| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
horsewithteeth11 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
 Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:29 |
 manofmystery wrote:
Only a short time left for Gitmo Island Retreat for Wayward Terrorists, hope they have more fun right back out on the battlefield. Allowing the terrorists and Taliban members stored at Gitmo the rights afforded to US citizens not only offensive its simplistic. What's the point of this anyway? It doesn't show compassion it shows weakness. The reason that the world supports Obama is because he is a light weight, they see him as a push over, someone who will cave in rather than take a stand and he just gave them their first evidence. Seems that a lot of you want the court of world opinion to decide every move America makes.
A lot of good it will do us to join dying Europe in showing the world that we play nice. I know Putin, for one, looks forward to batting Obama around like a rag doll for the next 4 years and I don't doubt he'll be able to.
As for the "right wing" supposedly never being critical of Bush, come on. Who kept Harriet Miers out of the Supreme Court and killed the amnesty bill? I'm not the only one who has been consistently disappointed in Bush's second term weakness, from the pork spending and not standing up for free market principals to his support of amnesty. That being said he cannot be blaimed for the financial system collapse, that lands squarely at the feet of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who were in deep with Fanny and Freddy and supported the whole sub prime morgage idea. And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration. |
I agree. If these people aren't Americans, they don't have the same rights in our Constitution as we do. And quite honestly, sometimes Putin scares me more than what some of these terrorists do. I mean, the man has himself set up as dictator-for-life right now, and unlike these terrorists in the Middle East, he would have access to nukes... Quite a frightening thought indeed.
|
|
|
 |
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 23:24 |
Damn I had a big reply all set and then it got messed up and didn't get posted!
So basically what I said is (paraphrased and made brief):
Closing Gitmo is good, hopefully there is a good follow up in reference to the detained.
People of USA > accused terrorists.
O-man should have done something for us first, instead (Patriot Act, Economic stuggle, Real ID, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc). Waited on closing Gitmo.
ACLU has been more focused on Gitmo than other domestic issues. They should switch emphasis.
Originally posted by birdwithteeth11
I agree. If these people aren't Americans, they don't have the same rights in our Constitution as we do. |
|
So I guess people with green cards should be allowed to speak freely or have a right to a lawyer or knowledge of their crime either? And those with dual citizenship only get half the rights?
Just a thought.
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 02:46 |
People:
manofmystery wrote:
Check your emotional attachments at the door this thread is for discussion of Obama's policies, work with congress, and how it is presented in the media. |
Many thanks.
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:06 |
|
Post deleted.
Edited by Raff - January 23 2009 at 07:04
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:39 |
Logan wrote:
^ You're right, Bush is off-topic, but I did try to respond to your query, and so I think at least it would be nice of you to acknowledge the time I spent rather than brushing most of my post with "I don't want to go there." Nor did I, but you asked, and I took the time to try to respond. |
I didn't mean to be disrespectful. All I meant was I don't want to talk about Bush as i will go back to Clinton and firther on to Reagan and it will turn into a brawl. As for the first two paragraphs, I think the last part of my post did address it.
Logan wrote:
Hypothetically, how would feel about torturing a "suspected" terrorist to death in the hopes that it might save an innocent life? Or what about torturing to death an American suspected of murder (or involved with plotting a murder/ murders) in the hope that it may save an innocent life? Where do you draw the line? When it's been proven in a fair manner? |
Oh please! It's below the belt! Don't compare a common criminal with a terrorist. At the very least they have different ideology for crime, not to mention different means to perpetrate it.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:45 |
Logan wrote:
I was distracted and edited my post too late to clarify. What I meant was an American suspected of murder, or involved with a murderer, who they feel that if they don't extract a confession may strike again. It also relates to ones who are set free, or must release, because they could not prove guilt/ convict. The key word, though, is suspected. Has not been proven guilty in a fair legal process. The right to a fair trial is a tenet of law. |
Do you mean Kahlid Mohamed is just suspected? And please note - he wasn't tortured to extract a confession but to extract information.
I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality.
