Hey Troll MaKk. What is your answer to this bit of news.

U.S. stonewalling may let another terror suspect off the hook

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

What I have to say is that the headline doesn't appear to be backed up at all in the article. I've read it twice.

It sounds like they are saying we don't want the appeal to go on, and we want this guy to be prosecuted.

It sounds like the U.S. is prepared to release the testimony (which I am assuming is the point of the headline, it doesn't really say).

12 paragraphs down it says the prosecutor doesn't know why the U.S. didn't release some testimony. I guess they are basing the "stonewalling" allegation alone on his opinion. If he (or the author of the headline) hasn't seen it, how do they know it would convict him?

What I think of this is that whoever wrote the headline went out of their way to paint the U.S. as doing something incorrect, and used the prosecutor's insinuation to suggest this. It is really lacking enough detail for me to understand why this is so damning.

Also it sounds like you are assuming he is guilty. Should we just have him shot? I would be for that if that's what you're getting at. Maybe we could send someone over to just shoot him in the head.

I can't remember a time the U.S. blamed another country for a failure of its own justice system. But again the article doesn't say Germany is blaming the U.S. It just says the prosecutor is confused.

Also it says he won the right to appeal. Again, would you call it "justice" if he didn't get a fair trial? I'm confused. I'm sure you aren't in favor of military tribunals, or the concept of holding people guilty until proved innocent.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Doesn't matter. If the adminstration has ANY information that would help the German prosecution's case, they have to release it now, PERIOD. Open up the vault and let the prosecutors have whatever they have on this guy, regardless of whether it is "sensitive" material.

Typical MaKK response. Defend the adminstration no matter what.

Oh yeah, I can TOTALLY see that in Spankling's one-line "Hey Troll MaKk. What is your answer to this bit of news." post.

Read it a 3rd time then.

Headline : "U.S. stonewalling may let another terror suspect off the hook"

In the article itself : "Germany's federal prosecutor Kay Nehm criticized the United States last month for failing to make available fuller intelligence from captured suspects that could help to secure convictions. He called U.S. conduct 'incomprehensible'."

It doesn't say anywhere in the article that the U.S. is going to do anything about this. The U.S. embassy declined to comment.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Thank you for speaking for Spankling.

Doesn't matter. If the adminstration has ANY information that would help the German prosecution's case, they have to release it now, PERIOD. Open up the vault and let the prosecutors have whatever they have on this guy, regardless of whether it is "sensitive" material.

Of course a prosecutor is going to argue for every bit of help he or she can, they are very dedicated to getting a conviction no matter what.

A prosecutor in the German justice system criticizing the U.S. doesn't neccessarily mean the U.S. is doing something wrong. You've heard lawyers talk before, right?

Typical MaKK response. Defend the adminstration no matter what.

I thought I was defending our justice system. Never once did I or the article mention the administration, nor would I know how they would have a direct role in withholding testimony for a German trial. Maybe you need to go back an reread both the article and my post.

Oh yeah, I can TOTALLY see that in Spankling's one-line "Hey Troll MaKk. What is your answer to this bit of news." post.

So when combatants are held here and the U.S. says they are immeninently dangerous, Spankling is up in arms, but someone on trial in Germany gets an appeal and Spankling is outraged.

Yes, this is totally a double standard I created just to troll you with.

Read it a 3rd time then.

Headline : "U.S. stonewalling may let another terror suspect off the hook"

In the article itself : "Germany's federal prosecutor Kay Nehm criticized the United States last month for failing to make available fuller intelligence from captured suspects that could help to secure convictions. He called U.S. conduct 'incomprehensible'."

I just quoted that, and you quoted my response to it, and I just responded to it a second time. The prosecutor wanted something that he didn't get from the U.S., so he blasts them. Big deal.

It doesn't say anywhere in the article that the U.S. is going to do anything about this. The U.S. embassy declined to comment.

It also doesn't say the U.S. committed any wrong doing.

