Fred wants “due process” for Osama?
posted at 4:45 pm on September 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Sounds bad, but it’s not. I think.
The remarks drew criticism from some Democratic rivals and later in the day, Thompson adopted a tougher line, saying bin Laden “ought to be caught and killed.”
On Monday, Thompson said he wasn’t suggesting that bin Laden’s death would happen immediately after his capture.
“No, no, no, we’ve got due process to go through” depending on the circumstances, he said. “I’m not suggesting those things happen simultaneously.”
Later, a Thompson spokesman explained that Thompson meant “the same rules ought to apply to him as to everyone at Guantanamo Bay, and there ought to be due process thru a special military court or commission.”
I think he means he’d rather catch Osama than send a missile down the chimney so that we can squeeze him for intelligence. But once we’ve got him, we’ve got to give him some kind of hearing a la Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, etc. You don’t get to take him up to the top of the Empire State Building after you’re done questioning him and let him “taste the adventure” firsthand that the 9/11 jumpers had to endure.
Politico’s comparing it to what Howard Dean said four years ago but Dean-o specifically mentioned a jury trial, suggesting he wanted Bin Laden to get the same amount of due process as a common criminal. And that’s not all. Politico conveniently neglects to include the context of something else he said a few weeks before that in 2003 on a radio show:
Diane Rehm, WAMU (public) radio: Why do you think [Bush is] suppressing that [9/11] report?
Dean: I don’t know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can’t—think it can’t be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.
Put that together with his later statement about how we shouldn’t “prejudge” Osama’s guilt by denying him a trial and you’re just over the border into Trutherville. When Fred gets there, let me know.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
there’s validity to what he said that a sound bite doesn’t cover and unfortunately he’s somewhat correct. He would be charged with the murder of hundreds of american citizens under OUR criminal law. Regardless of his citizenship, being prosecuted for the murder of our citizens puts him under our jurisdiction which means he must be given a fair trial and due process.
Defector01 on September 10, 2007 at 4:50 PM
My dog is tilting his head.
mojowire on September 10, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Fred is only running to placate his nagging trophy wife who dreams of decorating the White House. The man has accomplished nothing and offers nothing, he needs to shut up and go away.
The Sinner on September 10, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Fine. Have a trial. Then can we toss him off the Empire State building? I would really hate for him to miss out on the “taste of adventure” AP spoke of above.
Guardian on September 10, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Ha Ha Fred Thompson is in the catbird seat here. All he has to do is disagree with Dubya’s style of processing the war. He will have the Dems meandering back and forth between positions likes the ole mississip during the entire campaign. Ha Ha
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 4:54 PM
And what would be wrong with due process? In WWII, we used a Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal to go through the process before we either jailed or hung the Nazi criminals.
So let’s find him, question him, try him, and then kill him. Due Process.
Tennman on September 10, 2007 at 4:57 PM
In fairness we already know that Osama has told his bodyguards to put a bullet through his brains if the US troops get near
So there will never been any due process for Osama. Or Maybe Fred is trying to link Gitmo and an osama capture ?
William Amos on September 10, 2007 at 4:57 PM
“Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson said Monday that while Osama bin Laden needs to be caught and killed, the terrorist mastermind would get the due process of law.”
We’re at war with him. War is not illegal. Shooting the enemy in wartime is not illegal, or a denial of due process.
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 4:58 PM
‘Due process’ for Osama would to be find and gather whatever bone fragments and hair is left, put them in the holding tank of a ‘porta-potty’ at the edge of the World Trade Center zone, and let people ’show their respect’. Even the maggots and worms have no use for Osama’s corpse anymore.
LegendHasIt on September 10, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Due process for Osama bin Laden.
1. Tar
2. Feathers
3. Rope and a railroad car.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Funny…I first saw the headline for this post, and screamed out “What?”, and then saw your tagline saying What?
“Due process”, agreed, does not mean “trial by jury”.
As for throwing him off the Empire State Building…it was far worse for the WTC jumpers…who didn’t have the luxury of being “thrown”, but had to make that choice between enormous heat, fire, and smoke…and jumping.
