[mccookgazette.com] Mostly Cloudy ~ 19°F  
Feels like: 19°F
Sunday, Dec. 28, 2014

The Underwear Bomber - A revisit

Posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010, at 6:42 AM

As more information has come out about what happened in the days following the the underwear bomber's failed attempt to blow up a blame, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party continues to glow even brighter than before.

In 2001, after the shoe bomber he was mirandized, interrogated under United States law, and tried and convicted in a civilian courts. At the time there were absolutely no complaints from Republicans and conservatives alike because as everyone knows they cornered the market on terrorism because of 9/11 so if they weren't complaining about how the shoe bomber was being treated then apparently they approved of the whole situation.

Fast forward to almost exactly eight years later and we are going down the same path with the underwear bomber and yet the Republicans and conservatives alike are whining like a five year old who just had their favorite toy taken away. What's the difference in the two cases that suddenly have the terror party in a tither? Both men attempted to blow up planes in flight ... no difference. Both men were read their Miranda rights upon being arrested ... no difference. Both men were interrogated without use of torture (sorry I mean enhanced interrogation techniques) and gave up valuable information ... no difference. At this point in both cases both men were going to be tried in civil courts ... no difference. Wait, it's got to be the method used by the suspects. One was only using shoes. while this one was using his ... u-n-d-e-r-w-e-a-r ... eww. No that couldn't possibly be the reason.

The true answer is simple and purely political. The shoe bomber was captured and tried under President Bush, who after all "kept us safe"© while the underwear bomber is being tried under Satan himself President Barack Hussein Obama. It's silly at best and pathetic at worst that the Republicans are attempting for the eighth year in a row to turn terrorism in a political football. They have either completely forgotten or choose to ignore the glaring hypocrisy that is shining from them. Naturally their defenders will attempt to twist and spin the differences every which way but the bottom line is there is no difference in the two cases, just a difference in who the president is.

The other hypocritical action that the Republican leadership has taken is that they were briefed from the very beginning by the White House and were very thankful that the underwear bomber had been captured and was in custody, only to come out later in the day and for the rest of 2009 decrying that the underwear bomber was being treated as a common criminal (which of course an outright lie). There reason is simple they are playing to the extreme right in this country. The portion of our populace that believes that we should be so afraid that we can barely get out of bed in the morning and that the only party that can keep us this scared are the Republicans. The majority of Americans saw through this smokescreen of constant fear four years ago. The Republicans have lost two elections since the American public stopped playing into their fear scream that they have been lobbing at us since 9/11 but Republicans and conservatives apparently believe that this is still a winning formula so expect them to keep up the fear card ... even when they don't agree with it.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Mike,

You have touched on the many reasons this early-years active SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN rebelled when my party left me.

Hypocrisy, corruption, sanctimonious duplicity and total negativity -- hallmarks of the "modern" Republican Party.

Now comes the "astonishing" word this morning that the GOP congressional leadership is seriously considering walking away from the President's offer to have an open TELEVISED Health Care Summitt.

Add COWARDICE to the GOP Standards for 2010.

After the TELEVISED get together with President Obama just a few days ago, when the entire GOP contingent went in with their Ultimate Negativity flags flying -- and were clearly shown to be no match to the President and TRUTH -- Is it any wonder these self-righteous hypocrites are afraid to take on Health Care in a public forum, where they will have to publicly oppose the Health Care Reform amendments they secured in committee?

By the way, before the Neo-Cons on here start shouting about the elections they have won --

New Jersey -- an attractive, non-political candidate against an old-guard party "pop."

The race was not about party against party, it was people tire of politics as usual -- GOP or Democrat.

Virginia -- The Democrats ran a tired, old country politician from the hills, against an attractive, younger candidate who was known in the affluent, densely populated eastern end of the state.

Massachusetts -- Pretty well the same story, a party hack put up by the Democrats to reward her years -- against a rebellious younger candidate -- in the state with the most complete and best state run health care system, where voters don't want their superior system reduced to meet the GOP demands for watering down the national Health Care Reform proposals.

The folks in the Bean State would rather there be no National Health Care Reform, rather than lose what they have.

Tragically, a large part of the current national scene has been generated by the constant negative politics, total obstruction and attacks upon the President.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 12:14 PM

Hank I especially love Palin's inability to count claiming that Democrats are 0-3 in national elections against the tea party this past year. Two major problems there wasn't a national election this year and in the two elections that decided Congressional seats the Democrats won one over a tea party candidate and lost one to a moderate (some would even say liberal) Republican who said that the tea party had nothing to do with his win.

But what do you expect from the liar that is Sarah Palin and the liars that are the far right of the Republican Party.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 12:47 PM

Mike, correct me if I do err, but I believe you are comparing 'Apples with Oranges.'

I believe the 'Shoe bomber' was an American citizen flying from one American Airport to another American Airport. As an American citizen, he is guaranteed the right of being mirandized at arrest.

The 'Under-ware bomber' being a citizen of another country, flying in another countries aircraft, attempting to kill citizens of this country, falls under the Terrorist war-crimes passed by our US Congress, and signed by our President. This type of act, war crime, should not be privy to the same legal rules as a citizen committing a felony.

I can only speak to my training, but not once in my career in the military was I briefed to offer Miranda to an enemy combatant.

This is not Conservative verses Liberal, Mike, it is about stopping bad guys from killing our innocent civilians, and military.

Arley Steinhour

-- Posted by Navyblue on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 10:14 PM

The Dems didn't do themselves any favors this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100209/ap_o...

Gibbs was ridiculous... Palin didn't deserve an official insult like that especially under the scruinity the press offers. To me it's just a matter of button pushing that serves no purpose and only fosters division when the White House is begging for support. Foolishness!

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 10:27 PM

Hey Blue Navy,

El Zapata Bomber, Riccardo Reid, was a mixed-race Islamic Englishman who boarded a U.S. bound flight east of the Atlantic.

