Another Dispassionate Analysis

[Urbane Guerrilla]

...of just how big a parcel of rogues we've got cluttering Capitol Hill. The Democratic Party always wanted to lose the War On Terror because we're America, or something. They're going about it as steadily as they can. They are certainly by no measure serious about winning it. Our present best hope is to get some meanass Republican back into the Oval Office at the first opportunity, as the results of two terms of this kind of thing are too dismal to stomach.

The terrs have taken notice of this. Since the Republicans relinquished power, terrorist attacks on US soil, wholly absent during the Bush years, have increased. Until Team Obama actually becomes Team Antifascist and not Team Dither, Haver, and Cavil, we can only expect more of the same.

[Undertoad]

Of course, if Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", was Mirandized by the Bush admin team, starting five minutes after his capture and happening four times in two days... Krauthammer's point would be moot and your insufferable partisan rhetoric would turn precisely against you, wouldn't it?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html

ETA: especially if Abdulmutallab is cooperating?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us...er=rss&emc=rss

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The terrs have taken notice of this. Since the Republicans relinquished power, terrorist attacks on US soil, wholly absent during the Bush years,

Three come to mind. If you count all of the 9/11 ones as a single incident. 9/11, anthrax, shoe bomber. Two of which were successful. Plus some nutty ones caught in the planning stages by actual law enforcement.

[DanaC]

What does 'Mirandize' mean?

[Happy Monkey]

Read the suspect their rights. "You have the right to remain silent.... etc".

[DanaC]

Ah right. ok. Thanks

[SamIam]

Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court which was argued February 28–March 1, 1966 and decided June 13, 1966. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

- frpm Wikepedia

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Right, I should add the adjective "successful" to some of that. Still, two incidents that get to, or near, fruition in a single year is an increase in density by any measure. The point remains that the Republican Administration was serious, the Democratic enough less so that anti-Democratic partisanship is not just justifiable, but much to be desired until this lot of boobies wakes up to smite the undemocratic. People of liberty want the antidemocrats ... to be at no risk of constipation. Our troubles come from anti-democrats. Lose the anti-democrats, we lose the troubles. How's that bad? Oh, the Left is sure somehow that must be a bad thing, oh indeed.

Commie twats and Fascist snots, lots and lots. May the one be locked to the other with a Prince Albert and cast upon history's ash-heap. Keep the age of undue governance a thing of the past, or you will spend your futures as slaves. A dismal prospect for the adult thinker.

[Flint]

Are you a joke?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

There are those who would like to believe so, Flint, and who greatly desire it.

They have not attained their desire. Perhaps because what they wanted was none too worthy in the first place.

[Happy Monkey]

There were two that succeeded under Bush. Again, counting 9/11 as a single incident. And the shoe bomber incident was pretty much identical to the underwear bomber.

Another example of how the more rational (and legal) approach to prevent future terrorist attacks:

When the American-born al-Qaida recruit Bryant Neal Vinas was captured in Pakistan late last year, he wasn't whisked off to a military prison or a secret CIA facility in another country to be interrogated.

Instead, the itinerant terrorist landed in the hands of the FBI and was flown back to New York to face justice....

While an American citizen captured in Pakistan certainly presents a unique case, the circumstances of Vinas' treatment may point to a new emphasis in the fight against terror, one that relies more on FBI crimefighters and the civilian justice system than on CIA interrogators and military detention.

Vinas provided "an intelligence gold mine" to U.S. officials, including possible information about a suspected militant who was killed in a Predator drone strike last November, says a senior law enforcement official, one of several authorities who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

Another law enforcement official said that under questioning, the 26-year-old Vinas gradually provided a "treasure trove" of information, allowing U.S. counterterrorism officials to peer deep inside the inner workings of al-Qaida.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8175862

UG...."You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you to further demonstrate that your "freedom fighter" mentality is not only undemocratic, unethical and of questionable legal footing... but bad public policy."

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

There are those who would like to believe so, Flint, and who greatly desire it.

They have not attained their desire. Perhaps because what they wanted was none too worthy in the first place.

Does an individual of such lofty analytical aspirations see fit to postulate whether the pitch of one's own desire to measure the worthiness of the desires of others in turn may have an inverse artifact upon the presentation of said desires of others, and that a reciprocal relationship may, in fact, factor greatly upon the originally stated proposition?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Flint

Are you a joke?

I don't know about that. But i do know I've had acid trips that have made more sense.*

* I'll soften that by saying 'at times'.

[Undertoad]

I completely eviscerated UG in post #2. He failed to address it. There is no need for the thread to continue.