Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder McCain called Obama's approach a "9/10 mindset" while Obama countered that its GOP tactics that have allowed bin Laden to go free. I would agree. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_obama" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...in_obama</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Obama agreed with the Supreme Court ruling last week that detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts. McCain derided the ruling as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." << It's still breathtaking for me to see people stand up and actively come out in opposition to due process and habeas corpus and basic human rights - especially when it's a presidential nominee. I just don't understand how anyone can be opposed to this. I have to wonder if this reflects McCain's true feelings or if it's a political calculation. Either way it's boneheaded and wrong. If someone would like to rise to the defense of open-ended imprisonment and denial of the right to hear charges and face accusers, I'd like to see it. I don't expect McCain to offer up such justifications for his loudly proclaimed position, but I'd sure like to see him challenged on it. From an op-ed in today's SFChronicle, about the proposed 'military tribunal' hearings that the supreme court overruled (the whole piece is an interesting read) ... Guantanamo and the betrayal of American values Almerindo Ojeda Tuesday, June 17, 2008 <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/17/EDOQ11A397.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...A397.DTL</a> >> ... these were tribunals in which the prosecution gets to write the rules, appoint the judge, appoint the defense, place both under its military command, and remove either at its pleasure. A similar process has been taking place in the military commissions. The goal of these tribunals is to determine whether a prisoner was properly classified as an enemy combatant. But enemy combatancy is such a recent crime that it was not recognized as such until after it was committed - a case of retroactive application of the law. The evidence presented by the prosecution can be hearsay. It can be coerced. It can be secret. Even from the judge. The prisoner does not have the right of self-defense and may only call witnesses that the judge considers reasonably available. Only fellow prisoners have been considered as such - and then not all of them. The staff for the defense gets appointed by the prosecution. The defense can only appeal decisions on procedural grounds - when, for example, the prosecution failed to follow the rules it imposed on itself. The prosecution, on the other hand, may appeal the verdict, and may even order a new trial. With a different judge. Finally, prisoners found to be improperly classified as enemy combatants may still be held captive until the end of the war on terrorism. And many have. << I'll say it again - I don't think McCain is tough to beat. He's the Bob Dole of `08. And he's not helping his case with comments like this.
Originally Posted By X-san "These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," the presumed nominee told reporters aboard his campaign plane. "This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq ... and it's exactly that failed foreign policy I want to reverse." I LOVE this guy!
Originally Posted By DAR Isn't going to be wonderful when he waves his magic wand and all the bad people who want to kill us just go away.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Isn't going to be wonderful when he waves his magic wand and all the bad people who want to kill us just go away." You better believe it.
Originally Posted By twirlnhurl I'd rather let one or two terrorists through the cracks than loose the integrity of the criminal justice system. The world is safer in our lifetimes than it ever has been before in the history of humanity. Terrorists kill less people worldwide than normal American criminals do every year. Plus, criminals and terrorists are really stupid. Evil masterminds like those in the movies don't exist. We don't need to sacrifice any of our rights to be safe. Obama has no magic wand, but at least he doesn't support stealing my rights. (That said, I'm not a huge Obama fan, but he is definitely right on this issue.)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Isn't going to be wonderful when he waves his magic wand and all the bad people who want to kill us just go away.<< Who said that? Ah yes, once again, no one did. BTW, whether or not Obama is going to be a good President aside, I love that he's standing up to the Republican fear machine, and those who insist Democrats are soft on terrorism. And Keith Olbermann made a good point tonight: Obama is saying what, for whatever reason, has been taboo the last few years among politicians. Bush failed to get bin Laden. Plain and simple. He failed to get the people who attacked us. So while people may want to be sarcastic with Obama, he hasn't failed us. The Republicans have. I think it's worth giving him a shot to prove himself.