He was no Gringo.

For the Crotch Bomber, pure stupidity on his part and lack of technical ability among those who put him on that plane, saved the day -- with some genuine heroes who acted instantly.

The tragedy is -- With this administration being savaged for the constitutional officers carrying out their duties under the law, exactly as with Reid during the Bush/Cheney years-- the GOP attack dogs are declaring the President and his administration are destroying the country, because the proper authorities in Michigan are following law and precedent.

The obstructionism of today's GOP congressional leadership is not what they are paid high salaries and provided expensive offices and staff support to accomplish.

There is serious work to be done, which requires elected officials to spend at least 60% of their time and effort in positive work.

This current crop of Republican congressmen and senators are doing nothing but attacking and attacking and constantly criticizing the Democrats for "doing" the same things as all previous presidents.

There are no politics in the Crotch Bomber's legal prosecution. It is the LAW.

For some reason, Bush/Cheney sent known Al Qaeda operatives from GitMo to Yemen. They proceeded to take part in multiple attacks and started building a strong Al Qaeda operation in Yemen's northern desert.

Obama did not release those killers. Bush DID!!

Yet, with a fully researched plan to use the empty, state-of-the-art Illinois prison to hold the remaining GitMo prisoners, the GOP is in all-out attack mode.

Bush/Cheney made a quickie decision to build the GitMo facility and seven years later, a temporary wire-fence prison is being closed.

The GOP has screamed incessantly that Democrats are making decisions behind closed doors.

All some GOP member needs is media coverage and he will scream wild lies about anything he can imagine.

His justification, "The Democrats are doing this, are planning this, have decided this secretly, behind closed doors."

While Democrats are in a private caucus, behind closed doors, Republicans are standing before the media on the Capital steps, screaming the Democrats are doing this evil thing, planning this terrible act --

They make these charges when they know, and common sense should tell ALL OF US, they have no idea of what is going on in that caucus.

Their game plan, keep telling lies, accusing the Democrats of grievous sin and crimes -- and some of the mud will stick in voters' minds.

But after all the lies about the Health Care Reform proposals in House and Senate, and Democrats making secret decisions -- When they are invited to attend a fully televised Health Care Summit -- The Republicans suddenly feel public discussions might reveal their true agenda.

They are no longer in favor of open debate.

Surprise!!!

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 3:15 AM

Hey Blue Navy,

El Zapata Bomber, Riccardo Reid, was a mixed-race Islamic Englishman who boarded a U.S. bound flight east of the Atlantic.

He was no Gringo.

For the Crotch Bomber, pure stupidity on his part and lack of technical ability among those who put him on that plane, saved the day -- with some genuine heroes who acted instantly.

The tragedy is -- With this administration being savaged for the constitutional officers carrying out their duties under the law, exactly as with Reid during the Bush/Cheney years-- the GOP attack dogs are declaring the President and his administration are destroying the country, because the proper authorities in Michigan are following law and precedent.

The obstructionism of today's GOP congressional leadership is not what they are paid high salaries and provided expensive offices and staff support to accomplish.

There is serious work to be done, which requires elected officials to spend at least 60% of their time and effort in positive work.

This current crop of Republican congressmen and senators are doing nothing but attacking and attacking and constantly criticizing the Democrats for "doing" the same things as all previous presidents.

There are no politics in the Crotch Bomber's legal prosecution. It is the LAW.

For some reason, Bush/Cheney sent known Al Qaeda operatives from GitMo to Yemen. They proceeded to take part in multiple attacks and started building a strong Al Qaeda operation in Yemen's northern desert.

Obama did not release those killers. Bush DID!!

Yet, with a fully researched plan to use the empty, state-of-the-art Illinois prison to hold the remaining GitMo prisoners, the GOP is in all-out attack mode.

Bush/Cheney made a quickie decision to build the GitMo facility and seven years later, a temporary wire-fence prison is being closed.

The GOP has screamed incessantly that Democrats are making decisions behind closed doors.

All some GOP member needs is media coverage and he will scream wild lies about anything he can imagine.

His justification, "The Democrats are doing this, are planning this, have decided this secretly, behind closed doors."

While Democrats are in a private caucus, behind closed doors, Republicans are standing before the media on the Capital steps, screaming the Democrats are doing this evil thing, planning this terrible act --

They make these charges when they know, and common sense should tell ALL OF US, they have no idea of what is going on in that caucus.

Their game plan, keep telling lies, accusing the Democrats of grievous sin and crimes -- and some of the mud will stick in voters' minds.

But after all the lies about the Health Care Reform proposals in House and Senate, and Democrats making secret decisions -- When they are invited to attend a fully televised Health Care Summit -- The Republicans suddenly feel public discussions might reveal their true agenda.

They are no longer in favor of open debate.

Surprise!!!

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 3:15 AM

Brian,

I agree, that didnt need to be done. But your were really quite when she blasted the president for using a teleprompter. She mocks the president and its ok. THe white house press spokesman mocks a fox news person and thats a low blow?

-- Posted by president obama on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 12:48 PM

This a not a political issue. It has to do with citizenship. The Shoe Bomber was a citizen and not considered a military combatant but a criminal. Therefore, he was tried in our civilian courts. The Underwear Bomber was not a citizen of US and a military combatant. Therefore, should have been tried by a Military Tribunal. Due to this mistake by Holder, he was then mirandized and we lost valuable questioning time.

-- Posted by Online on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 1:09 PM

I believe the idea that Richard Reid wasn't a citizen is a matter of opinion. You must watch the John Daley Show ,grin>. Please consider another thought. Richard was arrested in 2001. The Military Commission Act did go into law until 2006. Therefore, it wouldn't have been legal to try him in a Military Tribunal.