That’s how Osama should have to go….
JetBoy on September 10, 2007 at 5:02 PM
We can dream, though…
Bad Candy on September 10, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Every person that is accused of something has due process in court. I agree 100% …..regardless of how much we know, or how much we hate them.
msipes on September 10, 2007 at 5:04 PM
But I can see a more creative sentance.
“osama bin Laden you have been found guilty. yhour punishment is that you will get a life sentance
You will serve your time continously waterboarding under Niagra Falls for the rest of your natural life”
William Amos on September 10, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Well Saddam got a trial so why not? If he gets a life sentence like that other guy (forget his name) then there will be multiple terror attacks to “Free Osama”. However even the most artful trial lawyer probably couldn’t get Osama off the hook.
aengus on September 10, 2007 at 5:05 PM
How about he gets the same due process as the people who were slashed with box cutters on the airplanes? Maybe the same due process the “Holy Warriors” gave Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg when they sawed the bound mens’ heads off.
I have a better idea. Simply release Osama on his own recognizance, maybe from a Manhattan court house. Leave the bounty in place and film the world’s shortest reality tv show version of The Running Man.
trubble on September 10, 2007 at 5:05 PM
You’re forgetting BJ, aren’t you?
Well, BJ, the LA Times and the 9th Circuit Court. There’s a winning combination!
fogw on September 10, 2007 at 5:08 PM
No matter whom, no matter what circumstances, if we (if,if,if) we catch him alive, then there is a due process. Just like Saddam, due process, then we hang em…allow me.
right2bright on September 10, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Due process indeed. At the end of a rope.
SoulGlo on September 10, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Well, we conservatives keep wishing for a candidate who will tell it like it is, and won’t bow to the acceptable cushioned diplo-speak of the MSM or the chattering class. So here he is.
A captured Bin Laden will be given due process. And Osama himself isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) the main focus of this war. And Anbar did flip partially because of a smoking ban.
So Fred is shooting straight. Now we see whether we really want what we have so often wished for, or if we’re so cowed by
a4g on September 10, 2007 at 5:10 PM
So his campaign has to clarify what he said in order for him not to look like Dean. So much for the next Great Communicator.
Free Constitution on September 10, 2007 at 5:10 PM
If we caught him, he would be an “enemy combatant,” right? Subject to a military tribunal? Can a military tribunal end in the death penalty? Does anyone actually know the law on that?
Even if we did catch him and put him in a military tribunal – how would we try him? Isn’t the only strictly legal proof that he’s responsible for 9/11 his own public statements? What if we catch him and he recants? If we caught him, couldn’t he just say “I just took credit for 9/11 for the prestige. I deny everything. Prove I was responsible for 9/11.”
If we do find Osama, shouldn’t we just kill him outright? I think the legal problems of taking him alive wouldn’t be worth the trouble…
Enrique on September 10, 2007 at 5:11 PM
(oops, wrong button)
…years of outrageous outrage that we want a candidate who couches everything in slickness and caveats.
a4g on September 10, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Why is it again that we would even consider capturing him? How about we lock in a few coordinates, aim carefully and drop a bomb he won’t be able to run away from? I can’t imagine signing onto a strategy designed to capture this murdering Islamic fascist alive.
Zetterson on September 10, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Yawn. He basically said that upon capturing Bin Laden we shouldn’t immediately take him out back and shoot him. Even if he didn’t talk and we got no intel from him, it would still be a moral victory.
Dropping a hellfire on his head would be a victory too, but would make him a martyr.
Personally I suspect he’s been dead for some time now- I question whether the new tape is authentic- it just don’t smell right. If he’s not dead, capturing or killing him won’t have much impact on the GWOT outside of being a morale booster.
Hollowpoint on September 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM
If the LA Times tried to shill for Bin Laden it would be the end of them. They’d go bankrupt within a week. Plus they don’t consider themselves an ally of the jihadists despite the many ways they inadvertently help them.
Plus isn’t comparing Clinton to Bin Laden a little disrepectful? I mean he was the President of the USA.
aengus on September 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM
And Jack Murtha is a US Representative and an ex-Marine. You can’t give respect to a man who has forfeited all of it.
BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Well of course you’re right. And Thompson’s instincts were right. We need someone with good instincts and then the cojones to stick to them. U busy in ‘08 Enrique?
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I’ve never bought that argument. It may make him a martyr but jihadist supporters are generally demoralised when Sheik Yassin or Zarqawi dies. The martyr thing is just consolation.
Yeah but morale boosters are really important imo. I got very happily drunk the day Zarqawi bought it. Geraldo had Smeaton on Fox because with the heroes of Flight 93 dead it’s an incredible morale boost to have on tv someone who thwarted terrorists and is still here to talk about it.
aengus on September 10, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I don’t know about you but I’m perfectly fine with that. Martyr him now please!
I would be very dissapointed if we ever even considered capturing this man alive.
Zetterson on September 10, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Due process just to end up executed anyway? Absurdity.
As far as I’m concerned, the whole issue of “due process” for OBL has reached it’s “Jumped the Shark” point long ago. All we need to do to make it more blantant is to crudely cut and paste the face of OBL on top of Fonzie’s doing his shark jumping scene.
Weebork on September 10, 2007 at 5:22 PM
But does it not demean the office of President to compare Clinton to one of America’s greatest enemies? I know, I know Clinton demeaned the office with his vulgar sexual appetites but this just strikes me as creeping into BushHitler territory.
aengus on September 10, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I completely agree. And if you believe that whole Steyn strong horse/weak horse theory, vaporizing the leader of Al Qaida would do wonders for our side.
Zetterson on September 10, 2007 at 5:24 PM
To hell with “due process,” if its use is meant to accord Bin Hidin’ with all of the criminal rights accorded an individual in a criminal proceeding in the United States.
The only “process” that is “due” that savage, if he was to be taken captive in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, et al., is a bullet to the base of the skull – after he’s been “duly” interrogated. When U.S. troops liberated Dachau – and found SS members who were dressed up as camp “prisoners” – they were “duly” executed, right then and there. That is the process that is “due” Bin Hidin’. I would be sickened by anything more.
OhEssYouCowboys on September 10, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Of course THEY don’t, but I do.
fogw on September 10, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Clinton and Reno wanted due process for terrorists and here we are today.
Valiant on September 10, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Maybe I’m wrong here, but I’m fairly certain we’ve got more than his word as proof on this one.
Besides, I don’t see how his recorded confessions would be disallowed in court anyway.
I don’t know. You’re probably right, but I wouldn’t mind a little pom and circumstance at his live capture. I think Saddam’s trial lasted too long, but it felt more like closure for him to have had one.
I may be alone here, but I wouldn’t mind a speedy trial and public execution for America’s most wanted terrorist. If not just for those who lost loved ones at his orders but also to demoralize those who follow the mass murderer.
And of course as AP mentioned, any information he could give us, through all the PC torture we can muster, would be an added bonus.
Esthier on September 10, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Does the Geneva Convention not state that an enemy combatant captured out of uniform on a field of battle can be executed? I thought it did. So far as I know Bin Laden does not have a uniform to wear and neither do his armies. So far as I know he is still leader of Al Qaida. Why is it against the law to execute this scum upon his capture?
Zetterson on September 10, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Uh…are we actually at war with Bin Laden? Sure, we’re trying to kill him and his troops, but I don’t believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) we have actually declared war (via Congress per the Constitution) on him. On Afghanistan, yes; on Iraq, yes.
As I understand it, “war” is a state of relations between two sovereign political entities. Declaring war on an individual alone is a null set. That’s why military operations can be carried out by the CnC against an individual or a non-government group without the mandate of a Congressal resolution or declaration. Such operations require the cooperation and assent of the sovereign nation(s) that the person/group is located in.
Of course, if that country refuses to cooperate with us, then we declare war on that government. Which is what happened with Afghanistan 5 years ago.
As far as Fred’s comments, I would say that catching Bin Laden, interrogating him, and sentencing him to death by a war crimes tribunal (a la Nuremberg, not like the circus that was Saddam’s trial) is no less valid an end for him than a .50 round thru his melon.
