What a **** of an online man. Do you care about your internet persona that much? I've lied before on the internet. It's not that hard to admit it. That's all I'm asking.
Pathological liars, or "mythomaniacs," may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder. Some characteristics 1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous. 2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how lovingly and well-intentioned you might be - this will probably not be effective. It's threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them. 3. They "construct" a reality around themselves. They don't value the truth, especially if they don't see it as hurting anyone. If you call them on a lie and they are backed into a corner, they will act very defensively and say ugly things (most likely but depends on personality), but they may eventually start to act like, "Well, what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!" (again, to refocus the conversation to your wrongdoing instead of theirs). 4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whomever is in their favor at the moment. 5. They may be somewhat of a hypochondriac. This can come in especially useful when caught in a lie, for example, they can claim that they have been sick, or that there's some mysteriously "illness" that has them all stressed out. It's another excuse tool for their behavior. 6. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).
really sam, it's quite simple: taken as a whole (which is my argument above), Hamdan, HR 6166, and Boumedine provide a framework for dealing with enemy combatants that is approved by both the legislative and judicial branches of government. do you disagree? if so, why? perhaps while you're at it, you could also explain the process to SL42, who, when he's not sidelining as a qawwali singer, is apparently equally unfamiliar with Boumedine. or, just answer the original question: would Boumedine prevent KSM being tried in a Military Tribunal? and for extra credit, what would KSM's rights as a defendant be in such a proceeding, and how do they differ from his rights were he tried in federal court, as a civilian? (hint: the answer is in Boumedine). lastly, if this is really a question of our national values, as SL42 has argued, and you implicity concur, why are those same values not at stake in the case of the Cole bombers, who will not be coming to New York? both are memebers of al-queda.
Well I actually wrote that part of "wikianswers" since I'm pretty used to dealing with liars. Nice segue though - your argument is going well right?
I don't think that it is a requirement to be part of the military to be subject to military justice. I might be mistaken here but my understanding is that civillians in the employ of military and on US military bases overseas are subject to military justice. Also in these terrorism cases Basso is right that the military tribunals act was set up as a quasi-judicial system to try those captured in the war on terror from overseas and held under quasi-legal conditions.
Sorry to wade into you and Sam's pissing match but what is the problem with answering the question if a case has been tried on this basis? I agree that you have a point that the military tribunal system was set up to prosecute terrorism suspects such as KSM but at the sametime I don't know if it has withstood a Constitutional challenge. I think Sam has indirectly given you the answer to your question that its likely that the Boumedine ruling prevents KSM from being tried in a military tribunal since it calls into question the applicability of military tribunals. Except that the Cole attack didn't take place on US soil so wouldn't there be a question of jurisdiction in regard to which court tries those suspects?
"Pissing match??" basso is busy acting the part of an ass, a role he's been working on polishing to perfection since the election, when the only thing that kept his mind from exploding was the bloody grip of his fingernails on the scratched surface of his desk. I must give basso credit, though, for sticking to his strategy of endless repetition of a question answered many times (just pick a question on a subject he doesn't like to answer... if it isn't about music or gay rights, when he can act like a semblance of human being.) As I've said before, his behavior passing all understanding, except in basso's world, a world he inhabits alone.
the question is not can he be tried here, but rather should he be tried here. and no, sam has not answered the question, either directly or indirectly, but may certainly infer from his refusal to do so that he either knows the answer, but won't admit it since it undercuts whatever point he thinks he's making, or he in fact does not know the answer, even more embarrassing for someone who purports to be a "legal expert." but i'm waiting to see if he can share his vast array of knowledge on the subject- btw, if you have a link to Holder or Obama citing Boumedine as a reason for bring KSM to fed court, i'd love to see it. and one could assume that were that the case, that the cole bombers could not be tried by tribunals.
Actually, I posted my question long before yours, and you continue to avoid it. I'll ask again: Do you have faith in the US system of justice?
if by "US system of Justice" you mean a show trial in fed court for KSM, then no, i do not. if you meant Military Tribunals as part of that system, or as a parallel adjunct, then yes, i do.
You haven't answered his either and your question is about whether KSM can be tried in NYC. I don't have a quote but that doesn't mean that that doesn't prevent them from trying KSM in Fed. court. That just means they haven't stated that as a reason. I'm not going to claim legal expertise on whether Boumedine does or doesn't prevent the case from being tried which is why I think you have a point. That said though Sam has a point regarding if there has been a court case testing the application of that. And again the Cole bombing didn't take place on US soil. I think that right there would explain why one might need to be tried in US Fed court and the other can be tried under a different Judicial standard. Also just to add that the Cole was a military target while the WTC was a civillian target.
Whatever happened to that KSM might be acquitted? Plus if your concern is that a trial in Fed. court will be a show trial why is Military Tribunals, where the standards of evidence and court procedures will be more biased against the defense than in a criminal trial better than a Fed. court trial? If anything a military tribunal will be far more of a show trial than a Fed court.
I am referring to the US system of justice that is used for people who commit crimes every day in our society. Do you have faith in that?
Basso you should volunteer to represent Muhammad in his "show trial" since you are so good at this law thing.