The other lawyers say this:

If you are going to dismiss their opinion, you have to dimiss the prosecutor's as well.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Of course when you selectively cut up my post you can have something that appears to back up your point. I was saying that the spin on the headline appears to be a lot more damning then the article itself, and the point the prosecutor makes is buried within the article. I had to read it twice to even make sure I was reading the story that went with the headline.

Why don't you quote and respond to this:

The headline appears to suggest that the U.S. doesn't want this guy prosecuted, while the article doesn't appear to back this up, and you have to make a lot of inferrences about a single auxillary paragraph buried within the article to even begin to support the notion that the U.S. has done something wrong.

Do you have anymore details on this? Do you have the specific testimony that would put this guy behind bars, and can see it would help? Do you even know that this guy is guilty? Do you know that the German justice system is 100% the same as the American justice system? Because you seem to have a lot of self-assurance for someone who hasn't presented any of these details. Oh but right, the headline said that thing. So therefore the U.S. is bad. Ok, I understand, thanks for clearing it up.

I think the fact you brought the administration into the argument when myself or the article did not speaks enough, however. You obviously went into that article with a bias that it would be negative material about the Bush administration, and then you believed the headline was the "news" and everything else was just dressing.

Again, thank you for assuming what Spankling was getting at, and responding for him, just as you have to assume what the article is getting at, and make up your own "Bush loves terrorists" subtext.

I wonder if Spankling didn't read the story and maybe that's why he is hiding while you respond for him.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Gee, I'm sorry Mr. Forum Commander. My bad.

quote:

---

Of course a prosecutor is going to argue for every bit of help he or she can, they are very dedicated to getting a conviction no matter what.

A prosecutor in the German justice system criticizing the U.S. doesn't neccessarily mean the U.S. is doing something wrong. You've heard lawyers talk before, right?

---

And now to quote that one paragraph...

I saw it a different way than you did then. It's insane to infer that the U.S. doesn't want this guy prosecuted. I'm sure they do want him locked up. Unless high-ranking officials in this country could get burned because of it...

Anyways, like I said in my earlier post...if they have the info, turn it over. As for whether he's actually innocent or guilty, I don't know...I wasn't there. Apparently my press pass to the trials got lost in the mail. Besides, his guilt or innocence it isn't part of my opinion on this whole goddamned thing.

My point : The U.S. has said repeatedly that the War On Terror© is priority #1. I am questioning whether that is REALLY the case.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

You know, I better clarify my last post a little better, or my words might really get twisted around...

If the War On Terror© is priority #1, don't be half-assed about it. By not releasing all the info (if the story is true, that is), then it is a half-assed effort.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

You are entitled to your own opinions about the administration and the war on terror, but if you think that article objectively backs up your opinions you are wrong.

The question should be how many have I written. I was a journalist for eight years, more than half of that for newspapers. Here are some basics: articles are written according to the "inverse pyramid," with the most important paragraphs being at top. This is done for two reasons: first, if the editor has to cut down an article, he or she starts at the end; second, most people (if they read more than the headline) read just the first few paragraphs. This is why it is very glaring that the theme the headline tries to hit home is barely touched upon, and then only in the 12th paragraph.

Also the headline was most certainly written by the editor as a way of editorializing on a pretty bland and routine story. And since you have taken what is very obviously a non-story to mean the administration is doing something bad (when the adiminstration is not even mentioned, nor is any wrong-doing) his or her intent obviously was to a degree successful.

In fact most likely they just re-printed the story off of one of the wire services and put their own headline on it; I've never even heard of that web site but if Spankling is endeared to it I'm willing to bet that is part of their method of operation.

Please learn to be a better consumer of information, society will be better for it.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Objectively...

You think the story is hogwash, therefore you think it isn't objective. C'mon man. No one can be completely objective. We always put our personal views into what we say when talking about certain things, and form an opinion based on what we see or hear. I think that shouldn't even be a point of contention.

