Michael Ramirez for November 23, 2009

Really? I hadn’t heard that there would be no prosecuter.

It is not that bad to be an enemy of America.

There is not much that I like about 0bama’s administration, but the decision to try this foreign slime on American soil, is the most abhorrent, and reasonless to date.

Too sick Ramirez. No correlation and uncalled for.

Petergrt said: ”There is not much that I like about 0bama’s administration, but the decision to try this foreign slime on American soil, is the most abhorrent, and reasonless to date.”

So, you are for the International Court of Justice, based in the Hague?

“So, you are for the International Court of Justice, based in the Hague?”

Absolutely not! That court is a real joke (just as most ‘international institutions, like UN) and US rightfully does not recognize its authority.

They should be tried by a US military commission, just as their comrades are slated to be tried, by the very Attorney General.

Why the differing treatments?

Zacarias Moussaoui, together with a bunch of other terrorists were tried in the US because they ware arrested in the US, and ware read the Miranda rights.

The only pragmatic reason for having the trials in a civilian court, is to put GWB’s administration, CIA and US in general on trial.

Hey, sounds like a great decision to try KSM and his pals in a civilian NYC courtroom despite the fact that an earlier bipartisan congressional decision came to the opposite conclusion, that scores of legal professionals toiled over the rules for trying enemy combatants in military tribunals to ensure they were fair and just (as confirmed by experts and third-party panels on both sides of the debate), and we already spent millions of dollars on facilities specifically designed to hold these trials offshore.

There are a few, unfortunate downsides to Holder’s decision however (and Obama’s complicity in said choice). In no particular order they are: 1. Increased risk to the population of NYC 2. Increase cost of security estimated to exceed $17 million 3. Greater chance that classified intelligence will be leaked (if not disclosed outright) and used in future terrorist efforts 4. Greater chance that defendants’ sentences will be mitigated due to the higher bar necessitated by a civilian court, evidence that can’t be disclosed, and confessions that aren’t admissible because they were made under duress (after all, no sane juror can doubt that water-boarding is torture can they?) or because they weren’t read their Miranda rights 5. Opportunity for this to turn into a show trial that defendants can use as a PR / recruiting tool. 6. Lastly, a greater incentive for terrorists to target civilians on our own soil for future attacks rather than our military personnel stationed overseas because of this new precedent (otherwise, like the USS Cole attackers, they’ll get a military trial).

Upside: The administration gets to throw a bone to his critics on the far left, and we “prove” to the rest of the world that the US legal system is the best in the world (in a related topic, OJ’s search for his wife’s killer continues).

DrCanuck rejoices and barfs all over-himself.

Another Ramirez toon with no element of truth. He’ so predictable.

I’m just looking in from the outside and I see a nation terrified of its own justice system’s abilities. A part of the US views the I.C.J. with disdain; but doesn’t want to hold a trial within the US; but wants to hold it “off-shore”. A tad confused?

I think now may the time the US revisits the moon perhaps. I read calls for summary executions; fear of a “fair justice system”; in favour of torture; fear of keeping human rights… Wow, those terrorists really got what they wanted, didn’t they? You guys are quite the clowns.

I’m glad the more sensible of your citizens are at least keeping your nation’s integrity.

” … I read calls for summary executions; fear of a “fair justice system”; in favour of torture; fear of keeping human rights… ”

Stop taking the drugs - it just might stop you from hallucinating.

“Never a reasoned argument from these bozos; just continuous name-calling.”

A perfect example of a reasoned argument, as opposed to name calling.

Convict them in court, then sentence them to life without parole, listening to the “Small World” theme from Disneyland- 24/7. They will find a way to commit suicide within three days.

Ramirez’s headstones represent the Constitution and civil rights buried under Cheney/Bush. Then there is the little matter of our loses in Iraq to “get even” for 9/11 against those who had nothing to do with it.

“Been there, done that” is NOT the case for most of the fans of Ramirez, or others on the right ignorant of the real world.

Having “been there, done that”, I’m really losing patience with the stupidity of those who pretend to defend the Constitution, with a flame thrower aimed at it.

petergrt said, about 3 hours ago Quoting omQ R: ” … I read calls for summary executions; fear of a “fair justice system”; in favour of torture; fear of keeping human rights… ”

Petergrt suggested instead: ”Stop taking the drugs - it just might stop you from hallucinating.

Shall I post the examples of what I said from this thread alone?

Call for summary execution (& fear of keeping human rights): oldlegodad said, about 17 hours ago Should have been given death by lethal injection on 9mm in base of skull at time of capture…

In favour of torture and summary execution (& fear of keeping human rights): *HOWGOZIT said, about 19 hours ago Waterboard them till death do us part sounds right. *

Fear of fair justice system Roger said, about 16 hours ago …when the terrorists go free because they didn’t get their Miranda rights or some such garbage.

Peter…er, nevermind, I’m off to take another A.

nope, no barfing. just sighing over the waste of whatever talent Ramirez possesses.