Bill Clinton Strikes Back

[quote name='onikage']I agree that there has been no hard evidence presented to debunk the theory that there were explosives in the towers. I still think it is a possibility, given the way in which both collapsed. Whether or not our government had something to do with it is another question. And you can't forget building 7, which fell after only being hit by debris.[/QUOTE]

There is also no hard evidence presented to debunk the theory that Dr. Doom didn't control the planes using his Doombots™ who survived the crash and used their repulser blasts to cut through the super structure.

For "those with a scientific background," the intentional collapse idea is idiotic. The only evidence provided FOR it is in the video of the collapse the windows of the lower floors bust out seemingly before the building collapses, and that the steel used in the WTC had a melting temperature of 2000° and jet fuel burns at 1600°.

OK, the jet fuel first. While it's true that the metal will melt at 2000° it takes significantly less to weaken it and 1600° for an hour should just about do it.

Second, the exploding windows: OK, so the jet is sitting in the middle of the building burning everything, weakening the steel supports. One of them breaks causing the interior of the building to collapse. Now, the outside of the building has more steel supports that weren't exposed to the heat of the burning jet fuel, so they don't collapse as fast. So, not unlike a peanut butter sandwich squished in the middle, the debris from inside is expelled through the windows before the steel outer-structure is dragged down by the still sturdy upper floors.

Third, in its time in office this administration hasn't done a single thing right, at all, the president can't even eat a pretzel without Secret Service supervision. And the intelligence angencies are leaky like a Cleveland tenement building. What on earth makes you think they'd be able to pull something of that magnitude off, and keep it secret?

Building 7: The owner originally claimed the fire dept. insisted the building be 'pulled' (which is builders slang for imploding it) because it was going to go anyway, at least this way they could decide when and do it (relatively) safely.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I never said, or remotely implied anything about them. Try them, of course. But the first time we find one innocent, then they attempt it again, they are all up shit creek. At that point we'd have to have a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system and a re-examination about what our liberties are.[/quote]
Well if they were found not guilty then there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict them (well, in a perfect world it would mean that...). If a guy ends up actually suicide bombing something later, I don't see that as a failure of the criminal justice system since we can't very well condemn somebody for something that can't be proven. He quite possibly could have been innocent the first time.

I really don't see why it would be difficult to convict one of these guys, so I don't see the point in keeping them from having trials (not that you, CocheseUGA, said they shouldn't be tried, but I'm sure others have).
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I never said, or remotely implied anything about them. Try them, of course. But the first time we find one innocent, then they attempt it again, they are all up shit creek. At that point we'd have to have a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system and a re-examination about what our liberties are.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure there are victims of certain crimes that feel the same way about sex offenders, or murderers.

Nevertheless, the kind of thinking you display here is the same kind of rationale that has kept people detained in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib despite no indictments, no trials, and in some cases, a complete clearing of culpability.

It's a massive problem, to be sure: on one hand, how many people are you willing to unfairly and indeterminately incapacitate, without evidence or trial, in order to keep people safe from potential terrorist attacks? On the other comes the massive fear of following judicial principle (letting people go when the court determines there is no guilt), only to have it come back in the form of another terrorist attack.

It's a problem with no easy solution; I'd argue, however, that we can emphasize and improve our intelligence-gathering services so as to continue monitoring those who have been released; like parole. A terrorist attack is unique in ways that robbery or murder are not. In the case of the latter two incidences, many proponents of long prison sentences, fewer paroles, and a harsh judicial system can surely cite many anecdotal accounts of people leaving prison only to go right back to their life of crime (weren't Michael Dukakis' "Willie Horton" troubles all about that?). A terrorist attack requires significant planning and "testing" (for lack of a better phrase). Given the requirements necessary to pull off a successful terrorist attack, parole supervision and the like (I s'pose you can't call it parole, since they were found not guilty. Nevertheless, for alleged terrorism cases, you could easily muster up public support to monitor those who were indicted and and not convicted on such charges) could do a better job at suppressing terrorist attacks than it would at preventing future reoffenses by recently released prisoners.

