Special Report
Richard Reid and the Christmas Bomber
The Obama administration is fooling itself if it thinks the arguments against military tribunals have won the day.
President Obama’s supporters are making much of how the Bush administration treated 2001 shoe-bomber Richard Reid the same way that the Flight 253 Christmas bomber has been treated: arrest, indictment, and trial in civilian criminal court. In doing so they in fact continue to perpetuate a deep division that dates back to the first days after September 11, 2001, between law enforcement and war strategies.
While plans for military tribunals were established (by Executive Order dated Nov. 13, 2001), a few weeks before Reid was arrested, former U.S. attorney Mike Sullivan, who prosecuted Reid in federal court in Boston, said that how to use tribunals and particular arrangements for them had not been settled. Sullivan said he is “confident” that had Reid landed at Logan Airport in Dec. 2003, there would have been discussion as to where Reid would be sent.
On November 28, 2001, Sen. Patrick Leahy chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that examined, among other early Bush administration practices, the order to establish military commissions. In his introductory statement Sen. Leahy said:
The President’s Military Order of November 13 paves an overly broad path to the use of military commissions to try those suspected of a variety of activities. It is a marked departure from existing practices and raises a wide range of legal and constitutional questions and international implications….
As written, the Military Order does not incorporate basic notions of fairness and due process that are hallmarks of American justice. It does not specify a standard of guilt for convicting suspected terrorists.
It decrees that convictions will not be subject to judicial review, a determination that appears to directly conflict with our international commitments. It allows the Government to tailor rules to fit its proof against individual suspects.”
The Vermont Democrat’s criticism went well beyond military commissions:
Today and in the days ahead we will have an opportunity to explore the Executive action to charter military tribunals that bypass our civilian justice system, to permit eavesdropping on attorney-client communications without court orders, and the circumstances under which hundreds are being detained without public explanation. Whether any or all of these ideas are popular or unpopular at the moment, as an oversight committee we accept our duty to examine them.
The first military tribunal began proceedings (pdf) in November 2004 — three years after the original Presidential Executive Order was issued — and were promptly interrupted by a federal judge who ruled one of the defendants not properly chargeable in a military court. It was not until July 21, 2008 that a military tribunal was allowed to proceed. Several Supreme Court decisions and passage of two federal statutes, The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, delayed matters. (Congress further amended military tribunal procedure, in ways that expanded defendants’ rights, in the Military Commissions Act of 2009.)
Reid was arrested Dec. 22, 2001, after his flight landed, and was indicted on January 16, 2002. The conflict between al-Qaeda and America was clearly framed in his Jan. 20, 2003 court plea sentencing hearing when Richard Reid made clear that he was at war with America and the judge rejected same (emphases mine):
JUDGE WILLIAM YOUNG: I didn’t hear the last. I admit my actions and then what did you say?
REID: I further admit my allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah. With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed 2 million children in Iraq. If you want to think about something, against 2 million, I don’t see no comparison…..
So, for this reason, I think I ought not apologize for my actions. I am at war with your country. I’m at war with them not for personal reasons but because they have murdered more than, so many children and they have oppressed my religion and they have oppressed people for no reason except that they say we believe in Allah….
As far as the sentence is concerned, it’s in your hand. Only really it is not even in your hand. It’s in Allah’s hand. I put my trust in Allah totally and I know that he will give victory to his religion. And he will give victory to those who believe and he will destroy those who wish to oppress the people because they believe in Allah.
So you can judge and I leave you to judge. And I don’t mind. This is all I have to say. And I bear witness to Muhammad this is Allah’s message.
About the Author
Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by John C. Wohlstetter
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/11/richard-reid-and-the-christmas
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- We Have Her Example
- Razing Reagan
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 7:36AM
"It is the sponsorship by terror groups avowedly at war with America that makes Reid more than a mere common criminal."
According to what law? What law enables the president to assume war powers when no war has been declared? The Supreme Court has already established that military tribunals as constructed by the Bush admin are unconstitutional. In addition, it has established that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda.
We have two choices available: military courts martial under the UCMJ or the federal court systems.