And that article doesn't back up my opinion on anything specific. My OPINION is that the article raises a few questions which should be addressed if shit is to get done the right way.

Hmm. Interesting.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

The article says the prosecutor (whose personal interests are invested in a conviction) is confused about why the U.S. didn't give them certain testimony, the details of which are not explained.

I don't think the story is "hogwash", I'm, pointing out that the headline seems like it belongs on a completely different story.

Also I think the article is very objective. I never said it wasn't.

That's why I'm so confused about why you are so vehemently defending the headline. (Though you pointed out that you think the headline is the most important part of a story, so I guess I'm confused as to why you think that is).

Maybe what is being withheld might hurt the prosector's case. Maybe it is classified because it might betray current sting operations. Maybe the prosecutor is passing the buck. Maybe the prosecutor just made up evidence he wishes he had (the story doesn't back up his claims with any other interviews or released information). Maybe there is nothing else to give (again, they site no other sources regard what has not been released).

Also I went back and looked at the story and it did come right off the Reuter's wire service. Here is the original story. The original (much more accurate headline) is "Jailed 9/11 plotter wins right to retrial".

Wow, what an earth shaking headline. Also I missed that he was just asking for "fuller intelligence". It doesn't even specify that he is asking for testimony. If the prosecutor doesn't have what they aren't giving him, how does he know he needs what they aren't giving him? And who is he asking? Just the "United States"? The CIA? The State Department? The FBI?

The original story itself is decent journalism; re-publishing it with an inappropriate and biased headline is only going to fool stupid people who only read headlines (no offense Spankling).

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

The link to the whole story gets truncated by php script. Here is it:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=469503§ion=news

I think you need to copy and paste it for it to work.

Cheers,

Editorial staff

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Oh well still doesn't work, it seems to get messed up after the post is published. There is a link to it at the bottom of the original link Spankling posted which works.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Nite, don't bother, buddy. I know what you mean, and most non-shitbrained individuals know what you mean. Everyone who disagrees with MaKK is wrong. Everybody. Except the Evil Superfriends, Condie, Ashie, Wolfo, Rummy, Chenes, and The Dub. They're always right.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Yeah, I give up. There's no point in trying to reason with MaKK.

What I don't get is how MaKK can be so blind. With all the stories about wrongdoing (possible AND proven) by this adminstration, doesn't the least little bit of doubt creep into your mind that maybe the powers-that-be in this country really aren't all that great, MaKK?

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

The article doesn't mention any of those people you mention MikeyG, or any wrong-doing.

In all fairness Spankling passed the ball to me on this slam dunk. I really think maybe he just didn't read the article. It actually did come from a Reuter's story with a different headline. When I checked it again to confirm this I also noticed the fake "pull quotes" on the page I didn't see before. Maybe Spankling didn't just read the headline, maybe he read those also. I should give him more credit.

You can send me articles that are actually pertinent to the wrong-doing you're talking about if you want my opinion on them also. Like I said you can feel however you want about an issue but that article doesn't back up your sentiment, niteowl.

Also if you'd read my earlier posts you'd see I criticized the administration all along for using WMD claims to get us into the war. Again you just seem to be jumping to conclusions about my opinions, just as you jumped to conslusions about the meaning of that article.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Do I really need to waste Brad's bandwidth posting another link, when I can pretty much guess what your response to anything that might look like Bush-bashing will be?

I'm not going to even bother explaining myself for the 3rd time.

I have no need to jump to conclusions, your posts speak volumes.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

mAak_tROll is wallowing in his own misinformation. Even he doesn't believe half the shit he types.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Please explain to me how I'm wrong about that article and I'll correct my statements. I seriously don't understand why it's bad that I am "against" it when it clearly has no bias (and I stated that I was not against it). If there's some backstory to this trial I don't know about it let me know what it is.