"Monitoring innocent people is unfair!" some of you might say (though I don't expect you to be among them, Cochese ;)). Yes, it is, but, I'd argue, it's less unfair than incarcerating them.
 
[quote name='Cheese']
Third, in its time in office this administration hasn't done a single thing right, at all, the president can't even eat a pretzel without Secret Service supervision. And the intelligence angencies are leaky like a Cleveland tenement building. What on earth makes you think they'd be able to pull something of that magnitude off, and keep it secret?
[/quote]

I'll reference Operation Northwoods again - the President didn't even know about the operation that (almost) went through. For another interesting example of this, please read up on the Reichstag fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire). Yes, they were once a 'democracy' as well.

As for this presumption of innocence - when you have so much evidence that your government is clearly fucking the American public, they still assume such things could not/would not be done under any given circumstances.
 
Again, I reference the Popular Mechanics investigation. But I'm sure you'll just tell me about Northwoods again.

And myke, you missed where I said to try them. Try all of them. Gitmo, Abu, all of them. Let come what may. I'm just pointing out the possibility of what would happen. You mentioned murder and rape victims, how many times do those victims take matters in their own hands? Multiply that by eleventy trillion. I'm just pointing out the repercussions, since no one seems to want to bring that up. Courtrooms are only going to solve so much of the problem.

What we really need is more HumInt in-country to bypass some of this need to wiretap, etc. We need to infiltrate and destroy these organizations from within, not from the outside. Remember what Sun Tzu said. I'm all for wiretapping, surveillance, etc. But let's make a good case for it and not do it willy-nilly and across the board. If you have concerns about a warrant or court order getting out, that could be solved pretty easily.

I'm on the fence. I'm all for surveillence (I know I misspelled it, bear with me) if it's justified, but the libertarian side says you better not be in my house.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']And myke, you missed where I said to try them. Try all of them. Gitmo, Abu, all of them. Let come what may. I'm just pointing out the possibility of what would happen. You mentioned murder and rape victims, how many times do those victims take matters in their own hands? Multiply that by eleventy trillion. I'm just pointing out the repercussions, since no one seems to want to bring that up. Courtrooms are only going to solve so much of the problem.[/QUOTE]

No, I did see that. I was just pointing out the complexity of "let come what may."

Also, whatsa HumInt?
 
[quote name='nathansu']I'll reference Operation Northwoods again - the President didn't even know about the operation that (almost) went through. For another interesting example of this, please read up on the Reichstag fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire). Yes, they were once a 'democracy' as well.

As for this presumption of innocence - when you have so much evidence that your government is clearly fucking the American public, they still assume such things could not/would not be done under any given circumstances.[/QUOTE]

You are not backing up your claim by repeatedly referring to something that has a limited/no connection to it. Also, every ninth grader knows Germany was a democracy and that the Nazi's set the Reichstag Fire as a propaganda tool. Sadly, A(northwoods) + B (Reichstag) does not equal C (WTC destroyed by the US Gov't). That is a huge leap in logic with no basis in fact.

Please back up your conspiracy allegations. Please provide one (1) single piece of evidence that there was any gov't involvement, and not a presumption, but actual verifiable evidence.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No, I did see that. I was just pointing out the complexity of "let come what may."

Also, whatsa HumInt?[/QUOTE]

Human Intelligence, as opposed to SigInt or ElInt(Signals Intelligence, Electronic Intel aka satellites, radio trans, etc)
 
[quote name='Cheese']
Building 7: The owner originally claimed the fire dept. insisted the building be 'pulled' (which is builders slang for imploding it) because it was going to go anyway, at least this way they could decide when and do it (relatively) safely.[/quote]

Actually, Silverstein (owner) mentioned that the building was "pulled" in a PBS documentary, but then acted as if "pulled" meant to pull the firefighters from the building when questioned later. Also, there's no way they could have rigged up that building for implosion in only a few hours. If it was a controlled demolition it would have to have been planned before 9/11.
 