Ret. Marine| 1.11.10 @ 8:29AM
So let me get this straight, we have not declared a war, and the Geneva Convention is applicable? are you serious, and by the way al-Qeada does not even reconize, nor have they ever signed into the agreements of the Geneva Convention because they do not belong to a Country, State, or reconized army. Go back to school
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 3:59PM
"al-Qeada does not even reconize, nor have they ever signed into the agreements of the Geneva Convention"
That's nice. It's not relevant, but it's nice that you know that. Good for you. Still, though, the United States are bound by the Geneva Conventions per Article 6 of the Constitution.
Granted, I understand that uber-statists like yourself do not believe Big Government should be constrained at all, and certainly not by the Constitution, but we conservatives do.
"So let me get this straight, we have not declared a war, and the Geneva Convention is applicable?"
No. We have not declared war, so the president cannot seize extra-constitutional war powers. The options open - and consistent with the rule of law in a republic - are military courts martial under the UCMJ or the criminal court system.
Ret. Marine| 1.12.10 @ 4:39AM
O.k. lets say you sound like you can at least read the Geneva Convention, so explain to us all how in fact did this Pres, or G.W. Bush for that matter, convey extra powers and just what were they? It is the primary job of sitting Presidents to sucure those war powers when defining the laws. This one and the latter did not, now prove me wrong troll.
Ryan| 1.11.10 @ 8:29AM
I agree with your final statement, and think that any individual who declares themselves - as Reid did - at war with the US should be under minimum military courts martial; however, for combatants who both engage civilian populations deliberately and wear no recognizable uniform should be held as waiving any and all rights under any acts.
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 4:00PM
Sure. Perhaps they "should". And perhaps US law should be amended so that this is the case. Unfortunately, right now Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is binding in the conflict w/Al Qaeda.
Mattled| 1.11.10 @ 8:07AM
New AmSpec 2010 resolution:
PLEASE don't reply to the trolls.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.11.10 @ 12:46PM
I second that Mattled, no Trolls in 2010!! You can't argue with him/them, because, he/they just goe(s) around in a loop, and can't recognize any other arguments except his/their own. It just gets old, listening to the same old song!!
How about those New England Patriots?
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 4:02PM
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Is the mob mentality so strong that you can't avoid getting sucked in? You and I have had a number of civil debates here on AmSpec. Resist the temptation to gang up on the lone anti-state conservative and remember that.
R Martin| 1.11.10 @ 8:19AM
War is war whether declared or not. Anyone who does not recognize that America is at war with radical Islam is a leftist apologist.
And, given that we are at war with people like Reid and Umar, the courts (all courts) have no say in how that war is proscuted. The conduct of was is strictly the purview of the political branches-- Congress and the Executive. Court orders in this matter should be ignored while we get on with dealing properly with these terrorists.
Ret. Marine| 1.11.10 @ 8:23AM
Reid's self admittence of being a "soldier", at war with the United States brings much to question in this case. While we must at all times be allowed to bear both sides of any argument, in Court proceedings, to such is the ideology presented in this case, one of a war-like stance on both sides regarding a religious adherent, yet in this case the judge himself denied the recognized value of this defendent, he considered himself a warrior. It is a fact that this term would be reconized both by the seated juror's' and the defendent but, in this case it would have appeared the judge refused to acknowedged this term and the duties of a soldier and therein lies the problem.
This country was at a state of declared war by the fatwa issued in 96 by the top commander of al-Qaeda, bin-Laden. It was the administration of b. clinton, and now that of b.h. obama that is not at war with al-Qaeda and this one fact alone should bears much needed heat from the general public. This article spells out plainly the division between the two camps of legislators, Dem's consider it and argue with it as a criminal investigation, the Republicans, much to their credit, reconize it as an act of war and each individual caught on the battle field, and during individual act of terror upon this country's citizens, should be placed ahead of the concern's of Citizens rights for actionable intelligence and then placed at gitmo for the duration of this fight.