The former option also has the added potential benefits of yielding new intel and/or reducing him from iconic warrior-martyr to sickly criminal. Everybody remember the video of Saddam being poked and prodded by the doc’s after his capture? And the laughable photos of him in his dingy BVDs?
Killing Bin Laden on the battlefield makes him an icon, a symbol. Broadcasting videos of American infidel female (HAH!) nurses shaving off his lice-infested beard while he sits complacently would do more to destroy Bin Laden than any short-lived and far-splattering trip off of the Empire State Building.
Harpazo on September 10, 2007 at 5:31 PM
aengus, please cite anywhere in my post where I compared Clinton to Bin Laden. I said nothing of the kind. I insinuated Slick Willie could do a bang-up job defending him, as his attorney.
fogw on September 10, 2007 at 5:32 PM
give him his trial, no jury will vote him not guilty and then kill him however you want
Defector01 on September 10, 2007 at 5:32 PM
1) lock and load
2) aim
3) fire
How’s that for “process”, Fred?
mojo on September 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Don’t get me wrong they should be shot on site (the terrorists, not Clinton and Reno) but if for whatever reason they are captured ritual dismemberment in the middle of Times Square would be a bad PR move.
aengus on September 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Okay I must have misread your comment.
aengus on September 10, 2007 at 5:34 PM
is a euphemism for a soft-nosed bullet to the back of the head.
Iblis on September 10, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Man, gotta love liberals. Only they would think that someone saying “hey, we should catch and kill Osama” is an outrageous, horrible statement.
Meanwhile, how many fantasies have their side written about killing off the President? So many I’ve lost count.
Vyce on September 10, 2007 at 5:35 PM
The remarks drew criticism from some Democratic rivals
This has gotten more than a bit ridiculous. A candidate, this that or the other one, Republican or Democrat, misspeaks a bit and the others go “Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha!!! even though they very probably know what the other candidate meant.
MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Well of course our nation isn’t at “war” with the man, Osama bin Laden– any more than we are at war with terrorism. I wonder wtf we were bombing Tora Bora.
Would you keep that distinction in mind if you were the family member of someone killed by his actions?
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I’d be perfectly happy were he killed, but there’s a possibility we could get useful intel from him, plus it would eliminate the possibility of his supporters declaring that he wasn’t really dead.
Also, it would be at least a little belittling to AQ to have to see the leader and hero being taken alive without becoming the martyr that he tells others to be- kind of like when Saddam was captured hiding in a hole without firing a shot. It’s a bit harder to look at someone as some mythically powerful leader when they’re in shackles and wearing an orange jumpsuit.
Executing him on the spot might make it look like we’re either scared of him or trying to cover something up, at least in some quarters.
Like I said, I’m not fully convinced he’s not dead already- I’d have to watch the video again, but something about it just doesn’t seem right.
Hollowpoint on September 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Congress never declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq.
As for due process… if there’s no chance he’ll be found not guilty, why bother? it’s not really due process then anyway.
B26354 on September 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I could live either way as long as Osama is dead (assuming that he is still alive, that is). After all, it is, “We will deliver them to justice or justice to them.”
steveegg on September 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Also, is it possible for our military to make up lies about the demise of somebody like this in such a way as to benefit our country. For example. Bin Laden is found and one of our Marines puts two bullets in the back of his skull. The military sits on the news. Our military then leaks a story about Al Qaida fighting amongst themselves. They claim to hear chatter about the execution of a high level operative. They realease a story about Bin Laden “found” dead. All evidence points towards his murder coming at the hands of other Al Qaida members.
If done well, I’d imagine this could create quite a division amongst Al Qaida members. Members of the terrorist organization would become distrustful of other Al Qaida members. Bin Laden would not be a martyr killed on the battlefield by the enemy.
Are we too concerned about process and rules in order to pull something like that off. If we couldn’t that would be too bad.
Zetterson on September 10, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Sure, I think if we take him alive (assuming he’s really still alive), and he gets back to this country for questioning, we have to give him due process. That’s a big part of what makes this country great.