[quote name='onikage']Actually, Silverstein (owner) mentioned that the building was "pulled" in a PBS documentary, but then acted as if "pulled" meant to pull the firefighters from the building when questioned later. Also, there's no way they could have rigged up that building for implosion in only a few hours. If it was a controlled demolition it would have to have been planned before 9/11.[/QUOTE]

Unless they winged it.

Or maybe it even truly did just fall down due to damage from the North Tower debris. To immediately assume the CIA/FBI/NSA/BLACK OPS did it is absurd.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']At that point we'd have to have a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system and a re-examination about what our liberties are.[/quote]

Why would our liberties change? We're mostly talking about foreign combatants here.

However, if I follow your logic correctly, you're essentially saying that we should monitor people who have been found innocent of a crime in order to ensure they don't commit that crime, right?
 
[quote name='evanft']Why would our liberties change? We're mostly talking about foreign combatants here.

However, if I follow your logic correctly, you're essentially saying that we should monitor people who have been found innocent of a crime in order to ensure they don't commit that crime, right?[/QUOTE]

You didn't. I was referring to terrorists tried and found innocent on a charge of a terror plot. This terrorist gets deported, then comes back and is successful (if he wasn't in the first place). My point being, juries aren't 100% reliable. There is tampering, hung juries, inability to find a fair pool to choose from, etc, etc.

When people find out about that this was the same person the courts found 'innocent,' it's gonna be apeshit on a stick. That's what I meant about the criminal justice system and our civil liberties being put under a microscope. Let your imaginations go from there.

All that's speculative, but it's a possibility.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']You didn't. I was referring to terrorists tried and found innocent on a charge of a terror plot. This terrorist gets deported, then comes back and is successful (if he wasn't in the first place). My point being, juries aren't 100% reliable. There is tampering, hung juries, inability to find a fair pool to choose from, etc, etc.[/QUOTE]

So your argument is that Lynch Mobs, Kangaroo Courts and the Rack are more reliable than Courts?
 
I said juries aren't 100% reliable. That's it. People get off on murder and then can brag about it the next week. That's my arguement

You go ahead and make whatever assumptions you want to, because I know you're going to take one word out of all I said and take it out of context.

How about next time you read everything I type instead of quoting one part?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That "guilty before innocent" perspective isn't very American, now is it?[/QUOTE]

Then by that argument, isn't Osama innocent before proven guilty?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I said juries aren't 100% reliable. That's it. People get off on murder and then can brag about it the next week. That's my arguement[/QUOTE]

That is not an argument.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']That's right, it's a fact. Plug it into the post in question.[/QUOTE]

So are you making the argument that torture, lynch mobs and indefinite prison time without trial is better?
 
Jesus you're dense. No, I'm not making that arguement. Once again, you ignore the bulk of what I said and focus on one sentence.

Did you totally miss where I said I wanted them tried? Did you fail to grasp where I said there would be consequences and repercussions upon the event of a mistrial/hung jury/innocent verdict resulted in the same person committing the same crime again? This isn't rocket science. The public outcry against the jury/prosecutors who fucked up the case would be like nothing we've ever seen. There would be calls for the judicial branch to be overhauled. And there would be calls for the things you described, and it would be a loud and vocal majority who calls for these things.

My reasoning why a majority of the people would nearly riot? For as much crap we hear about people opposing the death penalty, the percent of people who support it for convicted murderers has been over 50% since 1972. I'd make a fair wager that there would be a public outcry like this country has never seen.




There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. - Elie Wiesel
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='nathansu']Yes - please see operation northwood in my post above. Doubt anyone would hesitate to do the same now?[/quote]

Quoting Wikipedia = you lose.