Is it me, or do others think the Dem's position demonstrates hypocritical self interest. I believe the current crop of rot placed into the position of security of this Country have continued to "play" both sides to this arguement and want to have it both ways as an end result. We are either at war with this ideology, or we are not. The al-Qeada war machine, as well as the Dem's, are equal players in this sceme. Both are equal in their quest to have their social bends forced onto the Country, and both are fighting the American people trying for an edge over the other. Face it they are both resolved to be at the top of the food chain, the resolve to enslave us. Note, the dem party refuses to get themselves involved in the current H/C scandle because of their individual belief of superior individual rights because of course their status as legislators, they think themselves better than the average citizen and should not be subjected to mandates, fines, or legal action. Al-Qeada and the rest of their associates think themselves too "above the rest" of humanity over their belief of "allah vrs. God" and what they precieve to be better than the West.
This battle we are currently in will not be decided by any signed agreement with the two waring parties, it will not be won by massive killing of one's enemies, nor will it resolve itself over any issue other than that of idea's. We find ourselves in a very dangerous position, We the People. On one side we find those willing to kill in the name of a religious ideology and on the other side, and equally dangerous, are those who wish to rule their ideology of socialism/marxist statis, rather than represent as they are instructed by our laws. Both parties are at war with We the People, the differences is, the CONgress, Senate and the President has not declared it to be a war, I guess we can conclude who's the cowards by now.
Chris| 1.11.10 @ 8:52AM
Of course the judge is going to deny that Reid is an enemy combatant and that we are at war with Al Qaeda. If he didn't deny it, he'd have to send the case to a military tribunal where it belongs.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.11.10 @ 9:53AM
Good points, Marine.
I would like to add to your "idea" thoughts.
It is the issue of "moral equivalence" perhaps. The "Left" is just as religiously motivated as the Jihadists in my mind. You and I both have read the word "ideology" gazillions of times across pages like this. Doesn't the word "ideology" mean essentially "idea-science"...or "idea faith commitment"? (Take your pick).
Every one of us human beings are an "ideologue" aren't we?
If so, then we have to posit that the ideas themselves must be evaluated and sorta' scored "good or not so good".
That, sir seems to be, in my mind at least, where the old "moral equivalency" bullcorn...hits the rocks.
Every sentence we write or speak should probably begin with the acknowledged presupposition " I believe......."
For instance:
I believe in God given rights of self defense, and defense of my loved ones...."fellow countrymen?"
I believe that evil is as evil does... or proposes...and I am ultimately responsible for deciding what evil is....and how I might help stop it.
I believe...Even idiots like Toddard and Bob et al have that same "personal sovereignty" that I claim for myself.
I believe......Even the terrorists and would-be dictators in our government/s can claim that "personal sovereignty".
...and finally, that is why I so appreciate the essay by Mr. Wholstetter. He discusses "sponsorship".
In my mind, that indicates that the true evil doers...think...they are at least personally...fairly safe...insulated...from their actions.
Mr Obama? He knows the worst that can happen to him is being "dis-elected"...big deal.
Mr. Bin Laden? He has huge financial resources to allow him to slip off into obscurity if things get too hot.
Conversely, you and I, and quite a few others, are literally painting a target on our backs writing here.
Oh yeah...we know who the cowards are.
So I'm thinking...the only "moral equivalency" is in fact "moral and physical courage non-equivalency".
.....and that will decide the wars.
I am honored to share the battlefield with you guys.
Ret. Marine| 1.12.10 @ 4:49AM
Thanks Old Texican, I was kinda hoping that Toddard and other trolls would have picked up on my idea and maybe expanded it, I guess only a thinker other than a reactionary would have honestly given it much thought as you did. Outstanding remarks and right on point , just what I though the trolls would think. I guess I was wrong, only a virtueous people are able to Govern peaceably.
Anthony| 1.11.10 @ 9:58AM
In addition to liberalism being a mental disorder, Democrats are indeed remarkable world class hypocrites. How liberating it must be to be a leftist Dem; while the Dems did all that they could to thwart the Bush administration's prosecution of the war, they now glibly chastise Bush for caving to their constant carping and demands, as well as those of their willing allies, such as the ACLU, Amnesty International and other leftist organizations.
Richard Reid was/is an American, and as such was/is entitled to certain Constitutional protections, unlike the undie bomber. For Bush to treat Reid otherwise, so soon after 9/11, would have invoked the rage of the left, which was already past its "We are all Americans", and in full anti war mode.