Originally Posted By DAR That seems to be the feeling if Obama is suddenly everyone is going to love us again. Because all will be right with world Well sorry that's not what is going to happen. And we're kidding ourselves if we think that. The only thing the next President needs to do is continue to have Al Qaeda pursued across the globe which yes we have taken our eyes off of and systematically wiped out.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That seems to be the feeling if Obama is suddenly everyone is going to love us again. Because all will be right with world<< No, what seems to be the feeling is that you're assuming things again. Unless you can show me one quote where someone said anything resembling what you've posted above. No one has said that "all will be right with the world." No one has said that "everyone is going to love us again." All anyone has ever done, DAR, is suggested that Obama may do a better job than George W. Bush. And that isn't saying much. So yet again, you somehow take this to an extreme that no one ever made it out to be. You're complaining about something that's a myth, invented in your own head.
Originally Posted By X-san ***The only thing the next President needs to do is continue to have Al Qaeda pursued across the globe which yes we have taken our eyes off of and systematically wiped out.*** You mean like the last Democrat did and the current Republican did NOT? <a href="http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=3RLAKArfOe0&feature=related" target="_blank">http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=...=related</a>
Originally Posted By X-san And of course, Bush's dodge the bullet (er question) when asked that very same question... <a href="http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=BjB9uMUM6xI&feature=related" target="_blank">http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=...=related</a> Of course, he didn't answer the question but made sure to throw in a pitch for torture. <a href="http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc&feature=related" target="_blank">http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=...=related</a>
Originally Posted By dshyates DAR's quippy responses seem to come from a frustration of supporting vigorously an amazing failed and hated policy and administration, and being beating by the "LLLiibbeerraallsss". A man showing so much hope in the face of the mess W. has needlessly and selfishly made. After 8 years of shaking it in our faces while being the absolutely worst leaders this country has ever had. They are going to soundly and justly thrown out of office. And DAR's on the team that is going to swept out of office like the rat dropping they are.. Well, DAR is frustated. Next time try not supporting unPatriotic, War Criminals. Unpatriotic because the constitution is not the law of the land to them it an inconvienience. They are above it. They are above the Geneva Convention, they are above international law. While the verbage of the Geneva Convention mistakenly included the word soldier. Therefore since insurgents are "soldiers" we can jam bamboo shoots under their fingernails all the way to theur elbos. But the spirit of the Geneva Convention was to protect people. Not people of uniformed army. Thus the term Enemy Combatant. Spilt hairs and dance around rules all in efforts to get aroung the constitution, the Geneva Convention, and other international laws. I don't think DAR likes when we say that the guy he likes and thinks is the greatest thing since hot butter, should be swinging from the gallows in Bagdad Square. We have peronally killed over 151,000 innocent civilians. And the estimates of civilian deaths cause by insurgents and through sectarian violence range between 600,000 and 1.3 million because of the mess W. made. All for the Administrations personnal goals. That raises W. almost to the level of Hitler. And far worse than the 20,000 Kurds Saddam gassed in the mid-80s.
Originally Posted By dshyates Naw, just having sleeping issues. I'll sleep for 3 hours at a time then wake up for an hour to 90 mins. then go back to sleep. Post 12 was post in the 4th awake break of the night. Sorry DAR that it was a BIT pointed. My crazy is showing. I really shouldn't post until after coffee. Once again DAR I really didn't mean to unravel on you like that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Sorry DAR that it was a BIT pointed.> It was also completely wrong. We're not going to significantly reduce terrorism by going back to a September 10th mindset, where we wait for terrorists to kill people and then we treat them like domestic criminals.
Originally Posted By X-san ***We're not going to significantly reduce terrorism by going back to a September 10th mindset*** What was Bush doing about terrorism on September 10th Douglas? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Stupid republican scare tactic, this "September 10th" mindset crap. If anyone should worry about who's mindset was warped on September 10th, it should be the right wingers and their beloved leader George W.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What was Bush doing about terrorism on September 10th Douglas? Nothing.> That's not what Richard Clarke claimed. But obviously, what was being done was not enough. And that's what Senator Obama wants to go back to, apparently.