[quote name='nathansu']The common presumption of the American public en masse that our government is not capible of willfully harming us is absolutely crazy. I'd suggest you learn critical thinking skills and look at the facts. They are right in front of your eyes, all you have to do is stop ignoring them.[/QUOTE]

There is ZERO credible proof that the government was behind 9/11 and it was done with explosions not airplanes, while there is OVERWHELMING evidence that what thousands of people saw and heard on 9/11 is the truth. Go back to reading your nutjob websites and formulating your vast conspiracies.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Then by that argument, isn't Osama innocent before proven guilty?[/QUOTE]

Ah, but you see, he's already admitted to the crime in question.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Then by that argument, isn't Osama innocent before proven guilty?[/QUOTE]

Well, he's certainly admitted to it, so no.

Unless you're going the legal route and suggesting he deserve a trial. I'd be willing to forgo one for him, but if he must be tried, that's fine too.

Now, if we could put someone in the White House concerned with actually capturing the motherfucker, then we might be able to have a relevant and fruitful discussion as to whether he deserves due process, or if he should be bludgeoned to death on Pay Per View.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']At that point we'd have to have a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system and a re-examination about what our liberties are.[/QUOTE]

I am reading everthing you write.

You are undeniably pro torture and now you are making hypotheticals where the courts would be overthrown if they make decisions you dont like.

What else is a reasonable person supposed to think?

Why dont you ask one?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am reading everthing you write.

[/QUOTE]

Apparently not. It took you hours to try and figure out what I wrote and you still aren't there yet. Good luck with that, because I'm not wasting my time anymore.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Apparently not. It took you hours to try and figure out what I wrote and you still aren't there yet. Good luck with that, because I'm not wasting my time anymore.[/QUOTE]

You must work so hard to be that obtuse.

I do love watching you run away when you fail at obfuscation.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Quoting Wikipedia = you lose.



There is ZERO credible proof that the government was behind 9/11 and it was done with explosions not airplanes, while there is OVERWHELMING evidence that what thousands of people saw and heard on 9/11 is the truth. Go back to reading your nutjob websites and formulating your vast conspiracies.[/quote]

Actually, there were many civilians, firefighters and police who reported hearing explosions around the ground level of the towers before they came down. You can find news reports and other video evidence of this with little effort.
 
[quote name='onikage']Actually, there were many civilians, firefighters and police who reported hearing explosions around the ground level of the towers before they came down. You can find news reports and other video evidence of this with little effort.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but nothing that's credible.
 
I think the single greatest argument against the 9/11 conspiracies is the sheer number of people that would have been necessary to put this plan into motion. We're talking thousands upon thousands of people that haven't said 1 single word about what they know. There's just no fucking way, none at all.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']You didn't. I was referring to terrorists tried and found innocent on a charge of a terror plot. This terrorist gets deported, then comes back and is successful (if he wasn't in the first place). My point being, juries aren't 100% reliable. There is tampering, hung juries, inability to find a fair pool to choose from, etc, etc.

When people find out about that this was the same person the courts found 'innocent,' it's gonna be apeshit on a stick. That's what I meant about the criminal justice system and our civil liberties being put under a microscope. Let your imaginations go from there.

All that's speculative, but it's a possibility. [/quote]

Meh. That's a hypothetical that's not likely to occur, as the modified military justice system under which terrorist trials are likely to occur will likely be much less prone to the problems of our civilian justice system, simply due to the nature of military trials/tribunals.

You also didn't provide any sort of alternative, which why I inferred you want some sort of monitoring for those found innocent.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']I said juries aren't 100% reliable. That's it. People get off on murder and then can brag about it the next week. That's my arguement.[/quote]

As Msut pointed out, that's not an argument. It's a premise that needs to be backed up by evidence to become part of an argument. Of course, you said it was an argument, and then switched to saying it was a statement of fact.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']Did you totally miss where I said I wanted them tried? Did you fail to grasp where I said there would be consequences and repercussions upon the event of a mistrial/hung jury/innocent verdict resulted in the same person committing the same crime again? This isn't rocket science. The public outcry against the jury/prosecutors who fucked up the case would be like nothing we've ever seen.

