Don't have an account? To participate in discussions consider signing up or signing in
facebook connect
Sign-up, its free! Close [x]

Benefits

  • okay Create lasting relationships with other like minded women.
  • okay Blogging, let your voice be heard!
  • okay Interact with other women through blogs,questions and groups.
  • okay Photo Album, upload your most recent vacation pictures.
  • okay Contests, Free weekly prize drawing.
  • okay Weekly Newsletter.

  • Obama & Holder - Is It Stupidity or Manipulation??

    29 posts, 9 voices, 1009 views, started Nov 19, 2009

    Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009

    •  



    • inactive
      Diamond
      Offline

      Much to the dismay of almost every American, and especially those of us who were in NYC on 9/11, the 11 terrorists due to go to court in NYC have now found a way out.

      Thanks Obama and Holder.  

      That’s right. Our President and Attorney General have both within the last 24 hours stated that these men will be found guilty.

      Hello? Do you not know that our justice system bases itself on innocent before proven guilty?

      Yes, I think they are guilty. Don’t get me wrong. But what were Obama and Holder thinking????? I can’t imagine that either of these men weren’t aware that everyone is innocent before proven guilty?

      Now, defense attorneys have every right to ask for a dismissal!! Will this allow the 11 terrorists to go free and continue their planning and efforts???  

      What is it? Did Obama and Holder not know or did they willingly manipulate the outcome? I find it hard to believe the former and even harder to believe the latter.  

      What do you think???



      •  


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Tamra wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • Wish I could help ya, Annie.  Actually, I think these thugs have several ways out once they go to court. So why are these war criminals in federal court, anyway?  

          Usually I am able to see and understand both sides of an issue and make an intelligent choice as to which I support.  But in this case, I can see absolutely no reason to give these terrorists a trail by jury in federal court.  This is about the worst thing I have ever seen our federal gov’t do.  Thanks guys.....geezzz.  Our security will be weakened, and we will all be living with greater risk to our safety.

          Would someone please enlighten me (and Annie) why this is in any way acceptable?  Really, I truly want to see both sides of this issue, but I honestly can’t.  It just seems so stupid to me.

          This smells alot like the 2008 campaign to me.  The Obama camp was willing to say ANYTHING to get elected.  He made all sorts of promises knowing full well he wouldn’t keep them.  Yet we all wanted hope and change, so he was elected.  However, almost a year into his presidency, it’s hard to find any fulfillment of those promises.  Seems once again he is saying things he can not deliver.  All to gain political favor.

          I’m sorry, but that is despicable.  NO GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL SHOULD PUT THE AMERICAN CITIZENS AT RISK.  But that is just what they are doing.



                Report  Reply


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Encee wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • In 1980 I went for one of my first job interviews after college at Tower #2 World Trade Center.  Growing up as a kid in Jersey I remember going to school field trips to NYC and spent lots of time there as one of my best friends lived on E 29th St.  

          The 911 attacks rocked me to the core, and I’ll never forget it.  All I can say is my prayer is that everyone associated with this trial feels the same way and that justice is served.  These people do not deserve to go free.  

          Lets all hope that that such a thing is not allowed to happen.



                Report  Reply


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Vikki Hall wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • I want to comment but all I can come up with is OH MY!



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Mary Clark wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • But let’s think about this...really think about it.  So far....under the Obama Administration....what have they shown to the American people that protecting us is at their highest priority? I can’t think of one thing.  If anything they have put the American people at more risk.....setting us up for future attacks internally and externally.  

          Listen folks...health care is needed...jobs are needed...but if we do not have a STRONG...and I mean STRONG...defense...a STRONG security....none of the things mentioned above will even matter.  

          The whole thing with these terrorists...sounds like an inside job to me.....