-- Posted by Online on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 2:01 PM

I woas wondering how long it would take after Newt Gingrich came out and asserted (lied) that the shoe bomber was an American citizen that someone would post it on here. The fact that he was a British citizen (and not American) not withstanding, what does it matter if he was American or not. It was terrorist act attempted on American citizens on an airplane. That is the comparison. The idea that now Republicans are trying to cover their butts for being for trying one in the court system but not the other by claiming the first was an American is one of the worst cop-outs of all time.

Online seriously did you just make that post up? The underwear bomber was interrogated immediately and gave us good information. It's been said several times on here and once by me and I'll say it again. The original people (Newt Gingrich being one of the first to say it should have sent up huge red flags) claiming that the shoe bomber was an American citizen are outright lying about it.

Navy, you are right this isn't about conservative vs liberal, it's not even about good vs. evil. It's about Republicans knowing that they are being extremely hypocritical about two almost identical terrorist attempts and their now attempts to lie their way out of it by claiming that the shoe bomber was an American citizen when he was not, and you have gotten caught up in that lie.

It's not even about being mirandized. He was still interrogated and gave us valuable information under American interrogation methods not the cooked up interrogation techniques (aka torture) that was deemed perfectly acceptable for eight years even though not yielding anything that saved American lives.

The fact that you guys are continuing the lie even after the lie was corrected by at least four posters shows just the links you will go to protect the Republicans in this their time of uber hypocrisy.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 2:10 PM

Brian I agree with you to a point. Robert Gibbs should not have done it (not matter how funny it was) but it seems really hypocritical for anyone to go after Gibbs and calling him unprofessional, but allow a former governor and vice-presidential candidate to do the same unchecked. In her case it was worse because she was going after the president for depending on a teleprompter all the while using crib notes written on her hand.

I don't care honestly. If she wants to use crib notes or a teleprompter she should, but my problem with this whole thing is that with all the issues we are facing today in this country and all the unwarranted and baseless fear that the extreme right has pumped up in this country it seems rather childish and pointless to criticize a man because he uses a teleprompter.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 2:14 PM

Citizenship is a matter of opinion? To who? You? I don't know what plain of existence you live in where you believe that citizenship is a matter of opinion but it isn't this one.

But I do enjoy when someone is caught in a lie or advancing that lie in today's society instead of retracting said lie they just spin it a completely different way.

Thanks Opinion I enjoyed that laugh and I needed it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 2:17 PM

I guess you folks will push any lie to make almost identical attacks look completely different. You still haven't answered for the Republicans who were told upon the underwear bomber being arrested were relieved only to come out the next day and excite their base by lying. But, ehh, what's new. You guys have proven time and time again that you will believe any line these Obstructionists and Tea Partiers will feed you and continue defending them even after their lies have been exposed.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me who a Democrat saying retard is insensitive and should be fired and Republican saying retard is only kidding.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 2:20 PM

I find it strange that some people believe someone seeking to commit an act of terrorism during a time of Public Danger (such as the war against terrorism we are in currently) has more rights than the men and women in the military who are denied the same process under the Constitution. The 5th amendment is excepted from acts of military officers during a time of Public Danger or War but the very terrorists who are targeting our soldiers and our citizens should get more protections than our military men and women?! Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that?

Note: I only make this statement with the assumption that those crying for due process for terrorists have read and understand the 5th amendment.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 3:05 PM

Who exactly is "crying" (as you so eloquently put it) for due process for terrorists on here McCook? The point that is being made is that the Republicans are calling foul on the underwear bomber are the same ones that were silent when the exact same thing happened with the shoe bomber. The only people that have brought up due process are the same Republicans that are trying to draw people away from the ever shaming hypocrisy they are displaying. Can you show me anyone or anywhere on this site or anyone or anywhere period that is "crying" for due process for terrorists.

Also, I am unaware the the 5th Amendment is excepted from acts of military officers during a time of Public Danger or War. I'm not saying it doesn't exist just saying I am unaware of it. Could you show me where I can find this law or provision so I can read up on it?

I've only seen one poster comment on it and they were either just plain wrong or just lying or just making it up but the underwear bomber gave us valuable information after he was arrested without having to be tortured. Naturally the right will lie about this or they will find a way to blame Obama for the attack even though the men responsible for the attack had been released by the Bush Administration after years of torture in Gitmo. Imagine that, they were held in Gitmo for years with no charges and tortured, upon being released (because we couldn't charge them with anything) they go back to the Middle East and immediately plan a terrorist attack. Strange how that happens.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 3:52 PM

Just got back to my mom's house and my room in the basement. According the "Bible", Huffington Post, Richard was born in Pedo-Zapata, New Mexico. Making him a US Citizen. We need to treat the terrorists as Military Combatants so we can interrogate and water board, as needed. When they start to threaten your family, maybe your liberal views will seem more trivial. It is nice to act as academicians and argue political issues but when it starts to strike home, all changes.

-- Posted by Online on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 5:29 PM

Actually Online according to this article that I found on {http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/10/newt-gingrich-richard-reid-american-citizen_n_456259.html Huffington Post} Reid was a British citizen of Jamaican heritage.

If you could post the Huffington Post link where you found that story I'd be happy to read it.

I don't know whether to take the rest of your post as tongue-in-cheek, a joke, or serious but it sure was a strange and wondering post.

Honestly, and maybe this makes my ideals a little stronger than yours, if my family had been directly threatened by terrorists I would still prefer them to be tried in the greatest court system in the world (the US) rather than a military tribunal.

I guess the point I am still stuck on is why you and other posters are still trashing the American court system. You hold everything else American up on the highest pedastal but you continually trash the American court system.

Actually I know what it is, it's the American court system under Obama. I have no doubt that had the underwear bomber been arrested and immediately turned over to the military every single one of you would have been screaming and shouting mad about how could the Obama Administration NOT try this terrorist in our court system.