There would be calls for the judicial branch to be overhauled. And there would be calls for the things you described, and it would be a loud and vocal majority who calls for these things.

My reasoning why a majority of the people would nearly riot? For as much crap we hear about people opposing the death penalty, the percent of people who support it for convicted murderers has been over 50% since 1972. I'd make a fair wager that there would be a public outcry like this country has never seen.[/quote]

So? People are reactionary dumbasses who care little about the facts and form opinions on massive issues (like the make-up of our judiciary) based on one unrepresentative event.

Your posts seem to suggest that you want a change from the justice system we have now in which defendents must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (basically, more guilty go free than innocents to jail) to one where either the standard for guilt is lowered or there is some sort of monitoring involved post-trial for the not guilty.
 
[quote name='evanft']Meh. That's a hypothetical that's not likely to occur, as the modified military justice system under which terrorist trials are likely to occur will likely be much less prone to the problems of our civilian justice system, simply due to the nature of military trials/tribunals.

You also didn't provide any sort of alternative, which why I inferred you want some sort of monitoring for those found innocent.



As Msut pointed out, that's not an argument. It's a premise that needs to be backed up by evidence to become part of an argument. Of course, you said it was an argument, and then switched to saying it was a statement of fact.



So? People are reactionary dumbasses who care little about the facts and form opinions on massive issues (like the make-up of our judiciary) based on one unrepresentative event.

Your posts seem to suggest that you want a change from the justice system we have now in which defendents must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (basically, more guilty go free than innocents to jail) to one where either the standard for guilt is lowered or there is some sort of monitoring involved post-trial for the not guilty.[/QUOTE]

It is a hypothetical situation. One I stated (or at least I thought I did) that probably wouldn't happen, but there is always a possibility (I've learned to never say never after that day).

I'm not suggesting changing our justice system, as it at least gets it right a majority of the time. It's not saying much, but it's not China, either. I'm merely writing a warning if in case that situation were to happen. That's it. I have faith in the system, but I waiver sometimes about those either in charge of it (Ashcroft was a good example) or those involved in the system (the rare juror who just wants to be an ass), etc.

I guess my 'warning' should have come with an example: Someone like Richard Reid (who is British) is found innocent of his charges (in a federal court, not a military tribunal) and deported back to Britian. He didn't succeed in his plot, so he tries it again. If he gets caught again, you're damn sure he's going to be found guilty, one way or another. If he succeeds, and 500 people die (plane, debris, whatever), what then? Would the families of those wronged stand pat and let our justice system say they goofed? Would there be a recall of the judges? Would there be protests? Would the TSA officials, the judge, the jury, the defense lawyer, the AG all receive death threats? What if someone went through with it?

Yeah, it's a what-if scenario. I never said it wasn't.


Weird tid-bit - My Business Law book was written by Janet Ashcroft.
 
[quote name='onikage']Actually, there were many civilians, firefighters and police who reported hearing explosions around the ground level of the towers before they came down. You can find news reports and other video evidence of this with little effort.[/QUOTE]

Once again, as EZB reiterated, there is NO credible evidence that it was a big conspiracy. NONE. You (or anyone else) can't provide any because there is NONE. That's because the tens of thousands of people in densely populated areas saw with their own eyes what really happened, it was captured on videotape for all to see, there is physical evidence of crashed airplanes, all passengers were either found dead or were buried in rubble and never found again, etc.

The really amazing thing about 9/11 nutjob conspiracy theories is that you have to go to such an extreme even to give them the least bit of credence, yet those who stubbornly feel that the government has pulled the wool over the eyes of billions and somehow deceived tens of thousands who were personally present will tell you that the truth "doesn't add up."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top