But after the fair and speedy trial, I do hope the execution will be colorful.
Tanya on September 10, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Sounds like a kangaroo court won’t cut it with Fred!
So what is the problem with THAT?
We give him the same “due” that old SoDamn Insane got and then we cap him with ten pork glazed 20mm rounds and call’er DONE!!!
seejanemom on September 10, 2007 at 6:01 PM
The underlying point in all this is Fred Thompson totally recognizes the global street fight we are in and is willing to maximize our efforts to preserve our way of life as we now know it. The enemy is moving ever so quickly across the globe now enveloping entire countries with sharia and ideology. He deserves much credit here because he is getting into detail and not talking in generalizations. Additionaly he has expressed that he can’t do it alone and needs the help of his fellow citizens. Besides he played ZZ top music today at his comming home event in South Carolina.
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM
It would almost be worth catching him alive, just to see the nutroots completely meltdown.
Not because we’d have finally taken away their trump card of “Bin Laden is the real enemy, and you’ve never caught him!”
Rather because you know that the vast majority of them would be first in line to DEFEND him as an innocent victim. Like they’ve done before with scum like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Then maybe the rest of America would finally be disturbed enough by them that it’d put an end to their nonsense, and truly marginalize them into the utter impotency they deserve.
Vyce on September 10, 2007 at 6:05 PM
I think csdeven has just been bumped down to the Junior Varsity on the anti-Fred! team.
eeyore on September 10, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Here is one of today’s updates from the FT website. Ladies and Gentlemen I give you Fred Thompson and his Red Pick Up Truck near the end of this clip.
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 6:23 PM
You may want to think again about the LAT.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0928/p03s02-ussc.html
http://www.google.com/translate?langpair=es|en&u=http://www.lalma.org/
Latinos increasingly identify with the Palestinians and other anti Semetic causes.
Speakup on September 10, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I’m starting to like Duncan Hunter more and more.
Nethicus on September 10, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Oh, and before I go…
ROOONNNNNNNNNN PAAUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
I just know I’m going to end up in a nursing home somewhere and I’ll be in a split room. Halfway through the night the guy in the other bed will sit up, shouting “RONNNNN PAULLLLLLL! RON PAAULLLLL!” I’m so doomed to have that happen.
Nethicus on September 10, 2007 at 6:30 PM
If we capture bin Laden, as opposed to killing him in military action, of course we have to give him due process. But we’re not going to capture him and I hope that whoever comes across the body has the decency to put some woman’s panties on the corpse and sprinkle some nasty PRoN mags, liquor bottles, and a autographed picture of Hillary Clinton around the cave.
Buzzy on September 10, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Actually, I’ve got a lot of drinking I’ve been meaning to catch up on…
Enrique on September 10, 2007 at 7:02 PM
That’s what pillows are for. No jury I sat on would convict you.
Hollowpoint on September 10, 2007 at 7:07 PM
This is just more evidence that proves Fred is unsuitable for the CIC. He is trying sooooo hard to win the general that he forgets how to speak to the base. And besides all that, he really has no position other than what his wife and friends tell him to have.
All you Fred groupies need to explain all your BS rhetoric from this summer. Namely that Fred was getting all his ducks in a row so he could hit the ground running. His is obviously not ready to go and every single one of you were talking out your a$$es.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Dude that’s hot!
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 7:20 PM
By the way- now that Petraeus has given his report, has FlipFlop Mitt finally made a decision on whether the surge is working or is he waiting until the opinion polls are released before he gives an answer?
Hollowpoint on September 10, 2007 at 7:21 PM
The irony of that statement is astounding.
Just like Saddam, Nuremberg and Japanese War Crimes Trials. The world must watch him squirm.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 10, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Problem solved,we try him in Irag,for the murder of Iragy
citizens.He is the leader of AQ.
We give him three choices to meet the virgins.
1. beheading
2.Stoneing
3.Good ol’ Hanging
canopfor on September 10, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Well what’s Fred supposed to say? I want Osama caught and boiled? It would be nice if he were “Zarqawied” so we’ll have to wait and see.
