaning.

What "will" happened "when" a condition is met.

It's like saying "Americans will have their day of justice when Bin Laden is captured, tried in court, and put to death."

Or I "will" buy myself a house "when" I become a millionaire.
Or I "will" buy myself a new car "when" I get my drivers license.
Or he "will" but executed "when" he is found guilty of murder.

turtle777 · Nov 19, 2009, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

He said "when". Exactly. Not "will".

When means it's a question of time.

I hope that's what he meant. I doubt it though.

-t

turtle777 · Nov 19, 2009, 02:35 PM

Dude, it's sad. Is English not your first language ?

-t

smacintush · Nov 19, 2009, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Did you missed it?

I addressed the issue, then attack the messenger.

Here it is again in case you missed it the first time:

So where did Pres. Obama say "KSM will be convicted and executed"? He said "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him".

It's a conditional statement.

Sounds like a bunch of word twisting and changing it's meaning.

What "will" happened "when" a condition is met.

It's like saying "Americans will have their day of justice when Bin Laden is captured, tried in court, and put to death."

Or I "will" buy myself a house "when" I become a millionaire.
Or I "will" buy myself a new car "when" I get my drivers license.
Or he "will" but executed "when" he is found guilty of murder.

Your right, I tend to gloss over your posts. It's habit by now.

OAW · Nov 19, 2009, 02:39 PM

Only in the minds of a right-winger does confidence in the strength of the prosecution's case become a problem when it's expressed by someone who is not.

OAW

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

When means it's a question of time.

I hope that's what he meant. I doubt it though.

-t

Millions of Americans will rejoice when New York Post goes bankrupted.

Millions more will rejoice when FOX news goes bankrupted along with it.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Your right, I tend to gloss over your posts. It's habit by now.

Congratulations on attacking the messenger without addressing the message.

The Final Dakar · Nov 19, 2009, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Congratulations on attacking the messenger without addressing the message.

Turnabout is fair play.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Dude, it's sad. Is English not your first language ?

-t

Dude, it's sad. Did you not finish high school?

turtle will finally get a job when he finally finishes high school.

I don't think turtle will finish high school though.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

smacintush · Nov 19, 2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Congratulations on attacking the messenger without addressing the message.

Oh? That was an attack?

I apologize for attacking you.

Laminar · Nov 19, 2009, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Dude, it's sad. Is English not your first language ?

-t

I thought that much was obvious.

besson3c · Nov 19, 2009, 03:33 PM

This thread is going well!

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

I thought that much was obvious.

I think you have it backasswards.

Macrobat · Nov 19, 2009, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Millions of Americans will rejoice when New York Post goes bankrupted.

Millions more will rejoice when FOX news goes bankrupted along with it.

Which "millions" are those? The ones NOT watching the other news outlets?

Fox News Dominates 3Q 2009 Cable News Ratings

FAR more likely one of your liberal-slant agencies will go down the toilet before FNC.

BadKosh · Nov 19, 2009, 04:14 PM

But it will probably be "Never" by the time it's over. No guilty verdict. No time. And the Obama Admin will hold hold him because he's a danger.

Other possibilities is no Miranda so he gets off, or It becomes a Bush/CIA attack-fest,and the only real reason it was moved from Gitmo is that the liberal mouthpiece media is closer to NY than Cuba.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Which "millions" are those? The ones NOT watching the other news outlets?

Fox News Dominates 3Q 2009 Cable News Ratings

FAR more likely one of your liberal-slant agencies will go down the toilet before FNC.

So 3.3 million people watch FOX news.

That leaves 300 million Americans who do not.

Are you saying there can't be millions of Americans who hate FOX news?

I heard millions of Howard Stern listeners want Howard Stern off the air cause it is offensive.

OAW · Nov 19, 2009, 04:19 PM

I believe hyteckit's point is that the word when implies a certain degree of conditionality in certain contexts. "when FOX news goes bankrupt" is more accurately interpreted as "(if and) when FOX news goes bankrupt". Unless one is talking about something that is already scheduled, in motion, or extremely likely to happen then conditionality is assumed. For example ....

"I'm going to travel the world when the sun comes up tomorrow."

