luke warm Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 this is an example of why things don't go as smooth as they should... i guess they believed the fbi over obama, the idiots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 What's wrong Jimmy???? You've gotten so bitter since the election. You used to at least pretend to contribute original content. Now you just post pissy little one or two line rants and then fade off in that gentle night... For what its worth, I do think that Congress are acting like a bunch of gutless wonders. I genuinely wish that more of them would have balls to stand up and do the right thing. (As I recall, one Senator made a speach saying that he thought that his State should being willing to take the detainees) I don't use the expression "idiots" because I think that they are making a quite rational political calculation regarding the intelligence of the average voter. (Somehow, voters are willing to tolerate well organized and very violent narcotics trafficers in their communites, but god forbid anyone should have to put up with a "terrorist") As for the FBI... Arguing that terrorist's should be moved into US jails has a very big downside and (essentially) no personal upside. That's why its admirable (and more than a bit surprising) when a politican like Obama is willing to take a principled stand and do the right thing. Kind of sad when you just see it as an opportunity to make yet another poorly conceived mocking post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted May 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 troll Says the forum's epitome of sweetness and light, whose very fart's bear the odor of fresh flowers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Isn't it the law that a detainee be released if no charges are presented within 24 hours? Just sent them home. Then the congressmen also don't risk the embarrassment of having them in a prison within their own electoral district. Not that it would be fortunate to release a bunch of criminals but that's the normal procedure when the police can't charge them within the time frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonottawa Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Isn't it the law that a detainee be released if no charges are presented within 24 hours? Just sent them home. Then the congressmen also don't risk the embarrassment of having them in a prison within their own electoral district. Not that it would be fortunate to release a bunch of criminals but that's the normal procedure when the police can't charge them within the time frame. Citing the law ... how quaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vuroth Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Again, why are we citing American Law when we're talking about people who aren't american, and weren't on american soil? Are we going to start applying Panamanian law to them next? THE CRIMINAL CODE DOES NOT APPLY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Again, why are we citing American Law when we're talking about people who aren't american, and weren't on american soil? Are we going to start applying Panamanian law to them next? THE CRIMINAL CODE DOES NOT APPLY. Habeus Corpus is not specifically American Law - but it applies to foreigners. The Geneva Convention is American Law because it is a signed treaty - but it applies to foreigners - captured on foreign soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Again, why are we citing American Law when we're talking about people who aren't american, and weren't on american soil? Are we going to start applying Panamanian law to them next? THE CRIMINAL CODE DOES NOT APPLY. I am not a lawyer, but I am virtually certain you are mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 this is an example of why things don't go as smooth as they should... i guess they believed the fbi over obama, the idiots Because it's the FBI director saying it, he must be right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted May 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 this is an example of why things don't go as smooth as they should... i guess they believed the fbi over obama, the idiots Because it's the FBI director saying it, he must be right... well the senate voted 90 - 6 against, also... so it was more than him worried about it... the thing is, are they right or is obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 this is an example of why things don't go as smooth as they should... i guess they believed the fbi over obama, the idiots Because it's the FBI director saying it, he must be right... well the senate voted 90 - 6 against, also... so it was more than him worried about it... the thing is, are they right or is obama? Your "right" versus "wrong" construction assumes that the actors share the same set of motivations. Some would call the construction simplistic or, more charitably, Manichean. I suspect that the Senators are doing the "right" thing to get reelected. I think that "Obama is doing the "right" thing to improve the United State's positioning in the world at large. Personally, I tend to worry much more about the US's international position. I really don't care much whether Senator XYZ happens to get relected.Therefore, I tend to sympathize with Obama. Which is not to say that I think that Obama necessarily handled this situation correctly. It's entirely possible that the failure to provide more details about HOW the detainees would be transferred to the US mattered more than the fact THAT the detainees would be transferred to the US. Once the bulk of the Senator's are able to see that the detainees are going to be sent off to east bumble***** Idaho and won't be anywhere near their precious constituents we might see some major changes in the voting patterns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Maybe I am incredibly naive, assuming that Obama and the senators are rational and that they assume their voters to be rational, but: - Who cares if the detainees go to East Bumble***** or to the backyards of senator xyz's favorite voter? Mainland US has open internal borders. Now sending them to Hawaii or Puerto Rico might give extra safety for some. - Are these guys dangerous? I guess some of them are. I guess some of them have just followed instructions from their commanders and would not be the kind of criminals who would shoot at random citizens if they managed to escape from a prison, or cause major problems within the prison. Anyway, there are already hundreds of thousands in mainland US prisons, some of whom are probably dangerous. Has it ever been suggested sending American hard core criminals to Guantanamo? - What is unacceptable is that they are kept for months without being prosecuted, and I suppose some have been treated badly in various ways. Who cares if it takes place in Guantanamo or in the US mainland? It was mentioned on the site Jimmy linked to that they might be put in supermax prisons if transfered to the mainland. Great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Maybe I am incredibly naive, assuming that Obama and the senators are rational and that they assume their voters to be rational, but: - Who cares if the detainees go to East Bumble***** or to the backyards of senator xyz's favorite voter? Mainland US has open internal borders. Now sending them to Hawaii or Puerto Rico might give extra safety for some. Do you know the acronymn "NIMBY" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 The question of who is right and who is wrong in