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:47 |
Jim Garten, not that it appears to have been noted  wrote:
People:
manofmystery wrote:
Check your emotional attachments at the door this thread is for discussion of Obama's policies, work with congress, and how it is presented in the media |
Many thanks. |
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:50 |
And now for a moment of humor, sorry I can't resisit: 
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 07:11
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:58 |
IVNORD wrote:
I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality. |
Here's the thing that bugs me, if they had stuff on these guys, why haven't they prosecuted them already? If you don't by now you never will. Innocent people who are locked up tend to resent that. Doubly so if they are tortured. These people may go to the "battlefield" if they are now released, but it won't be "back to the battlefield", it will be out of desire for revenge. Wouldn't you? By not following the rule of law, even if there really aren't rules for these kind of prisoners, then you must go to the next best thing, the Geneva Convention. As I recall, treating our enemies humanely worked out pretty well with WW II. The last administration has set us up with something for which there are no good solutions. Worse still, our policies have become recruitment tools for Al-Quieda. If we continue to go down this road, Gitmo won't be big enough to house all the enemy combatants that will be coming our way. Sure you have to be strong against those who would seek to attack you, but making new enemies is inherently stupid.
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 07:08
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:11 |
I guess i could not escape a Clinton debate after all...
manofmystery wrote:
Allowing the terrorists and Taliban members stored at Gitmo the rights afforded to US citizens not only offensive its simplistic. |
Not only that. I think the Geneva convention does not address the terrorist issue at all, but it states that combatants in the adversary's uniform or civilian clothes should be treated as spies, tried by military courts and executed.
manofmystery wrote:
What's the point of this anyway? It doesn't show compassion it shows weakness. The reason that the world supports Obama is because he is a light weight, they see him as a push over, someone who will cave in rather than take a stand and he just gave them their first evidence. Seems that a lot of you want the court of world opinion to decide every move America makes.
A lot of good it will do us to join dying Europe in showing the world that we play nice. I know Putin, for one, looks forward to batting Obama around like a rag doll for the next 4 years and I don't doubt he'll be able to. |
I've refrained from such harsh words only not to offend our liberal friends. Coincidently, I said the same thing about Putin to a Russian friend while discussing the elections back in October, 2008.
manofmystery wrote:
That being said he cannot be blaimed for the financial system collapse, that lands squarely at the feet of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who were in deep with Fanny and Freddy and supported the whole sub prime morgage idea. |
Enter Clinton. The whole business had been started during his reign. The most disgusting thing is the fact that he did that mostly to boost his popularity to win the second term.
manofmystery wrote:
And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration. |
Slartibartfast plays dirty too often to respond to it every time. Get used to it
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:17 |
IVNORD wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration. |
Slartibartfast plays dirty too often to respond to it every time. Get used to it |
Sir, if by playing dirty you actually mean I run rings around you logically, I accept your insult as a badge or honor.  The Clinton administration did their best to pass on the ball regarding the terrorism that was happening. The Bush administration did their best to ignore it and focus on attacking Iraq. The 9/11 attack just made them have to postpone their plans for a while, but they still managed to get around to it using the 9/11attacks and false reports of WMD's to justify it. And you might recall that the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were apprehended and prosecuted during the Clinton administration.
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 07:18
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:18 |
BroSpence wrote:
So I guess people with green cards should be allowed to speak freely or have a right to a lawyer or knowledge of their crime either? And those with dual citizenship only get half the rights?
Just a thought. |
Why branch out unnecessarily? You understand perfectly that he spoke about the terrorists.
|
|
Chicapah
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8238
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:48 |
|
I pray Obama does well but keep in mind that my generation thought Jimmy Carter, who shared much of Barack's ideology, was the answer to the world's ills. He wasn't.
|
|
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 08:02 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Sir, if by playing dirty you actually mean I run rings around you logically, I accept your insult as a badge or honor. |
Those "logical rings" are pretty much imaginary. I had no intent to insult you in any way, sorry you view it this way. It would pass as an innocent remark in a casual conversation.