If Bush had 1/4 the national support Roosevelt had after Pearl Harbor, al Qaeda and friends would be straining the 72 virgin limit per dead jihadist.
olainfree| 1.11.10 @ 5:13PM
Richard Reid is a British citizen, not an American. He declared himself a warrior for Allah and probably had the sponsorship of a terrorist group given his access to bomb materials/
Ret. Marine| 1.12.10 @ 4:57AM
R. Reid was a member of the al-Fuqura Mosque in New York City. Also al-Fouqra hosted and was financed by bin-Laden and al-Zawaeri, his second in Command. Tid-bit, al-Fuqra has many compounds training centers for the coming 'third Jihad" around this Country currently being observed by the FBI, CIA, Federal and State operators involved in anti-terrorism cases. Goggle them, quite surprising how they have been allowed to operating outside the laws of this Nation and no one is "too" concerned inside the NSA. Makes one wonder what side these agencies are on?
WilliamInWien| 1.11.10 @ 10:46AM
Would the BVD Bomber allowed his fellow passengers an opportunity to "plea bargain" before he destroyed the A/C? Possibly convert to Islam? There is an apparent "gap" between extant laws and what these terrorists wish to perpetrate as courts find it difficult to define what these people truly are and how they should be dealt with. There are certain acts in which a perpetrator forfeits all his rights and privileges in any civil society. The first mistake in this current dilema was using criminal courts for the 1993 WTC bombers. Viva Guantanamo!
JP| 1.11.10 @ 12:15PM
Ret Marine,
We are a nation run by lawyers. As SL Toddard demonstrated, lawyers by nature can argue an issue ad nauseum. Terrorists could be burning our cities, pillaging our communities, and murdering our children, and I can guarentee you that at least 10% of this nation would still be debating whether it is lawfull to defend ourselves.
Ret. Marine| 1.12.10 @ 4:45AM
You are absolutly correct, only a fool thinks if he debates long enough, the other fool will kill him last.
Pat| 1.11.10 @ 12:57PM
In addition to that dearly loved old standby "we inherited this problem from the Bush administration" , Obama's high kicking chorus line within the Mainstream Media have several clever tactics, including this one, for deflecting blame from the White House and our Democratic Congress. In an effort to standby their man, the Democratic National Committee was asked to pass out homework assignments to the various mainstream media apologists eager to help - we're now familiar with the "Nobody died, so what's everyone so upset about" rebuttal. Good point, Obama's new security upgrades rely heavily on allowing only incompetent terrorists to board future flights.
Then the familiar "there was a failure of 'intelligence' " - blame the CIA and that particular oldie but goodie has been around since the 60's. The CIA has no public face, they make for a good whipping boy and work in the deepest shadows like the much maligned but fictional Knights Templar, Opus Dei or the Illumniati.
Then we are treated to pom-pom shaking over Obama's pronouncements and promises. "Systemic failure" is to blame according to Obama and here we all thought someonce in governemt just messed up - as usual. Obama's consistently vague analysis of what actually happened and his adament refusal to blame any individuals within his administration - so consequently this new excuse doesn't blame Bush, it blames the "system" - whoever or whatever that is.
This article lays out yet another excuse - "we're no worse or more lenient than the Bush administration was in handling terrorists" - really? Except, the Detroit bomber isn't a terrorist under Obama's watch, he's just an extremist, a "lone gunman" like the Ft. Hood "extremist", a nutcase who was criminally charged and will be prosecuted as just another criminal, which probably means he'll be out in 2 years and his frequent flyer miles could be revoked.
We know Obama and his family don't fly commercial anymore so his lack of concern and refusal to exhibit a sense of urgency is somewhat understandable. But the media folks do fly commercial so are they still relying on doing the same things over and over but expecting much better reults?
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 1:18PM
REID: I further admit my allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah. With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed 2 million children in Iraq. If you want to think about something, against 2 million, I don't see no comparison….."
Speaking of idiots. The last part of that quote by Reid is exactly what the Toddards say about America. In fact it is what Ron Paul says about America. These so called ""true conservatives" who are nothing but liars.
