Fox News contributor John Bolton says detainee trials will be like "a 1930s Stalinist show-trial"
November 23, 2009 9:16 am ET
From the November 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Of course, he'd rather just torture them to death in secret.
~
I picture their audience as so uninformed they might not get it? Stalin? Mao? Who is on Monday Night Football?
To me, this has ZERO weight on the question of whether Holder should've been spouting off about it.
Eleanor Clift pointed this out on the McLaughlin Group, military tribunals are viewed as "kangaroo courts" in much of the world, based on their very real experiences, I would say that closed trials also draw the same sort of sceptisism.
Agreed, but don't you think a trial that is precluded by a "guarantee" of a conviction by the US AG is something 3rd-world countries have seen too?
Do you have any idea how absolutely tedious I find the constant snarking and sniping of Conservatives with anything a liberal or Democrat says? I could give your type the time of day down to the nano second and yet, you would find fault. So, therefore, I find very little to even pay attention to from Conservatives.
As to your point, I agree with you that neither Obama nor Holder, while trying to assuage US fears about the trials, did the courts any favors by assuring a guilty verdict ahead of time.
If you are talking about the part that KSM came from then I don't think they care. U.S. law or military law they are going to continue to hate us anyway.
(then why are we wasting a trial?)
Because that is how our system works. Part of what is good about America is that we give everyone the same benefit of doubt (by law) even when we know they are guilty.
Sheer "Am I An Idiot?" InSannity has been raving about "show trials." Sounds like The Silly Savage's playbook.
Who first started using that phrase? The RNC?
What a deeply flawed analysis from a truly ridiculous man. What made Stalin's show trials so repugnant was that an entity with all the power of the Soviet government put defenseless defendants "on trial" and then sentenced them with barely a semblance of due process.
The defendants in this case have virtually no power except the ability to (possibly) embarrass the government that tries them. Comparing these men's position, regardless of what one thinks of their crimes or guilt, to that of the all powerful state in Stalin's Russia is inane.
So they have not denied that they did it. But they will plead non-guilty to get a platform to expound upon thier political beliefs and berate America. Sounds like a show trial to me.
A show trial is a charade, put on by a government, to give the appearance of due process, when the result is actually a foregone conclusion. In most cases they involve coerced confessions and self-denunciations by the defendants.
It seems that the right is so feeble in its love of American values that its afraid to have those values affirmed in open court, against some rather sophisticated fanatics. "Brave and Free?" Hardly.
What about the trials of 1994, 1997, and 2003 of the other terrorists involved with WTC attacks?
No complaining about those three other trials. What a bunch of hypocrites!
They should wonder why the Bush administration didn't take them to trial before they left office.
The reason why I say they are silly and predictable is that they would criticize Eric Holder (administration) no matter what decision they made.
This idiot said these defendants are going to put on a "show trial" of the United States and the Bush administration.
What kind of nonsense is that? I thought these guys were defendants, not lawyers. Are you saying you are afraid of these defense? Where is your confidence in America's Judicial system? Just say you don't want them to have a trial and be done with it, because the more you, and Republicans, talk about this case the more you look stupid.
Truth be told, these people are more interested in protecting the criminal activities of Bush and his Administration than they are about the rule of law.
But simple-minded people know what drives these idiots, and race has a lot to do with it.
It is no secret why the issue of race is not truly explored during the criticism and attacks on this President. It's because racist Republicans and conservative have no interest in changing their wicked ways. Not even for the sake of the country.
Do you think for a moment black commentators could get on national TV and constantly say stupid things about a white President? The answer is no, hell no.
First of all a Black man would have to answer for what he says about a white official; and he doesn't have the same luxury to say completely stupid things, unless he's defending white people. Look at uncle Steele the RNC chairperson, he says a lot of stupid things, just like these hateful white pundits, but because he defends their position... and his target is the black President, he is allowed to survive another day.
All that will change if Michael decides to criticize the white people [fellow Republicans] who say stupid things about the President.
Hell, if Steele would speak the truth they would get rid of his a#s. Michael represent the Republican Party and they do not speak the truth. If they did they could not hold on to power.