Hypocrisy and obstructionism at it's finest, or rather saddest.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 6:26 PM

The web address may have been a little hard to read and it wasn't clickable so here is another attempt

Huffington Post

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 6:29 PM

Oh for the love. This is the last time I try using the McCook Daily Gazette: Cheat Sheet maybe it only works on blogs. Here's the website:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/10...

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 6:30 PM

You guys are so anal! I believe the bottom line is: Should the Underwear Bomber have been Mirandized so soon after the arrest. Let's concentrate on that concept and it will be more constructive.

-- Posted by Online on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 6:41 PM

Give me a break! Time is very important. By the time he gave the information, all terrorists were gone.

-- Posted by Online on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 7:08 PM

bigdog - You are correct that I have been quiet about Palin. She is not on my "favorites" list, so it would easy for me to critize her. I think the attention attributed to her and her family detracts from the national debate, especially since I consider her irrelevent based on past public performance and statements she has made. People have been quoted saying "we get the government we elected", which is true though the folks in Alaska may feel a bit differently.

My point being that finger pointing and name calling is counter-productive. Why would I want to support ANY administration to lead my country who's members write on their hand? It's too bad that we've allowed our political differences to drift to pointing fingers and commenting about teleprompters, hand notes, and who did what or who did who, instead of finding ways to deal with the serious problems that face this country.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 7:21 PM

How do we know the "panty bomber's" statements to the authorities were legally obtained? Was he interrogated without the consent of legal advise? Did he make his statements before given his Miranda Rights? Does this administration have the competence to fully prosecute this case?

Just asking.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 7:31 PM

Do you mean the 2 waterboarded suspects?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 8:20 PM

Chunky,

The federal prosecutors handling the Crotch Bomber's case are from the same battery of Civil Service prosecutors who successfully handled the Shoe Bomber's prosecution.

It may come as one huge shock to you -- But the Elected President and Vice President, Elected Congressmen and Senatorss, APPOINTED Attorney General and other cabinet officers -- do not run out to the various federal courtrooms and handle cases.

That duty falls to Civil Service employees .

Just as the President does not refuel Predators along the Mexican border or the Afghan/Pak-istan border. That is handled by specialists.

The issue regarding the ENGLISH CITIZEN, Richard Reid -- aka THE SHOE BOMBER -- and the Nigerian Crotch Bomber is that the cases are identical legally.

A foreign national got aboard a jet with a concealed bomb, attempted to detonate that bomb, failed, was apprehended. The Nigerian's case is being handled in the exact same manner as Reid's prosecution.

The Republicans are in all-out attack mode against Obama, because the professional employees are carrying out their legal duties just as they did when DubYah and the Draft Dodgers were in control.

Miz Sary publicly attacked President Obama for using teleprompters. Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Poppa Bush, DubYah, John McCain, Ross Pierot -- they all use teleprompters.

Then Ms Sary gets caught -- scribble handed -- using crib notes written on her palm.

The big difference, when Obama fields questions, he answers questions from his personal knowledge and opinions.

Ms Sary's crib notes were OBVIOUSLY the answers to a question she knew would be asked.

Now that's funny. This would be Vice President, the former Alaskan governor has to crib three words on a major public issue subject, when she knows a friendly question will be presented.

That's as bad as Nancy Reagan standing alongside Ronnie, repeatedly whispering, "We're doing all we can," coaching the Presient of the United States with an answer.

Nancy knew the answer. Every reporter present knew the answer. The guy in charge didn't have a clue.

The National GOP keeps running these dim bulbs and can't understand why they lose.

The state GOP crews can find forward looking attractive candidates--why can't the Republicans?

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 6:55 AM

Not than I'm any fan of Palin, but I think the difference between her attacks on Obama and Gibbs attacks on her are the difference between a private citizen expressing her ideas and an agent of the government speaking for the government ridiculing a private citizen. Does anyone here have see a difference or is it just me?

Similarly Mikes remarks about the r-word need addressed. I don't know if I'd call for Emmanuel's firing but I do find it interesting that perhaps the two most important idividuals in the administration have made disparaging comments referencing people with intellectual disabilities within the past year and get a pass by the media because they are politically connected to the Special Olympic people. Can anyone say with a straight face that if these events had occured by the Bush administration the same would have happened?

I will try to explain my opinion for you Mike: It is NOT ok for anyone to use these derogatory terms regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat. Sarah Palin has a child with intellectual disabilities but she does NOT speak for the entire community any more than the Shriver's do. Rush Limbaugh in my opinion is a loathesome boor and no matter how distasteful his statements are he is entitled to make them. Not that it matters but after the whole incident I took the time to email him via his program to give him my opinion, I'm sure he'll never see it personally nor care if he did. Rahm Emmanuel is, like Gibbs, associated with the government at high levels and when in his position he is not only expressing his personal views but is acting as a representative of the government. What Republican governmental agent has made these types of comments and was coddled by people as only kidding? As much as it might pain some Liberals, Rush Limbaugh is not an elected member of the Republican party so he cannot be held to the same standards.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:53 AM

Brian let me see if I understand you correctly and if I don't please correct me. You would take away all support for the President because of a joke? This is what's wrong with politics today, we have much bigger issues to worry about in this country than Gibbs poking fun at Palin for chastising Obama for using a teleprompter all the while using crib notes.

SWNebr, Sarah Palin is not a private citizen no matter how much you or any Republican, conservative, or tea partier want to paint her as one. She was a candidate for the second highest office in the land and she was a governor. She gave up being a private citizen a long time ago.

I'm sorry, SWNebr but I don't buy your idea of holding people to different standards based on whether they have been elected or not. The fact is Rush Limbaugh used the word and Sarah Palin gave him a pass, not because he is a private citizen, but because he is a Republican. Saying he can't be held to the same standards is not acceptable. He may not be an elected Republican but he is a (some would say the) voice of the Republican Party and he should be held accountable.