Saddam and Zarqawi are in hell warming a seat for Osama. Patience people, patience.
Mojave Mark on September 10, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Reading comprehension not your strongest suit?
The reason we were bombing Tora Bora was to kill Bin Laden. The reason we declared war — which is a political state of relation — on Afghanistan was so that we would be able to get to Tora Bora so as to bomb the everloving crap out of it. Sovereign nations tend to get a bit testy when you violate their airspace with offensive materiel.
Had you read what I actually wrote you might notice that I was pointing out that war is not something that is declared — and I mean TRULY declared, not just in the rhetorical sense — between a political body and an individual/group.
And no, the Global War on Terror is not an actual war any more than was the “War on Poverty” or a “War on Hunger” or a “War on Chemotherapy”. It’s nonsensical for a sovereign nation to assert that it is actually waging a war on a situation or method. Like the War on Poverty, the War on Terror is a rhetorical phrase — just like World War I/II & the Cold War — that the gov’t uses as an overarching descriptor for Western Civilization’s conflict with Radical Islamic Civilization. During the course of the GWoT, the U.S. has already gone to (actual) war with two nations — Afghanistan and Iraq — and may, in the not-too-distant future, go for the hat-trick with Iran. However these political or real wars are a part of the overarching, rhetorical meta-war called the Global War on Terror.
America doesn’t NEED to go to war with Bin Laden. A sovereign nation doesn’t need a formal declaration & authorization of war in order to hunt down and kill non-sovereign enemies. However in doing so it WILL need the consent and/or assistance of any country that may be housing those enemies at the time.
And yes, were I a member of the Bush administration during 9/11 and had a family member died that day, I would absolutely have kept that distinction in mind. Because whatever my emotions were at the time, my professional duty would be to act in the best interests of the entire country, and not thoughtlessly react out of my transient feelings.
Wise leaders heed the counsel of both their hearts AND their minds, and also that of their advisors.
Harpazo on September 10, 2007 at 9:17 PM
You talk real good, due process dude. I nominate you as defense counsel for OBL if we “capture” him.
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Sorry for that. On this topic, I only see red. And I want to stay mad. I’d like to kill him myself, so I can’t debate this civilly.
JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 10:36 PM
He’s supposed to say what Mitt would say.
“I want him killed, and if we do happen to capture him, well, we’ll cross that bridge if we get there.”
OBL needs to be DEAD. PERIOD. Any other outcome leaves him open to be used as a propaganda tool. His minions would take every opportunity to threaten terrorist attacks to manipulate weaker nations. If Fred had an adviser with terrorism savvy, he wouldn’t have to get his policy statements from his wife.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 10:44 PM
After due process, which I’m all for, couldn’t we skip the cruel and unusual punishment clause in this one instance and get back to the fine American Indian (sorry, Native American) traditions of execution?
Lots of hanging upside down, arms or collar bones broken and small fires. It gets lengthy, painful and interesting from that point on.
Oh, and make sure Al Jazeera gets a copy of the video.
BowHuntingTexas on September 10, 2007 at 10:48 PM
First of all, I doubt you would ever get him alive. But if we did, and killed him on the spot I don’t think it would do much harm or good for the cause. It would make me feel a lot better.
I understand we are a nation of laws, but sometimes even a nation of laws has to go to extremes to protect it’s citizens and to dole out justice. Look at mosad and how they have been used in the past. No rational thinking person has the postion that the Israelis did not have the right and duty to hunt down and exterminate that trash that was responsible for the Munich attack.
conservnut on September 10, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Did you read on? I said…
Maybe I’m being too clever. To be “Zarqawied” means to be killed, as in dead.
Mojave Mark on September 10, 2007 at 11:19 PM
You asked what Fred was supposed to say. But as we can see, Fred keeps saying what his wife tells him to do.
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I guess he will sic his crack prosecutor Jack Mccoy on him… oops back to the real world.