this particular decision is of little importance to the bigger question: are we prepared here in the U.S. to toss out forever our concept of justice - are willing to cast aside the rule of law upon which the nation was founded in order to gain a either a sense of security from fear or an expression of vindictive rage? A notable conservative, Bruce Fein argues that our criminal courts are totally adequate for this challenge: Fein believes the regular federal court system should be the venue for terrorism trials. He told IPS, "Shortly after 9/11, Michael Chertoff, then head of the Criminal Division of DOJ, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Article III federal courts have performed brilliantly in the trials of terrorism cases assisted by the Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980 (CIPA)." CIPA enables trials without disclosing national security secrets where a summary of the incriminating evidence is sufficient to enable the accused to conduct a fair defense. Fein says Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information." The actions of 9-11 were committed by a finite number of operators and co-conspirators, yet the U.S. has expanded the definition of who was to blame to include all terrorists and terrorist supporters, which includes virtually everyone who disagrees with U.S. self-granted right of empire. Those who fought back in Iraq against an illegal invasion and occupation of their country were first called insurgents and then later re-named al-Qaeda in Iraq. If we had not invaded, would there be an al-Qaeda in Iraq to demonize and imprison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 The actions of 9-11 were committed by a finite (my boldfacing, -HT) number of operators and co-conspirators, yet the U.S. has expanded the definition of who was to blame to include all terrorists and terrorist supporters, which includes virtually everyone who disagrees with U.S. self-granted right of empire. Sounds plausible. Otherwise just lock them up in Hilbert's Hotel. No excuse for not closing gitmo. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 The actions of 9-11 were committed by a finite (my boldfacing, -HT) number of operators and co-conspirators, yet the U.S. has expanded the definition of who was to blame to include all terrorists and terrorist supporters, which includes virtually everyone who disagrees with U.S. self-granted right of empire. I only flirted with being a math major for one semester, but I'm pretty sure the number of all terrorists and terrorist supporters in the world is finite, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 The actions of 9-11 were committed by a finite (my boldfacing, -HT) number of operators and co-conspirators, yet the U.S. has expanded the definition of who was to blame to include all terrorists and terrorist supporters, which includes virtually everyone who disagrees with U.S. self-granted right of empire. I only flirted with being a math major for one semester, but I'm pretty sure the number of all terrorists and terrorist supporters in the world is finite, too. I'm sorry, but you are wrong - didn't you watch Fluffy's video about Muslims taking over the world by reproduction? Obviously, if there are new terrorists born every second we can't possible keep up and therefore there number is not finite. This probably explains why we target Pakistan and Afghan wedding parties with our drones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I do agree with Richard here, in the sense that I think Obama is doing the right thing in this case and each individual member of congress is just looking out for themselves. Not that I really blame them for that, or at least I can't pretend to be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Text: Obama’s Speech on National Security These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights –are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world. I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words – "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake. I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset – in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.Obama shares the principles of all real Americans, democrats and republicans. Contrast the pettiness and sleaziness of his opponents (from both major parties) on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted May 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Text: Obama’s Speech on National Security These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights –are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world. I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words – "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake. I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset – in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.Obama shares the principles of all real Americans, democrats and republicans. Contrast the pettiness and sleaziness of his opponents (from both major parties) on this issue. well the 'nimby' word does apply here... the open spaces of montana and wyoming are one thing, not that many voters to worry about (nationally), but i think the outcry would have been even greater had the plan been to house them outside of boston or san francisco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Not sure what I can add other than, release them in the USA and let them travel/fly wherever they wish to go. Otherwise put them on trial or treat them as POW's. btw this includes Baghram. Hypocrites. As I pointed out in other threads, Killing Americans and blowing up buildings need not be a crime in times of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The question of who is right and who is wrong in this particular decision is of little importance to the bigger question: are we prepared here in the U.S. to toss out forever our concept of justice - are willing to cast aside the rule of law upon which the nation was founded in order to gain a either a sense of security from fear or an expression of vindictive rage? A notable conservative, Bruce Fein argues that our criminal courts are totally adequate for this challenge: Fein believes the regular federal court system should be the venue for terrorism trials. He told IPS, "Shortly after 9/11, Michael Chertoff, then head of the Criminal Division of DOJ, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Article III federal courts have performed brilliantly in the trials of terrorism cases assisted by the Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980 (CIPA)." CIPA enables trials without disclosing national security secrets where a summary of the incriminating evidence is sufficient to enable the accused to conduct a fair defense. Fein says Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information." The actions of 9-11 were committed by a finite number of operators and co-conspirators, yet the U.S. has expanded the definition of who was to blame to include all terrorists and terrorist supporters, which includes virtually everyone who disagrees with U.S. self-granted right of empire. Those who fought back in Iraq against an illegal invasion and occupation of their country were first called insurgents and then later re-named al-Qaeda in Iraq. If we had not invaded, would there be an al-Qaeda in Iraq to demonize and imprison? Hopefully some expert in stats can blow this inane quote out of the water. Prosecutors get to choose who they prosecute and who they do not. Stats guys have a word for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.