I'm surprised at both of you and the amount of spin you are applying in order to protect fellow Republicans. Gibbs and Emanuel both did and said pretty stupid things and they are being held accountable for it. Should they be fired? Of course not. The only coddling I've seen in the press is of Limbaugh and Palin.

If Palin thinks that word is so bad it shouldn't matter if the person issuing them is elected or a private citizen. For her they should both be held to the highest of standards.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 10:21 AM

I noticed Online that as soon as you were proven wrong you switched topics, very similar to the tactic that Justin uses. Never admit you are wrong just change the topic.

As for the miranda warning what does it really matter? This argument is nothing more than a red herring because you and the Republicans/conservatives that you are getting your talking points from are scared to death that Obama is actually right on this and you will do anything to draw they public's attention away from that even outright lying about where the shoe bomber was from.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 10:27 AM

Mike said - Brian let me see if I understand you correctly and if I don't please correct me. You would take away all support for the President because of a joke? This is what's wrong with politics today, we have much bigger issues to worry about in this country than Gibbs poking fun at Palin for chastising Obama for using a teleprompter all the while using crib notes.

Actually Mike, my point was exactly that... we have much bigger issues to deal with. When the administration representative demonstrates this type of behavior, all it does is foster more division when the President is asking for civility. Attacking a detractor in this manner is childish don't you think when serious people need to be stepping up to plate? I didn't say I was taking away all support for the President, but this type of activity by his representative concerns me. Now is not the time for jokes about political detractors in my opinion.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 10:50 AM

Online another point I would like to point out is that you said it wouldn't have been legal to try the shoe bomber in a military tribunal in 2001 but that's absolutely not true. Military tribunals have been around for hundreds of years and saying they didn't exist until 2006 is either a gross misstatement or just and outright lie.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 12:24 PM

Brian I understand your point but why absolve Sarah Palin of doing the same thing. I understand that, as you said, it would be easy to attack here, but I'm not attacking her. She is not a private citizen and anyone who thinks she is not going to run for President in 2012 is fooling themselves. I'm simply calling her out on her obvious hypocritical stances on just about everything. If we don't hold ALL our politicians and not just the President to that standard then people like Sarah Palin will continue to grow in popularity despite lying about everything they say. I guess you could call me a watchdog.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 12:28 PM

Mike, I respectfully disagree, you seem to again be trying to paint anyone who disagrees with you as something you vilify. I am not a Republican nor even very conservative, I just disagree with you here.

Sarah Palin failed to win the vice presidency and is no longer a representative of government, how does this not make her a private citizen? As you and other Liberals are so fond of pointing out Sarah is out of touch and she lost in part because of that. When she announces a candidacy and says that only people who agree with her can use the r-word then I will accept your point as valid, otherwise it is just more of the petty squabling prevalent here and in society.

It isn't a matter of personally holding elected officials to different standards that I am espousing. I point out that when a person is a government official what they say or do in that capacity is representative of the body they are representing. A private citizen can say whatever they want a government official cannot. Do you disagree? If so why?

I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or if you honestly don't understand my posts, I know sometimes not everything comes across in this format. I wasn't commenting on Palin's views, I can't speak for her, although I think she missed an opportunity to speak up for those with intellectual disabilities. I thought I was clear in my view of the r-word and that I would not defend anyone's use of it. I am saying that as a private citizen anyone can say anything they like whether I agree with them or not. I'm kinda like the ACLU I may not agree with what people say but I defend their right to say it and to reap the consequences.

In my experience those who say that Rush is the voice of the Republican Party are often not members of said party.

What happened to Gibbs and Emmanuel that they are being held accountable?

What press has been coddling Limbaugh and Palin? Besides their own I guess.

I can't call you a watchdog, more of a party wag. If you were a watchdog you would be impartial and observe the faults of both parties.

http://www.r-word.org/

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 2:09 PM

SWnebr, you simplified my response and then got onto me for doing the same. Sarah Palin was a governor and because of that she will always afford some level of protection. Once a person is a governor they are always referred to as governor until they hold a higher office.

But you are holding different standards when you say a private citizen can say whatever it is they want to but a public official can't.

I do observe the faults of both parties as I have stated here in several different posts. If you choose to ignore them so that you can call me a party wag then that's your choice.

Also, I don't vilify those that disagree with me. I called out Sarah Palin's blatant hypocrisy twice in one week, you chose to defend her hypocrisy so I questioned you on it. If you want to call the vilifying then again that's your choice.

You say you aren't a Republican or a Conservative that's fine but declaring that Rush isn't the voice of the Republican Party is comical at best. All one has to do is take a look at the Republicans who dared to say something negative about Rush Limbaugh ... within a couple of days (sometimes in the same day) they were apologizing to him.

I'm not even going to approach the question of what press has been coddling Limbaugh and Palin because that is bordering on the old tired and false claim of liberal media bias.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 3:21 PM

Hey guys,

In all the uproar about Rahm Emmanuels colorful use of words -- everyone is forgetting the context and situation.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS were whining they were not getting what they wanted from the Sam/BooJum/CPB/Leo Pold/Jose/Smitty, et al described .."radical liberal/socialist/nazi/communist" President.

The Short Fused Chief of Staff uttered his notorious outburst.

Not at Conservatives, but aimed toward the people Sam and BooJum, Jose and every other conservative on this site are screaming that President Obama caters to blindly.

The LIBERALS are getting no consideration with their agendas from this President.

His focus is on rebuilding the economy, to permit jobs creations, winning the war Bush walked away from in Afghanistan, securing the borders which turned into express lanes under Bush, and long-range strategy for reducing and eliminating the federal deficit and getting back to reducing the debt.

Oh yeah, there is also the matter of Haiti.

[More poor planning by Obama. Our disaster relief forces got more aid, faster to Haiti, under the worst possible conditions within two weeks -- than DubYah's Texas Horse Race Promoter ever got to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Oh I see, Obama was totally wrong for permitting the earthquake in the first place.]

