Asked if he understood why some people were offended by trying the men in U.S. courts, (Obama) replied: “I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AH3H820091118?sp=true

Later, Obama backpeddled, saying he didn’t want to prejudge anyone….

What I want to know is how can a man who is supposedly a Constitutional Scholar and a Lawyer make such a gaffe in the first place?

The President of the United States, in speaking about someone who supposedly was going to get a fair trial in a US court, said, “WHEN he’s convicted…WHEN the death penalty is applied to him..”

Obama cannot be let loose without his handlers and his teleprompter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D77Kdp08pwE&feature=player_embedded

Go to the 1:42 minute mark.

If it had been decided that military trials would be held at GITMO, his ulterior motive would no doubt have been to cover something up. He would be complicit with the Bush administration.

That would have been a less useful choice, however, since it wouldn’t have allowed the fear card to be played in association with criticism of the President.

Apparently Americans should now all be terrified of bringing a terrorist to trial in an American court room on American soil.

Perhaps we should raise the Terrorism Threat color code to register our alarm.

“Many Social conservatives are self-righteous-gasbabs…”
“There you go again: labeling something (snip) does not make your position true”

My whole argument here was in response to the ludicrous claim that conservatives are hypocrites because they believe in the death penalty, but are against abortions.

There you go again: labeling something (in this case a “ludicrous claim”) does not make your position true. That’s an opinion and one many people will have disagreement with.

Many Social conservatives are self-righteous-gasbags and hypocrites (that’s an opinion) not just because of the main fault with the stance of pro-death penalty and anti-choice, but because of the stance of “life of mother” and “rape/incest” exceptions. Why are these babies executed? These Social conservatives have no problem playing god at all.

People (not just liberals) who are against the death penalty and are pro-choice are not hypocrites at all. Its just sound public policy in the real universe, not the black and white of absolutes universe based on some inconsistent notion of what god wants.

2. Since when are acts of terrorism never acts of war? Did you just make that up? Al Qaeda had already and unilaterllay delcared war against the United States before September 11th. We just chose to ignore it.

3. Clearly from you statements you would be a fair juror. You are also an insensitive boob if you live in the NYC Metro area and think that 9/11 was not an act of war and that this ia a good idea.

One other thing. Place one, and only one, Muslim on that jury and I will guarantee that the jury will not be able to arrive at a guilty verdict.

Eric Holder is unqualified to be a the U.S Attorney General and reports to the most unfit President in U.S. history.

But I don’t believe they are doing this to prosecute KSM. I believe they are doing this to prosecute the Bush Administration and the CIA.

I also believe they are doing it to show the Islamic world that they do not regard September 11th as an act of war but only as an isolated criminal act.

I agree with Larry that beyond anything else Obama does, this media circus will cost him any more than the four years he was elected to and will cost Democrats the majority in both houses and for many years to come.

My sister-in-law suffered severe carbon monoxide poisoning from a smouldering woodstove while she was in her 6th month of pregnancy. It was almost a 100% certainty that her child suffered extreme brain damage, and while we were all horrified by the tragedy, we were all supportive of the abortion. And I would have bloodied the nose of any pro-lifer who might have tried to exploit that tragedy.

That said, when someone so quickly lashes out with non-responsive name calling and other ad hominems, and doesn’t address the salient parts of an argument, the way Peggy Sue has done, it indicates to me that they don’t really have arguments to support their position. This is identical to Al Gore being stubbornly resistant to engaging in debates with experts who could rip his climate change claims into little pieces. (now I snuck in the climate change debate, heh, heh)