Oh I stand by my words "These white pundits are so predictable and silly". Media Matters allows you to see what they say in their own words.
Each white pundit try to out do the next pundit and now TV is full of stupidity.
Even though they show how offended they are that a black man is in the oval office, they don't think black people can recognize hate and stupidity when we see it.
You're providing a perfectly understandable reason for them to oppose Obama besides his race. If it was Edwards instead, we'd still be hearing this sort of garbage because they want to protect Bush. You can't deny that, it's there in your own words.
So the question is a matter of amount and tone. Racism magnifies the phenomenon of irrational criticism, it does not create it. But talking about "the white people" doesn't note that there is a separation between any of them. This one may be racist, that one may just be partisan. You have to judge them individually, the same way white people have to judge black people on their own merits and not in general terms. I know they're stupid and all, but it doesn't help anyone to paint them with a broad brush. It just makes you look like you're unable to address their criticism, so you have to resort to unsustainable charges of racism.
That's the only different between the two.
I watch these radicals talk all the time. I know a real intellect when I see one and i know an idiot when I see one too.
I did make a distinction between the two.
It is not a point of addressing criticism, especially if it's in the form of stupidity. Why? A wise man doesn't reduce himself to stupidity to make a point, he tries to elevate people to his level. That's why Obama doesn't play tit for tat with these haters.
I want you to understand something, because you can not comprehend this on your own. You are in absolutely no position to speak to black people about racism unless you pracitice racism or you are a victim of racism. The fact is you don't suffer from it, so don't try to tell us that we don't know what it is when we see it.
You don't get a blank check to determine reality for everyone else just because you're black. Sorry.
Let me make something clear (although I know you won't accept it). I know there would be wildly irrational criticism against someone from the other Party (I've witnessed it all my life). Again that is part of the silly-season game of politics.
I am not talking about "irrational", I'm talking about stupidity, ridiculous and nonsense (what we see on a daily bases)
If you have "zero tolerance for racism" you nd I wouldn't be having this discussion.
You can overlook and ignore the dangerous behavior of some people in powerful positions, I don't and I can't because it is against my belief, and evil.
You and I been here before and I discovered something disturbing about you.
As long as you think you are superior to black people you will find fault with any position they take, in other words, you will disagree just to be disagreeable.
You display all the signs of supremacy and stupidity (like the demons in power you wish to ignore and overlook] and little signs of compassion and understanding (for humanity).
From this point on...
I will let my words stand on their own. Keep checking back and see how others react. In the meantime our differences are too great to come to a general consenus, just like God and the devil.
As the wiser of the two, I suggest you ignore me here and converse with those who share your unwavering acceptance of people who speak with forked-tongue.
Incidentally, I really don't know what there is in what I wrote that precludes it being written by a black person. I'm curious; if someone black did make the same argument, what would happen? Would they be automatically right because of their race, or would you? Or would you have to compare racial lineage and/or number of times you'd experienced discrimination in order to determine who had the right to make the unilateral judgment, and who was morally obligated to shut the hell up?
Don't run away, please. I want to bask in your wisdom.
I am all over this site if you want to "bask in my wisdom". All you have to do is read my posts.
Your only interest is showing your contempt for those you despise.
It is foolish to disagree just to be disagreeable. I speak truth to power.
If you take the time to read my posts, you can give me a thumps up or a thumps down (for the record I have a greater number of thumps up). Try to figure out why that is.
You have no concept of what you're talking about. My liberal credentials are beyond dispute here. You're not more concerned about racism because you're reckless in making the charge.
My interest is to be fair and logical. You can get all the thumbs-ups in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't address my points. If someone else wants to step up to bat for you, they're welcome to do it.
Now you see why we are worlds apart? We have nothing in common. You do not experience racism, like us, but you want us to accept it as a way of life.
I told you before that we would not be having this discussion if it wasn't for race.
I hadn't realized that we allow the defendants to pick the judge that presides over their trial.
The only way this gets to be a "show trial" is if the judge allows it to be.
Depending on how much of a "circus" the media decides to make out of this, I expect the judge to probably bar cameras from the court room, and certainly will restrict who is in court, if sensitive security material is presented.