Our economic reality is a fully functioning economy will generate so much more tax revenue than the current situation, all effort must be made to get the economy functioning properly -- and return 10-Million Americans to work ASAP.

Two years with a fully-productive economy will clear four years of the present deficit with decent management of spending.

From 2000-2009, there was not control of wild spending, while massive tax cuts created more and more deficits.

We have to get "War time spending" curtailed.

As Afghan combat winds down in mid-2011, as a nation we must continue accelerating non-defense production, new jobs creation and start slashing federal spending -- as with Clinton and Gore.

As for Emmanuel -- Hey, he has a fiery temper, the exact opposite of the President. He has a complete knowledge of the congress and he is a tough Chief of Staff.

The LIBS in that meeting were being a collective group of unthinking, selfish Certifiable Rectal Orifices.

The amazing thing about it -- is his response was quite subdued for him.

I would love to have heard LBJ in dealing with that situation.

The White House staff would have been forced to close the room and repaint to cover the heat damage.

The problem is, this country has gotten totally wrapped up in political correctness.

No matter how extreme left or right someone is, people dance around confronting them.

If the President put that entire group off limits to the White House and his staff for 24 months, that might get the message out that partisans don't operate irresponsibly when entering the White House.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 4:53 PM

Mike, this just came across about those favorite, "Christian managed" Bush/Cheney buddies at Blackwater. Don't it make us all proud.

-------------------------------------------

By Carol D. Leonnig

Washington Post

Thursday, February 11, 2010;

"Two former employees of Blackwater Worldwide have accused the private security contractor of defrauding the government for years with phony billing, including charging for a prostitute, alcohol and spa trips.

In newly unsealed court records, a husband and wife who once worked for Blackwater said they had personal knowledge of the company falsifying invoices, double-billing federal agencies and charging the government for personal and inappropriate items whose real purpose was hidden. They said they witnessed "systematic" fraud on the company's security contracts with the State Department in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Blackwater rose to become the largest of the State Department's private security contractors and has since been paid billions of dollars to protect diplomatic employees in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other agencies' security missions. The company became a major source of anti-American sentiment in Iraq because of repeated, deadly shootings involving its guards. Iraq moved to expel Blackwater after a September 2007 incident, in which witnesses told the FBI that the company's guards shot without provocation into a busy intersection, resulting in the deaths of 17 Iraqis."

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 5:34 PM

If Palin hadn't said anything about Obama's use of the teleprompter, then Gibbs would have been out of line. However, she did attack Obama shes gonna get flack back. This administration has proven before it isn't afraid of firing back.

At least Obama won't get smear marks on hand when he shakes it. I'd recomend Palin uses notecards next time. they look more professional.

The Tea Party also needs to stop attack dems every chance they get. Calling the majority of the nation illiterate becuase they voted for Obama isn't going to score you any politcal points. The only way it will be effective is if they can start recomending changes and backing them up with facts. Not the mudslinging truth spinning we have going on now.

In the end, it also doesn't really matter if where the underwear bomber is tried. The evidence against him is pretty strong. As long as the case is tried and present strongly, he'll be convicted. Lets get the case to trail, get the conviction, move on and stop the circus.

-- Posted by npwinder on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 7:26 PM

"the GOP attack dogs are declaring the President and his administration are destroying the country, because the proper authorities in Michigan are following law and precedent."

"There are no politics in the Crotch Bomber's legal prosecution. It is the LAW."

-Courtesy of Hank, all of which reference due process. Perhaps the term "crying" was used loosely but the point is the same. That is that he should not have had the same rights as those covered under the 5th amendment.

Btw, Miranda rights are only required upon BOTH of 2 instances. You must be in custody AND before you are interrogated. This man could have been arrested, held and turned over to the military without ever having Miranda rights read as long as the police or other law enforcement agency did not interrogate him. This is not special to him, it's applicable to anyone who IS covered under the 5th amendment. It should have been the military doing the interrogation in the first place anyway. I'm not talking about methods, I only mention it because they can coordinate with FBI before the interrogation and have fewer restrictions on what they can ask since they are not subject to the 5th amendment since they can try him in their court.

Now Mike I know you asked where this exception to the 5th amendment is and I have to say that I was blown away that you didn't know this given you are a History teacher and likely teach this AND you have mentioned somewhere how military tribunals have been around for hundreds of years. I don't mean this as an insult but I am genuinely surprised you wouldn't know that exception is in the 5th amendment itself but here is the 5th amendment for your review:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

EXCEPT in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It's in the middle there and I made the word "except" capitalized for you. Now I know you are inclined to question me so look at the case law on it. You can start with Johnson vs. Eisentrager which set the precedent. This is an easy one for me because those military tribunals are based on this exception.

If you are wondering why Republicans and others are making a big deal about whether he is a US citizen or not. I call your attention to Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld which said that a "US citizen" must be tried in the civilian courts since they are a civilian and US citizen. That's the law and that's why citizenship is important in applicability now. Reid was caught in 2001 and the Supreme Court did not rule on Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld until 2004 thus changing the precedent that was present in 2001. I'm not arguing who is or isn't an American citizen I'm just saying why American citizenship is important now as opposed to 2001 based on the law.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 7:27 PM

I apologize McCook I misread your original post I took it to assume that over the years an exception had been made law to go along with the 5th Amendment.

By the way the exception is to a grand jury and the amendment only makes an exception it doesn't clearly state that in a time of war or public danger that people CAN'T be tried by grand jury. The founders left it vague intentionally so that the federal government could make that judgment at the time.

The main andendum to your argument about citizenship is that Reid was not an American citizen but now all of a sudden those on the right are trying to convince us all that he was.

The only problem with this whole "Why did we read him his Miranda Rights to him when we didn't have to" argument is that he still talked and gave us valuable information. Why are people choosing to ignore that and focus on the insignificant part.