Bradky on September 10, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Seventy seven posts and not one from doriangrey? Where’s our dori to fawn over his worships’ latest sparkle of wisdom? To defend the next true and righteous leader of the free world? Not there? No? Huh…
thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Monday Night Football?
csdeven on September 10, 2007 at 11:43 PM
More great stuff about Fred the Lobbyist.
Hey you Fred groupies! THIS is the REAL Fred.
csdeven on September 11, 2007 at 12:21 AM
More insider problems for Fred “The unOutsider” Thompson.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702031.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
“In fact, no other White House hopeful, Republican or Democrat, can come close to matching Thompson’s insider credentials. He alone among the contenders has managed to reach the pinnacle of Washington influence: the presidency of the Federal City Council, a powerful, behind-the-scenes group comprising a who’s who of this city’s top business, professional and civic leaders. The Federal City Council is synonymous with the Washington establishment, and Thompson was its chosen leader from 2003 to 2005.”
Bradky on September 11, 2007 at 12:26 AM
As we can all see, Fred is not a real conservative. He is a Washington insider scumbag lobbyist who only acts in his own interests and now has hair renting groupies carrying his fakeries to the rest of the conservative movement. He attacks on free speech and his assumption that he can lie to me and get me to support him because of his folksy rhetoric, is DISGUSTING.
csdeven on September 11, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Not to mention…he has yet to find the balls to face his Republican challengers – not in sound-bytes, but in real life – on national TV – where his “views” can be openly debated or rebutted – whatever his actual views are. Yawn of the Fred, indeed.
thedecider on September 11, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Only if “Due Process” is the new name for an improved Hellfire missile.
profitsbeard on September 11, 2007 at 12:50 AM
And so Fred continues to depress.
Who wants to bet the “Federal City Council” is about as Federalist as Moveon.org?
BKennedy on September 11, 2007 at 1:14 AM
I disagree, If Osama was caught, based on his latest video screed, the Dems not only would let him off but would most likely have him run for President alongside Hillary. Osama and the Dems are in perfect sync.
Egfrow on September 11, 2007 at 4:06 AM
That’s plain silly.
Bradky on September 11, 2007 at 4:15 AM
SO what you’re saying is, a formerly rich Islamic jihad financier who quotes Noam Chompsky, warns of the evil of major corporations, and wants to set up an all-powerful police state has absolutely nothing in common with the current crop of Dems?
It must be nice living in a world of unicorns and fairies.
BKennedy on September 11, 2007 at 8:28 AM
Schmuck.
EduardoOTI on September 11, 2007 at 9:44 AM
You would know better than I. After all you seem to live in a world where only the enlightened base of the republican party owns the truth. Any dissension means you are a traitor to the country, and to be a Democrat is a mortal sin.
Considering the troops putting their lives on the line for you are a microcosm of society, it is reasonable to assume that many of the almost four thousand casualties were registered Democrats. Doesn’t quite square with Egfrow’s overly simplistic worldview does it?
Put your tinfoil hat back on.
Bradky on September 11, 2007 at 12:44 PM
From: http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/09/11/the-fred-surge/
This sounds like it could’ve been done by a couple of posters here…
The surge is on…
jdawg on September 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Considering the current crop of seditious, defeatist slimebuckets currently running the dhimocRAT party…
jdawg on September 11, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I think I know who put up that site I referenced above…
jdawg on September 11, 2007 at 12:52 PM
That’s your description of the soldiers who have fought for and given their lives in the war on terror, who happen to be Democrats. Sure, got it, understand. /sarc
Bradky on September 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Hyperbole is not an intellectual argument. Try again.
The Fact is that Osama’s most recent screed could have come from any anti-war fringe leftist. Quoting Chompsky is for lefty fringe losers. Talking about the evil corporations is lefty bread & butter.
BKennedy on September 11, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Bradky on September 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM
You’re stretching. If you bother to read what I wrote, my reference was to the pukes running the party. Or maybe you never got past basic English.
Do you deny the dems are doing all they can to see us lose in Iraq, just like they did in Vietnam? Or is up down in your universe?
jdawg on September 11, 2007 at 12:58 PM
hyperbole. yeah sure fella. Read Egfrow’s comment again and try again yourself.
Bradky on September 11, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »