"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


NOYB wrote:
There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period.

That's not the point.

The point is that Bush & Cheney did nothing... NOTHING! ... to stop the
progress of the Sept 11th plotters, desptite the warnings and intel he was
handed.


Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act.

Unlike Bush & Cheney, who don't give a flying **** about the Constitution.

In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know under
what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to hand
him over.


Guess what... Sept 11th hadn't happened yet.


Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened. Soon after the
proclamation of war, the Khobar towers attack occurred...followed shortly by
the USS Cole. After the Cole, Clinton didn't react even though all
indications were that it was directed by bin Laden.



You're ignoring the fact that after Sept 11th, which Osama Bin Laden
claimed full credit for, Bush & Cheney gave up looking for him.


No they didn't. The PDB's from the period leading up to 9/11 showed that
Bush had directed the DoD to formulate an attack plan to go into
Afghanistan.





This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...

That's simply not true.

Yes it is. bin Laden should have been captured or killed the minute that he
declared war on the US.


*IF* Bush & Cheney had managed their intel & counter-terrorist ops
half-competently, then Sept 11th would not have happened.

8 months wasn't enough time to formulate and implement a plan to remove the
Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Besides that, the Bush administration
had to deal with tensions over China's downing of one of our Naval planes.


Instead they were worried about how to hush up Cheney's oil policy.




It is not a case on inadequate law, it is a case of incompetent
leadership.

Right you are! From 1996 until 2000, Clinton had several opportunites to
get the *******.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:



Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his
declaration of war against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to
hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which is
why the Constitution affords special rights to the President under
special circumstances. Most countries do.






This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it takes
is enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve that the
prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry, Chuck, or
you were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v. Padilla, you
guys already have enough doubt before the case even begins. That's the
fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when politics gets in the
way.


This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's rights?
What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a serial sex
offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the power to hold the
guy under existing law?


You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect of
'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"

But I'll be that Marshall never imagined the scenario where 1 man could kill
9 million people by driving a nuke into NYC.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act.
In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know under
what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to hand
him
over.

Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles?

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html

"Mr. Clinton took the politically safe path by treating the February 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center as a criminal matter rather than the
terrorist attack that it really was. As a result, he shut the CIA out of the
investigation. Administration blundering enabled Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a
top bin Laden aide who coordinated the September 11 attacks, to escape
capture in Qatar. The Clinton administration refused offers by the
government of Sudan to turn over bin Laden and objected to efforts by the
Northern Alliance - the anti-Taliban coalition in Afghanistan - to
assassinate the terrorist leader. Mr. Clinton refused several offers by
Sudan to take custody of two terrorists wanted in the August 1998 bombings
of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. On three occasions in 1999 and
2000, Mr. Clinton deferred or hesitated to launch missile strikes against
bin Laden. This is but a partial listing of instances documented by Mr.
Miniter in which the Clinton administration passed up opportunities to kill
bin Laden and/or weaken his terror network."

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041...3817-9514r.htm

NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
t...



On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:





Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his
declaration of war against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to
hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which is
why the Constitution affords special rights to the President under
special circumstances. Most countries do.








This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it takes
is enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve that the
prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry, Chuck, or
you were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v. Padilla, you
guys already have enough doubt before the case even begins. That's the
fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when politics gets in the
way.




This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's
rights? What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a
serial sex offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the power
to hold the guy under existing law?




You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect of
'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"


Not when it comes to terrorists.

terrorists as defined by whom?


Those folks with the task of defending against them: the DoD.


We went around on this last evening (do you remember?). What you're
advocating is a military government similar to Chili, or Argentina under
Perone.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:59:23 -0500, John H wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:30:43 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to
hand him over.

Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles?

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html


From your reference:

"Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin
Laden,
the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin
bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12
Americans
and nearly 300 Africans.

Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which
officials insisted was not aimed at him."

Yet nothing more was done...

And, strangely enough, I don't recall a lot of liberal whining about
doing
nothing more...

Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting
attention from a BJ.

I remember that too. And being the wonderful politician (but terrible
President) that he was, he read the polls, put his tail between his legs,
and quit pursuing the guy.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:

How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple
cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes?

You can do that to all of the airplanes in just 8 months?

"Jim," wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
et...



On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:





Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists
during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his
declaration of war against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered
to hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which
is why the Constitution affords special rights to the President under
special circumstances. Most countries do.








This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it
takes is enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve
that the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry,
Chuck, or you were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, you guys already have enough doubt before the case even
begins. That's the fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when
politics gets in the way.




This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's
rights? What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a
serial sex offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the
power to hold the guy under existing law?




You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect
of 'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"


Not when it comes to terrorists.

terrorists as defined by whom?


Those folks with the task of defending against them: the DoD.


We went around on this last evening (do you remember?). What you're
advocating is a military government similar to Chili, or Argentina under
Perone.

We're not executing people. We're locking them up and throwing away the
key. We should be throwing away the room.

NOYB wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:



"Jim," wrote in message
...



NOYB wrote:



"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
. net...




On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:






Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists
during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his
declaration of war against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered
to hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which
is why the Constitution affords special rights to the President under
special circumstances. Most countries do.









This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it
takes is enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve
that the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry,
Chuck, or you were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, you guys already have enough doubt before the case even
begins. That's the fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when
politics gets in the way.





This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's
rights? What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a
serial sex offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the
power to hold the guy under existing law?





You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect
of 'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"


Not when it comes to terrorists.

terrorists as defined by whom?


Those folks with the task of defending against them: the DoD.



We went around on this last evening (do you remember?). What you're
advocating is a military government similar to Chili, or Argentina under
Perone.


We're not executing people.

They just happen to die while being tortured.
We're locking them up and throwing away the
key. We should be throwing away the room.

Remember the famous Bushism (I thought he was joking at the time)
See it at
http://www.newsgateway.ca/bush_dictator.htm

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot
easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:27:23 -0500, "Dr. Jonathan Smithers, MD Phd."
wrote:

John, You really have Harry on the run.



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
More delusional screed.


Oh? Didn't even know he was posting. I wonder which post offended him. I don't
think I've made any posts about his integrity lately, have I?

NOYB wrote:
.... bin Laden should have been captured or killed the minute that he
declared war on the US.


So why hasn't Bush captured him yet?

Fact: Approx four years after Bin Laden had "declared war" on the US,
his organization was unable to carry out an attack on US soil.

Fact: The President of the U.S. cannot simply order any person on earth
killed.

Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden

Fact: there is no proven link between Iraq and anti-US terrorism

DSK