But I get the jist of all the arguments on here. Shred the Constitution unless you are using it for yourself.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 10:49 AM

mike,

"By the way the exception is to a grand jury and the amendment only makes an exception it doesn't clearly state that in a time of war or public danger that people CAN'T be tried by grand jury. The founders left it vague intentionally so that the federal government could make that judgment at the time."

I don't know how else to say it but you're wrong. Granted, the exception does not apply to ALL people but there are people it does apply to. The word "except" is very clear and absolute in legal terminology and the founders knew this when they put it in there. This is not a "criminal case" so it is still outside the scope of the 5th Amendment. If you look at Johnson vs. Eisentrager, it states the basis for enemies of the United States to be tried in military courts. The federal government has made that judgement through the interpretation of the judicial branch, more particlularly, the United States Supreme Court.

Of course, this could always be changed but as of now, this is the law we have and it should be adhered to. Why should we go out of our way to ignore the law just to afford more protections to people seeking to do harm against American citizens? It baffles me why we would undermine our Constitution and our American system of checks and balances just to afford more protections to someone who is seeking to attack American citizens and seeks to undermine the United States themselves.

Another thing, just because you read someone Miranda rights does not mean you have to try them in civilian courts. If they are read rights that are not provided to them under the Constitution and further precedent of law then they are moot. I only state that they should not have been read until every department was on the same page as a matter of proper procedure. He wasn't going anywhere so there should be no rush to read them just before his interrogation.

It's not insignificant because our government needs to handle these types of situations in a way that provides them the fewest restrictions to the information they need. If someone is allowed to "remain silent" we are obviously less likely to get more information out of them than if they are not allowed to remain silent. I haven't heard what valuable information we have obtained from this person but I recall Cheney pushing to release information to release the "valuable information" that was obtained through methods you consider torture. If we did get good information then great but we can't expect to be so lucky every time and we need all the help we can get to obtain that information and giving them the right to remain silent will only provide a major obstacle to achieving that end.

The Bill of Rights was ratified just a few short years after the Constitution so if you have a problem with this you can be upset with those who proposed and approved the 5th Amendment included in the Bill or Rights or the Supreme Court which has interpreted the 5th Amendment to be excluded from enemies of the United States.

For example, even though I may have issues with certain aspects of it, I've never stated that abortion is illegal because a precedent has been set which has not changed via Roe vs. Wade. For you to say the 5th Amendment applies to people like the underwear bomber is to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court. You can say he has a 5th Amendment right but he doesn't according to the precedent set down by the highest court in the nation. This isn't even something to debate, it's simply the law. There's a difference between thinking what the law should be and what it actually is and how it has been practiced.

Now, they can appeal their cases from military court to civilian court but the initial case must be tried in a military court. To do otherwise, is ignorance of the law as it currently exists.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 2:59 PM

Now Carl you know full well only certain people are deemed worthy of fair trials in this country on this blog.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 3:01 PM

McCook you do realize that President Bush Okayed the use of military tribunals in 2001 before the shoe bomber attempted to blow up a plane?

You can throw law at me as much as you want but it is readily clear that the only reason you have an issue with the underwear bomber being tried the exact same way as the shoe bomber is because a Democratic president is in the office.

You can spin it as much as you want to but the bottom line is that these two cases are not a case of apples v oranges, they are in fact almost identical.

Both men were not residents of the US, both tried to blow up planes of Americans over American skies, both were mirandized, both were interrogated using non torture techniques, and both (eventually) will have been tried in civilian courts despite there being military tribunals readily available. There is only one difference and that simply is one was tried in a civilian court under a Republican president, which was okay, and the other will be tried under a Democratic president, which is not okay.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Feb 13, 2010, at 10:30 AM

Mike,

You say I "throw law at you" like it's some underhanded attack. Isn't that exactly the kind of discussion we need? Discussions based on facts including the law? I know you are looking at this from a very partisan angle but I didn't get into the shoe bomber story as it was developing in 2001. You can attribute this to my greater capacity for political apathy in 2001 than any political double standards. Looking back, if the shoe bomber was foriegn and attacking the US in a terroist plot, I think he should have been taken to a military court. I speak now because I'm not as apathetic today as I was back then.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 5:55 PM

So you completely reject and do not agree with the Bush Administration reading miranda rights to every terrorist we caught? Then you also think it's horrible that civil courts convicted at least three times the amount of terrorists that military tribunals did?

But to you original point let's completely throw out the shoe bomber, because the two cases are absolutely identical but most of the terrorists we have convicted of crimes has been in our court system. Period. There's no fudging the facts on that. That's the record, you can't spin it or put political double standards on it.

How am I looking at this from a very partisan angle? Trying these terrorists in our court system is the one thing I fully give the Bush Administration credit for getting right and the Obama Administration is continuing that. How is that partisan? You are the one that is going after the Obama Administration for daring try the attempted underwear bomber in a civil course but coming up with every excuse and every spin you can come up with for the Bush Administration trying the attempted shoe bomber. I'm sorry McCook but in this case you are the partisan.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 9:54 PM

"So you completely reject and do not agree with the Bush Administration reading miranda rights to every terrorist we caught? Then you also think it's horrible that civil courts convicted at least three times the amount of terrorists that military tribunals did?"

Yep, if they were not US citizens (because that is a provisional exception of Supreme Court precedent) they should have been tried in military courts in the first place for the simple fact that enemies of the United States, in the course of attacking our national security, should not be entitled to more rights than our men and women in the military are allowed (this is my justification and the justification of the Supreme Court for the past 60 years).

You're looking at this from a partisan angle because all you're talking about is the Bush and Obama administrations and because that's how you see it, you think everyone else, including myself, is looking at it from the same perspective but you're wrong.

I stated earlier that the shoe bomber should have been tried in a military court so please tell me how I am coming up with "every excuse and every spin" for the Bush Administration. Supreme Court case law rulings on the Constitution and it's Amendments is not "spin", it's law. If you may not agree with the law but you still have to abide by it.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Feb 16, 2010, at 6:15 PM

McCook Reader --

I've read and reread and reread, copied and pasted and dissected your contributions to this blog.

Under the identical situation, federal law enforcement under two diametrically different administrations followed the exact same course.

Show us your active criticism of DDD during the Shoe Bomber episode.

Then we'll accept your criticism regarding the crotch bomber.

Actually -- maybe we could do something productive and start a "Catchy Headline Label" competition.

Seems "Underwear Bomber" is taken, I already have my preference for "Crotch Bomber."

That leaves any manner of nicknames -- "Jockey Jolter," "Disass-terous Dynamiter," "Destructive Drawers" -- how about doing something fun and constructive?

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 4:57 PM

By the way boys,

When Miz Sary issues a public attack on any Democratic elective or appointed official -- accepts six figure speaking fees and interjects herself into the public debate -- IN SHORT, shinnies up the flag pole and exposes her drawers, she has presented her regal posterior to response.

She held the highest elective office in the newest state, accepted her party's nomination for the second highest elective job in the nation.

LIKE IT OR NOT -- MIZ SARY ARE A PUBLIC FIGGER.

Maybe it's because of that "Tanning Bed" but for an elected Republican Official Lady, mother of a soldier and a total of four, grandmother of one with a famous "photo streaking" father, Miz Sary is a relatively striking female figger.

But, she can't make millions from her politically expressive book [Ghost Written or not] get a big fat check from Ruppie Murdoch, collect six figure speakers fees and sling barbs at political opponents before squealing "King's X" and insisting she is not playing the game.

Didn't work for Wm. J. Clinton in retirement, ain't gonna work for Miz Sary.

Dave Letterman was bedding his employees and routinely sending Zingers at Clinton for succumbing to a predatory Beverly Hills type a couple of times.

You'll notice most Arkansas Republicans kept quiet on the Monica Mess.

Kind of hard for their GOP leaders to launch attacks on the guy their young society trophy wives were openly lusting after back in the late 70s, through the 80s.

It is quite often a matter of who is getting harpooned and how.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 5:32 PM

I'm guess we just aren't on the same page at all McCook. I'm looking at the end results where the terrorists were tried and convicted and are now serving prison sentences under OUR civil system as opposed to the military tribunals where few were actually tried and convicted and other were simply released back to their home country. You seem to be arguing (and this is just my opinion) semantics over where they SHOULD have been tried.

It really does remind me of sports fans that complain after their team has one a game. It's a victory celebrate it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 18, 2010, at 5:56 PM

Hank,

"Show us your active criticism of DDD during the Shoe Bomber episode."

I'm not sure what "DDD" is referring to but if you read and reread my posts then you would have seen this post:

"Looking back, if the shoe bomber was foriegn and attacking the US in a terroist plot, I think he should have been taken to a military court."

I didn't follow the details of the shoe bomber actively in 2001 as I have explained earlier but that does not mean that I have to sacrifice my opinion because of it.

Mike,

If I understand you correctly, the ends justify the means even if it was done in violation of the law. That's a slippery slope, my friend, a very slippery slope. If that's the case then a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion solely for the sake of convenience and we can just ignore the Supreme Court rulings on it because a child was saved. We don't need any laws or Supreme Court rulings to overturn it, we can just do it. We are a nation that relies on the force of law and just because everybody doesn't always agree with the various laws, it doesn't mean we should ignore the system we have in place because we like the results we can get by ignoring the laws.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 9:05 AM

"one a game" nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.

-- Posted by hankherndon on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 9:14 AM

The only problem with your argument McCook is that all these terrorists that we have tried have been tried for attempts on American citizens not the military.

I don't know of any woman that has had an abortion just because it was convenient. I know that's the story that anti-choice advocates want everyone to believe but the vast majority of women that have had abortions are not doing it because it's convenient.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 12:25 PM

An enemy combatant does not loose that designation for attacking civilians instead of the military so they are still subject to military courts under the law.

I used the abortion example as a comparison to the need for recognizing and following the law, regardless of personal opinions on the law. I have no doubt that you don't personally know anyone who had an abortion for the sake of convenience but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I feel extremely safe in saying it happens far more than terrorist attacks/attempted attacks by foreign enemies against United States civilians. You know I could debate abortion all day except I'm trying to stay on topic. Again, I'm not trying to bait you into a debate unrelated to the original topic, it's a relevant example on the need to recognize the law.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Feb 19, 2010, at 12:56 PM

McCook1,

Wish I could second your motion of not knowing any woman having an abortion because if was convenient.

I have known of attempted abortions because the woman was afraid she was pregnant by one of her "men on the side" and concerned her husband might notice something strange about the baby.

I've known of an abortion simply because the woman did not want to "loose her figure." The husband and probable father sincerely wanted children -- and after getting rid of her, remarried and has four natural and four adopted children with his second wife.

Abortion always has been and always will be repugnant.

Every medical authority says at least most of the first trimester must pass before a medically viable fetus exists.

The Law of the Land is that it is a woman's choice.

That decision was reached with the woman challenging existing restrictions believing her constitutional rights to choice with her own body were being denied.

She has since changed her personal position.

That's how difficult the personal aspect is.

The obvious truth is that is an incredibly painful and complex issue.

I've known men to agree to an abortion for an unfaithful wife, simply because they had no intention of denying support for their own children to pay for raising his adulterous wife's offspring with another man.

Most of us of any years, know of at least one situation where a husband has reacted violently.

And there are instances where wives have used violence.

A jury found one restaurant operator "not guilty" after he walked in on his wife and her State Patrol lover in his basement recreation room.

Shot the patrolman and the wife with the cop's own gun, which was hanging across a chair back.

When we have a perfect society, consisting of perfect people, these difficult choices won't be necessary.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 6:55 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)