          I hate to say it but we have enenmies..and then we have the current government....not much difference.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          UK Girl wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • Ladies since 9/11 our world has changed too – in ways you can't even comprehend – I know the attacks were shocking but can I also add for the last twenty years we have also been at war in the UK were 100's have lost lives, business and been maimed  - I'm talking about the IRA.
          My home city Manchester was bombed twice and I remember the 1st time vividly I lost an entire shop and stock thankfully no staff. I got used to the Tube suddenly stopping due to a bomb alert and also bombing in London. No one was safe they car bombed a Member of Parliament as he left Parliament because he spoke out against Irish terrorism – he was a highly decorated WW2 veteran Airey Neave- the IRA even bombed the Government during a political rally as they slept in their hotel ..........they could have killed a whole Government that night – just fluke they didn't but a very close family friend her husband died – the strange thing was on that night her and her husband changed sides on the bed and he went up in the blast and she went down and survived.
          But 9/11 was used a big blunt object by this Government to ride rough shod over everyone's civil liberties. In a country known for freedom of speech and being allowed to voice dissent against the Government in a peaceful way like marching or holding a rally to make a comment in front of Parliament – now we can't due to "security risks" – it's just bullshit (sorry)
          They have introduced emergency laws for holding and detaining people and they are now being used against normal folk all under the powers of terrorism act..........yes I have protested against this outside Parliament and we got round it by taking a teddy and pinning a note on it and tying it railings – it was the Pink Power women's group – you can't arrest a teddy – the whole point being to show the absurdity of the law- if I had been arrested for vocalising my dissent over this breech of human rights I would have been held as a terrorist ......
          I know in my heart no successive Government will make it a priority to change the law back and I know more legislation will be added – 9/11 is now used a blanket to add and erode basic laws.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Venus 7000 wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • Oh come on!!!  How is it unusual for government officials to claim that public defendants are guilty.  This is done a million times a day!  It is naive to believe that this is sufficient to upset a trial of this magnitude.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Venus 7000 wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • Hi Annie,  Your original posts says:  

          “Our President and Attorney General have both within the last 24 hours stated that these men WILL BE FOUND GUILTY.”  (my emphasis)

          Nothing wrong with that.   These men are both distinguished lawyers.  It is very unlikely that they will commit some trivial sin that would jeopardize this trial.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Venus 7000 wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • It might be helpful if you could provide examples of case law where claiming that a defendant will be found guilty has led to a mistrial or some other detriment.  

          The mere fact that the defendants have been apprehended and are being prosecuted for the crimes generates sufficient expectation (by the public officials involved) that they will be found guilty.  Stating this out loud is simply affirmation that they feel they have the right guys.  

            

          I spend a fair amount of time watching the news and I see it happening fairly regularly.



                Report  Reply


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Mztracy wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • well i do not think it will be a mistrial or dismissed.
          what it will do is save some of the taxpayers monies.

          as for keeping us safe....
          we have to remember 9-11 happened on another watch. and they had many warnings.

          just more Obama bashing and most likely on fox 11estatic



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Mary Clark wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • Very true Tracy....it did happen under the Bush Administration...in the early months...of his first term....but let’s not forget all the attacks under the Clinton Administration...not to mention the first attack on the World Trade Center....they were warned then....under that Administration....but we sure were kept safe after 9-11....

          I want those terrorists that killed all those Americans and others from foreign countries....tried in a court of law....the legal way....so that there is no way any so call “defense attorney” can say “the government didn’t do it the right way“..therefore..we are going to dismiss it...ultimately....releasing pure evil!  And I really do not think those who actually experienced that horrific event or better yet those who lost loved ones....that they care about what it cost.    We can spend $800 something million on a stimulus package that has done nothing to stimulate the economy or create jobs but we can’t spend the money on trying the terrorist who harmed our country????  No mam......makes no sense whatsoever. It’s my opinion and there has been nothing as of yet to convince me otherwise.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Venus 7000 wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • Frankly I think it is safer for them to say that the defendants “will be found guilty” than it is to say the defendants “are guilty.”  Its the difference between an alleged criminal and a convicted criminal.  Only a jury can rightly say these men “are guilty.”  

          I have done a bit of surfing and it seems that Fox news are the only ones touting this misinformation.  Even Matt Drudge isn’t touching it.  