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Eph. 5:11.
George F| 1.11.10 @ 3:07PM
Wow! You definitely are an argue with equivalency person aren't you. Do you recognize anything as good or as evil.
And you misquote Ron Paul as well. Confusion is yours.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 3:33PM
"No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people." ~Ron Paul Sept. 25, 2001.
~Sorry Chief. I don't lie.
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 4:05PM
Marge never questions Big Government or any of its overseas schemes. She is a Big Government fanatic - she literally cannot distinguish between Big Government and "America". That's because she loves Big Government - NOT America.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 4:28PM
S.lithering L.izard Toddard the slimy creepy liar strikes again. Why don't you take your slimy little lying self and crawl back under your rock?
I know you can't stand it when I expose the truth about your cult leader, but too bad. I will continue to do so, and expose you right along with him.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 4:31PM
"The terrorists are terrorists because of us!" ~Ron Paul.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 4:43PM
"..the military-industrial complex, and Detroit. We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century." ~Ron Paul, Feb. 16, 2009.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.11.10 @ 6:02PM
Margie, you just keep kickin' rears, girl.
Ron Paul basks in the reality that he can pontificate and virtually no one will take him seriously.
See, Margie, if Ron Paul and the Toddards of the earth actually were handed the reins of power...this conversation would not be going on.
These nuts would be worse communists, (pardon the shorthand), than Obama and crew. See, they would kill you and I to make their own little picture of utopia...in their imagined fortress America.
They all know though, that they can prattle all they want, and no adult will take them seriously.
...probably save your breath, unless you just enjoy teasing them...as I do. heh.
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 6:24PM
"These nuts would be worse communists, (pardon the shorthand), than Obama and crew. See, they would kill you and I to make their own little picture of utopia."
I often wonder how it is that leftist militarists (neoconservative and liberal internationalists etc) in America can get out of bed every morning, paralyzed by fear as they are. I've asked it before and have never heard a response: Is there any group of people anywhere on earth more frightened of the world than the Fox News 'Right'? Such cowardly cry babies, hiding under their beds from ACORN, terrified of a yuppie like Obama to the extent that they compare him to Hitler(!), girlshly shrieking in fear at the mere thought of "Islamofascism" (they think the United States is so weak and pathetic its "existence" can be eradicated by some crazy bums), hysterically forking over their liberties to a Daddy State to tuck them in at night and Keep Them Safe from The Terrorists. They talk like big tough men and strut around and demand our brothers and sons and cousins be sent all over the world to fight and die because they are afraid - terrified - of "Islamofascists". And now poor Ken here (already nearly hysterical with fear of a scattered rabble of primitives thousand of miles away on the other side of the globe who have no army, no air force, and no navy) is afraid I would "kill" him if Ron Paul were elected president (!!?).
Ken - rest easy. I promise I will never, ever hurt you like those Islamobaddies. Now go play in your tree fort - your Daddy State has left its borders wide open and sent the army to the other side of the world, so we'll all be safe now.
Ken (old Texican)| 1.11.10 @ 6:45PM
Toddard,
I've got "buttons and zippers"...and yes, I was afraid...while I was getting them. I did my job anyway...
Can you translate "buttons and zippers"?
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 8:30PM
"Toddard,
I've got "buttons and zippers"
Yes, yes - you told me before. Your pet hamsters. I hope they are well.
Ken, is terrorism such a profound threat that we must wage multiple, perpetual wars or is it so insignificant that we can leave our southern border wide open for anyone to stream across?
victor| 1.11.10 @ 10:52PM
S. L. Doddard
"is it so insignificant that we can leave our southern border wide open for anyone to stream across?"
The only thing that is coming over the Southern Border are drug dealers or your landscapers.
Everybody who knows anything, knows that the terrorists are already here, either on a student or tourist visa. Those Islamo-Fascists are not fig newtons of your imagination.
The Buffalo Six, the Fort Dix Six and other groups and individuals are here LEGALLY and have and are evading detection until they do something to garner attention such as the Flying Imamis or Sami-Al-Arian.