Sorry about saying you were stupid Spankling, I don't believe that. I do believe maybe you were drunk when you posted that article to me. If you don't like my comments, don't specifically address links to me then, or if you do, make them a little more hard-hitting.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

If you're going to spin like that you might have more fun if you sat on something first.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I am opposed to politics.

Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt.

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

Spankling, you posted an article that was taken from the Reuter's wire with a different headline put on, and you are accusing me of spreading disinformation. Well I am accusing you of spreading irony.

I also brought up a lot of points you are free to address if you think I've been misleading about something. Telling me to sit and spin doesn't really explain your argument too well.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Arguing anything with you is pointless because you twist and misconstrue at every turn (create spin). The headline added on to that article was more to the point than the original. It pointed out what the mainstream media wording was hiding.

You may have fantasies of being a FOX commentator, but you're not even THAT believable. You're just trolling on a comic web forum.

Sorry.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I really don't get Fox news.

If you could explain who the prosecutor was criticizing I might begin to see how someone could say maybe that headline was valid. Again: is it the FBI withholding the information? The CIA? Who? And it the article says he wants "fuller" intelligence, so "they" have given some information. That's not stonewalling.

And winning an appeal isn't an acquittal, so if an acquittal is the horrible consequence the "U.S." is actively seeking through the "stonewalling" of unspecified forms of "fuller intelligence", it isn't even assured.

And again, by your tone I guess you are inferring that the defendant is guilty. If you could show me that he is that might help me understand your point of view a little better. But he did win a retrial, so him being guilty can't be all that obvious.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I'm glad I'm not the only one that notices discussion with MaKK is pointless. It's also damn near impossible. All I've learned from him throughout all these months of this thread is that when he is backed into a corner, with logic threatening to bite him at every movement, he always manages to escape unscathed.

Basically, his tactics are such that when you say, "Hey, MaKK, your president is a liar!", he responds, after much obfuscation and adumbration, finally responds with, "My president ACTUALLY eats chili! WithOUT beans!", although not nearly as humorously. Then, every tactic he uses, including BLATANT misinterpretation (like interpreting a word to mean something other than it does, and balking when someone posts the fucking dictionary.com or encarta.com definition of the word), he accuses the opposition of using.

He's tried the patience of boorite, which, from what I've seen, is nearly impossible. Boorite possesses an ability to relentlessly try to relate to the opposition in an argument, being completely calm and patient. Somehow, the MaKKster can even topple boorite's patience. MaKK is one of those people that can NEVER, EVER be wrong. He is adept at finding minutae to toss arround 'supporting' his point, but not really providing any solid examples of his reasoning. If he is absolutely at a loss, he'll just make some shit up.

Spankling said it best in a different thread:

WHATEVER.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Did you even read the story we are talking about? This really shouldn't be a controversy. I'm sorry I read more than headlines and fake pull quotes, and that me doing so makes me "impossible to argue with". Also Spankling directly addressed the article to me, I'm not just coming out of the blue with my opinion here.

The only trend that I've noticed is when I do make a good point people begin attacking me instead of talking about my points.

It still doesn't change the fact that the story Spankling posted was obviously about a terror suspect getting a retrial (as the Reuter's headline clearly states) and it was jazzed up with a new headline and window dressing to make it look like something it was not.

I still have a lot of points you are free to respond to, if you think I am so wrong, and that this is a story which points out troublesome activities by the administration:

[b][i]When the prosecutor said he is confused about the lack of "fuller intelligence" from the U.S., exactly where in the U.S. is he looking for this? (FBI? CIA? State Department? Department of Homeland Security? INS? Justice Department?)

Has anyone else but the prosecutor (who has a vested interest in a guilty verdict) become "confused" over this?

What is the nature of this intelligence?

How does he know it will help his case?

If he knows it will help his case, doesn't that mean he already has the intelligence?

How can this be a bad thing for [guilty party, whom you suggest is the administration] without automaticcaly assuming the defedant is guilty?[/i][/b]

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008