Also, we notice that gillie can’t condemn his fellow Obama Party members like Lynne Stewart for supporting and endorsing terrorists.

It really shows you the complete lack of principles and intellectual consistency that underpin liberalism.

In case you’ve not noticed, there have been accolades for President Obama walking back on civilian trials for the terrorists.

We say that the Shoebomber mistakes were made. It was how long after 9/11? You’re using that mistakes were made to defend the current actions. *shakes head* gods, you’re that desperate to defend the man’s policies? You’re ‘defense’ is that in 8 years we should be making the same mistakes with the shoe bomber?

And of course bring race into it. I’d expect racial profiling from you.

It makes sense.
Since the conservative belief set is based upon so many logical fallacies, the only way to defend them is to use more logical fallacies.
Classic

Toyota Silver Lining.

Dear Taliban we have the repair fix for your Toyota – shim this.

http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/02/toyota-silver-lining.html

Lynne Stewart was free on bond until November of last year, when she lost her appeal and is now serving her sentence.

http://www.pbs.org/now/blog/2009/11/lynne_stewart_loses_terrorism.html

And this was too funny.

Terrorists who are not white and only captured under a Dem Prez.

Is anyone else amused by the fact that gillie and Tano demand that non-citizen terrorists have “constitutional rights”, but that American citizens do not?

Both you biyatches need to get your ducks in a row…. no way are you gonna be able to claim the moral high ground by trying to piggy back on Bush because it’s the politically expedient thing to do….

Richard Reid happened 3 months after 9/11, the system wasn’t set up at that time …. it took the administration several years(thanks to the constant challenges by Eric Holder and his firm) to put together a legal mechanism necessary to conduct the military tribunals……. I’ll be the 1st one to say I disagreed with Reid ever being put in the civilian courts. Luckily he pled guilty and never saw the inside of a court room. …… the same thing would have happened with KSM, remember he too pled guilty. However, AG Holder in his infinite wisdom didn’t accept the plea….. sup with that biyatches?

No.

Folks are saying “Why are you calling for Obama’s impeachment for doing the same thing as Bush did in this same instance?”

Can any of you answer this?

And Spartann, clearly he was saying that they need to be treated under the “dictates of the Geneva Convention”

I know you are trying to be a Hero and fight for truth here, but you can’t do it by snipin’ and cutin’ quotes to fit your meme

Don’t you mean Islaminc terrorists only?
or maybe:
Terrorists who are not white and only captured under a Dem Prez.

And do you really read those docs “weekly”???
Really?
Yow.
I suggest you find a book club.

not only was Holder the wacko Reno sent to Waco…but he was also instrumental in the 1999 commutations of the 16 FALN members that were convicted of a bombing campaign in NYC and Chicago back in the 70s and 80s….. The dude sees the application of the law from an even further leftwing perspective than Obama…… hard as it is to imagine anyone could be further to the left than Mr Obama is.

Rich. As an Obama voter, you don’t have the moral ground to stand behind the US Constitution. Have you ever actually READ it? Or the Declaration of Independence? I read them weekly.

And Obama’s role as President under the Constitution states that HIS PRIMARY job is to DEFEND the nation against enemies foreign and domestic. PRIMARY. NUMERO UNO.

Giving Constitutional Rights to terrorists should be grounds for the immediate impeachment of Holder & Obama.

I also have to ask a more general question – what is the ‘generally accepted’ conservative approach to treatment of terrorists, and what is the reasoning behind it? Maybe there is not such a consensus, and that’s why I’m failing to understand.

Y’all seem to be reading far more into the statement than what appears there. Holder said (as you actually highlight): “it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. ”

So? How do you interpret that as saying that he should not have a lawyer, and that he should be, maybe, in some place that could be argued is not “in” the United States, though we control it.

He is just making the obvious point that someone with a lawyer might be harder to interrogate than someone without a lawyer. Is that some controversial statement?

The undie bomber is being treated the same way that the shoe bomber was treated by the Bush administration.

“…wonder why he was so quick to ensure that Abdulmutallab had his rights read to him..”

Because its his damn JOB – to be the chief law enforcement offical of the United States, to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. I realize this is a strange concept to you conservatives, but that is to your shame.

Holder says “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.”

“It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war.”

Holder later goes on to say, “I think they clearly do not fit within the prescriptions of the Geneva Convention………. it’s hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war. ”

I don’t care what consequences present themselves, you can not for the sake of political posturing, manipulate jurisprudence and expect the people to stand on the side lines and say nothing while you do it.

The panty bomber and all other terrorists are enemy combatants and should never be afforded the rights of an American citizen.

Democrats are attempting to bolster their lame case by saying you’re doing the same as Bush did, that this time it’s OK to copy Mr Bush……. News flash, no Republican is taking te stance the Bush administration was correct in placing earlier terrorist trials in the hands of our criminal justice system, even if they were forced to because of then private citizen Holder’s obstucionism on the part of his law firm.

The panty queen was incommunicado for 5 weeks, Democrats have been outta touch from day one….. Now biyatch, go suck an egg.

Further, interesting you post this on the day it comes out that we are getting a lot of info from this guy BECAUSE we followed the rule of law.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-administration-secured-help-of-abdulmuttalabs-family-to-get-him-to-share-intelligence.html

Here is the money quote and I hope you moonbats read it carefully:

“people with no experience and apparently less knowledge about the case and the issues involved have made it a cause célèbre . As though there were some type of strange practice or action that took place here. When it’s consistent with all the practices of the previous administration.”