.... implies a much stronger degree (near certainty) of likelihood than .....

"I'm going to travel the world when I win the lottery."

The latter definitely implies a conditionality that the former does not. I don't think the point can be made any more clearer than that.

OAW

Macrobat · Nov 19, 2009, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

So 3.3 million people watch FOX news.

That leaves 300 million Americans who do not.

Are you saying there can't be millions of Americans who hate FOX news?

I heard millions of Howard Stern listeners want Howard Stern off the air cause it is offensive.

Yet VERY few of those other 300 million are watching the OTHER news outlets, either.

Again - please get it - just once.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Yet VERY few of those other 300 million are watching the OTHER news outlets, either.

Again - please get it - just once.

Dude, cause we liberals don't limit ourselves to watching news on TV or cable. We obtain news through other channels like the internet.

Macrobat · Nov 19, 2009, 04:26 PM

And you think conservatives do?

BTW, that is what is known in the ratings business as "Pure BS."

Because even "on the internet" the news outlets' stories ARE the citations on the websites.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

I believe hyteckit's point is that the word when implies a certain degree of conditionality in certain contexts. "when FOX news goes bankrupt" is more accurately interpreted as "(if and) when FOX news goes bankrupt". Unless one is talking about something that is already scheduled, in motion, or extremely likely to happen then conditionality is assumed. For example ....

"I'm going to travel the world when the sun comes up tomorrow."

.... implies a much stronger degree (near certainty) of likelihood than .....

"I'm going to travel the world when I win the lottery."

The latter definitely implies a conditionality that the former does not. I don't think the point can be made any more clearer than that.

OAW

'when' is use in place of 'if' as a conditional statement because 'when' is a more concise and definitive term which it limited to time or an event.

'if' is more general and broad.
'when' is more concise and definitive.

From dictionary.com

Definition of 'if'

If Definition | Definition of If at Dictionary.com

5. when or whenever

OAW · Nov 19, 2009, 04:29 PM

And to address the OP ......

Something tells me that if President Obama had used the exact same words in reference to a military tribunal our resident right-wingers wouldn't have had sh*t to say. If there were some who felt that a military trial would be an affront to due process I daresay that ebuddy et al would NOT be interpreting the President's statement as an indication that the deck was stacked. They would be arguing that the word when implies a certain degree of conditionality.

Then again, maybe not if President Obama had said it. Now if President Bush (or any other Republican) had said it ... then that would most definitely be their stance.

OAW

Macrobat · Nov 19, 2009, 04:31 PM

OAW is right.

I would be far more concerned about the scare stories he has been making up out of whole cloth to push his "healthcare reform."

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

And to address the OP ......

Something tells me that if President Obama had used the exact same words in reference to a military tribunal our resident right-wingers wouldn't have had sh*t to say. If there were some who felt that a military trial would be an affront to due process I daresay that ebuddy et al would NOT be interpreting the President's statement as an indication that the deck was stacked. They would be arguing that the word when implies a certain degree of conditionality.

Then again, maybe not if President Obama had said it. Now if President Bush (or any other Republican) had said it ... then that would most definitely be their stance.

OAW

Here's the link Macrobat provide.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama Expresses Confidence KSM Will Be Convicted; Says He Isn't "Prejudging" Verdict

Pres. Obama even clarifies what he meant.

Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

Obama: Look — what I said was people will not be offended IF that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury.

Macrobat · Nov 19, 2009, 04:35 PM

The point, Hyteckit, that you are apparently deliberately missing is that even the INTERVIEWER had to ASK for clarification.

hyteckit · Nov 19, 2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The point, Hyteckit, that you are apparently deliberately missing is that even the INTERVIEWER had to ASK for clarification.

More proof of conservative bias in the media.

The conservative media runs with "KSM will be convicted and executed".

Even after Pres. Obama clarifies that he meant "when" and "if".

New York Post - Conservative Bias
Real Clear Politics - Conservative Bias

Macrobat · Nov 19, 2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

More proof of conservative bias in the media.

From NBC? LMFAO!

(The report is about what he said in an NBC interview - just in case you missed that - you know the "thrill up my leg when Obama speaks" network?)

You keep spinning this hard and you're gonna puke from dizziness.