          Further, (and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong) it seems that the comments made by Holder were before a congressional hearing.  He was defending his decision to try the defendants in a federal court.  It not as if he was on the steps of a court house crowing to the public about what a slam dunk case he has.  

          I am not convinced that anything is amiss here.  Its as Tracy says.  Just more Fox propaganda.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Mztracy wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • IMO [and nothing has shown me otherwise] they will not get off.

          And yes we were kept safe after 9-11, as with all the warning they got as well, they had to up security. Maybe if they had used the clinton admin attack more seriously and the 9-11 warnings it might not have happened. And that is all written down and in reports as to why they did not do something either. Seems some of our own people should be questioned as well. And there is nothing, no facts to the contrary, to change my mind either.

          so we do have something in common! estatic



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Mary Clark wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • LOL..yes Tracy...gosh we have something in common!!!estatic



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Venus 7000 wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • I googled as you suggested Annie and it was indeed a struggle to find articles actually addressing this issue.  (Maybe my google settings are different to yours)  Finally, from an associated press writer I got this:

          “Obama, in a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, said those offended by the legal rights accorded Mohammed by virtue of his facing a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”  

          I honestly cannot believe that this is what all the fuss is about. It continues:

          “Obama, who is a lawyer, quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed’s trial. “I’m not going to be in that courtroom,” he said. “That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”

          How in heavens name is this sufficient to prejudice a trial?  It is an insult to the American people to even make such a suggestion.  

          Again I feel that this is entirely much ado about nothing.



                Report  Reply


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Tamra wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • Tracy, you stated “what it will do is save some of the taxpayers monies.”  How so? (An honest question, not trying to bait you.)  But I’m thinking it would be cheaper to the taxpayers to treat these terrorists as war criminals and try them in a military court.  After all, they were captured as an act of war, not by city police officers on the streets of Hometown, USA.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Vikki Hall wrote Nov 19, 2009
        • Are we as a country trying to make a statement about who we are and is that why they are not being charged as war criminals?



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Mary Clark wrote Nov 20, 2009
        • And I say “amen” to that!!!!



                Report  Reply


        • +1 votes vote up vote up

          Tamra wrote Nov 20, 2009
        • Agreed!  

          Furthermore, our actions in this will have long term implications for our safety and all generations that follow.  The way in which we show the world we will stand up against terrorism sends a huge message to the rest of the thugs out there who want you and me dead.

          That may sound overly dramatic.....that is, unless you were in NYC, the Pentagon, or United Flight 93 on 9-11-01.  God rest their souls.



                Report  Reply


        • 0 votes vote up vote up

          Venus 7000 wrote Nov 20, 2009
        • Annie, Please don't take my comments out of context.  I said that I do not think that the statements made by Mr Obama and Mr Holder will in any way have an impact on this trial.  The minor and  ill advised speculation that has arisen from their remarks really does not merit a second look.    

          It goes without saying that this trial is a big deal.  Not just for the US but for the entire global community.   I am not privy to all the factors that led Mr Holder to conclude that a civilian trial would be the best course of action here.  I however suspect that both scenarios would have their pros and cons.   How for instance do we decide that this is an act of war and should therefore be tried before a military tribunal?  Which country/ideology are we at war with here?  Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan?  These governments have all denied any involvement in the 9/11 attack.   Osama Bin Laden? Is it possible to be at war with an individual?   I seem to remember that Timothy McVey was tried successfully in a civilian court.   How is this case dissimilar?  

          The rules and procedures of the Military Courts are very different to those of a civilian court.  The lawyers however are all cut from the same cloth.  A defense attorney in a Military court will first attempt for a mistrial based on the fact that it is questionable whether this is indeed a military matter.  Then he will proceed to apply every known trick, loophole and technicality in order to protect his client.  This is his job.  

          For my part I am happy to see them being tried in New York.  I say put them before the people whose home they defiled.  Let the New Yorkers have their pound of flesh.



                Report  Reply



  • Lets Talk Politics View Group »

    Politics, Presidents, and Political Issues...