They are akin to the sleeper agents the Nazi's or National Socialists to you Toddy,
put here in America in the 30's to take action at a later date.
You need to get your head out of the pantry and pay attention.
The 9-11 "19" were here as students and had Driver's Licenses, for cryin out loud.
Close your eyes if you want to and hide out down cellar, but that won't make them go away.
BTW they most likely came across the Canadian border as the Canucks had the same lax attitude towards the Jihadists that you seem to have too.
S.L. Toddard| 1.12.10 @ 7:53AM
"Everybody who knows anything, knows that the terrorists are already here"
Really? Because I was told we have to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". Is that wrong?
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.12.10 @ 12:27PM
For your edification, SL, buttons are bullet scars, and zippers are fragmentation scars.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 7:33PM
Toddard takes a lickin' but he keeps on tickin' doesn't he?
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 6:09PM
"..the military-industrial complex, and Detroit. We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century."
A damning indictment of Big Government's policies overseas. And every word of it true. Why are no other conservative "leaders" courageous enough to speak true as he does? Because they are owned by the same corporate elite that Ron Paul opposes.
Anyway, Marge, are you implying anything in that statement is factually false? Or can you simply not stomach criticism of Big Government?
ken (Old texican)| 1.11.10 @ 6:46PM
See above smurff.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 7:31PM
Just that I think it's a damning indictment of Ron Paul.
It's just really sad that you guys think like you do. That you view America as the "Aggressor." I'll keep exposing it as long as it exists.
I do it out of love. LOVE of country, love of people, and wanting people to know the truth.
S.L. Toddard| 1.11.10 @ 8:24PM
Marge, is there anything in that statement that is factually false? Or are you actually objecting to the truth - to reality? Think about that, Marge - those statements are factually true, and yet you condemn a man for speaking them.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 9:02PM
Sorry Toddy. Ron Paul condemns himself.. he is delusional.
victor| 1.11.10 @ 10:55PM
S.L. Toddardist:
"Because they are owned by the same corporate elite"
What "corporate elite" would that be?
I think you've been listening to George Noory or Mother Jones too long.
No, I think Ron Paul is owned by another elite, don't you think?
Tony in Central PA| 1.11.10 @ 7:01PM
My Dad recently found an issue of " Stars and Stripes " from July, 1945. There was a small news item in it relating to the execution by firing squad of two German enemy combatants aged 17 and 19. They were enemy combatants because they were committing terrorist acts against the civilian population and our military after the German surrender. They expressed their allegiance to the Reich after capture. They also wore no uniforms, which usually gets you executed in time of war if you are an enemy combatant in friendly territory. Interesting how times change.
Tenn Slime| 1.12.10 @ 8:36AM
Opine
bt
1. Wherever the "Terrorists" are eventually tried, convicted and sentenced, there will always be opines regarding the details. One court, either Mil Tribunal or Civilian, will decide.
Now. As to Sen Leahy's diversion attempt on Bush and company justice, it is simply the agenda of the Left. Pure and Simple. Your Freedom, Mine and others across the USA Electorate is to be controlled by the Leahys of the Left. Freedom, as they see it, is to be managed, controlled, led, diverted, and finally destroyed. In essence no different than the The Reid Bomber types. The difference is in the method. For the last 60 years the Left has consistently eaten away at the foundations, at the legal system, at the education system, doing over time, exactly what the Islamic Radicals would like to do instantly. Same ends, different means.
bt
Now. We will prevail. We will win over the Islamic Terroists. The November 08 Transformational election, IE OBNA, will not succeed. 2010, 2012 are the turning points. We FINALLY get it.
end
Semper Fi
S
pissbeuponhim| 1.12.10 @ 4:01PM
Here's the plea bargain the terrorist should get: "tell us everything you know and you will not have to eat your sliced--off testicles before we kill you."
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 1:03AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Richard Reid and the Christmas Bombe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Sam| 1.13.10 @ 1:16AM
S.L. Toddard-
I enjoy your continually well reasoned posts that appear on this website. Many of the posters here
'cannot stomach the truth' as you so rightly put it. Do not back down. You have supporters here too.
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 5:27AM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 10:00PM
is good