Slartibartfast wrote:
The Clinton administration did their best to pass on the ball regarding the terrorism that was happening. The Bush administration did their best to ignore it and focus on attacking Iraq. The 9/11 attack just made them have to postpone their plans for a while, but they still managed to get around to it using the 9/11attacks and false reports of WMD's to justify it. And you might recall that the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were apprehended and prosecuted during the Clinton administration.
|
That's not what you said before
Slartibartfast wrote:
The important thing to remember is that the Bush administration kept us safe as long as you don't consider the 9/11 attacks or the anthrax thingy. |
If it's not blaming Bush fof those attacks, what is? Wasn't it Clinton's fault? How he handled the first WTC? The two embassies in Africa? The Cole? Refusing taking Osama into US custody? As a believer in the majority rule, would you agree that the mid-term elections of 2002 were a clear vote of non-confidence for the Democrats largely because of 9/11? (with all the damage brought upon us by the unrestrained Bush administration as a result). God forbid, if something happens in the next 4 years, the Democrats would be barred from office for the next 10-15 years, and Bush abuses would look like a picnic in comparison with the unopposed reaction that might ensue.
You are pretty biased, just look at the cartoons you post. And if I remember correctly, you're "predominantly democratic" by your own admission. But no matter what your convictions are, you have to be fair.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 08:54 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality. |
Here's the thing that bugs me, if they had stuff on these guys, why haven't they prosecuted them already? If you don't by now you never will. Innocent people who are locked up tend to resent that. Doubly so if they are tortured. These people may go to the "battlefield" if they are now released, but it won't be "back to the battlefield", it will be out of desire for revenge. Wouldn't you? By not following the rule of law, even if there really aren't rules for these kind of prisoners, then you must go to the next best thing, the Geneva Convention. As I recall, treating our enemies humanely worked out pretty well with WW II. The last administration has set us up with something for which there are no good solutions. Worse still, our policies have become recruitment tools for Al-Quieda. If we continue to go down this road, Gitmo won't be big enough to house all the enemy combatants that will be coming our way. Sure you have to be strong against those who would seek to attack you, but making new enemies is inherently stupid.
|
Soryy I misse d this one...
Presumption of innocence in CRIMINAL LAW. Not in terrorist lawlessness.
Treating POW's humanely during WWII was mutual. Why should you treat humanely somebody who decapitates you in the most inhumane manner?
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 09:53 |
Obama to reverse abortion policy
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.
The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion.
|
It's all very nice but is it the most important thing on Earth?!?!?
Edited by IVNORD - January 23 2009 at 09:54
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 10:04 |
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36823
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:05 |
IVNORD wrote:
Treating POW's humanely during WWII was mutual. Why
should you treat humanely somebody who decapitates you in the most
inhumane manner? |
If you are decapitated, it's kind of hard to retaliate, unless one comes back as a ghost -- which is what I plan to do if my head gets lopped off (well, depending on which head).
IVNORD wrote:
Obama to reverse abortion policy
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.
The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion.
|
It's all very nice but is it the most important thing on Earth?!?!? |
Defintely not; I am. ;) For me, the most important thing on Earth is my family -- it's relative. He hasn't had a lot of time to tackle the bigger problems yet, such as climate change etc. Incidentally, sorry for the poor analogy before when it came to a suspected murderer and a suspected terrorist. I should have elaborated on it and definitely should have mentioned extracting information, and coercing confessions, in the hopes of preventing more crimes. I was thinking of the various allegations of torture, not a specific case (I did say suspected). In Canada, the case of Omar Khada has been much in the news since he was captured at the age of 15 in Afghanistan, and there have been allegations of abuse of many prisoners, including him. It's not an isolated incident, and of course it has been contested what the rights of enemy combatants, and suspected enemeny combatants who are civilians. I don't think that all who were captured and sent to Gitmo worked for Al Qaeda or were terrorists. In fact, many were released (including ones they didn't have sufficient evidence against and are working for Al Qaeda). Some were defending their country and gov't, rightly or wrongly, even if not professional soldiers. I am no fan of the Taliban, that's for sure. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/13/f-omar-khadr.htmlMore on Gitmo: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/f-guantanamo-legalbg.htmlBut I am digressing, and I'm too bored to write much about it, and we have been asked to stay on topic, and on a topic which is better discussed amongst lawyers due to all of the legal implications/ factors. back on topic: Quoted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7847236.stm
Obama says stimulus deal on track
President Barack Obama has said that
Congress is on target to approve his planned $825bn (£608bn) economic
stimulus package by 16 February.
His comments came after he meet with Democrat and Republican leaders.
While the legislation is expected to face a relatively easy
passage - due to the Democrats' majority in both houses - Mr Obama
wants bipartisan support.
Various parts of the $825bn (£608bn) package have already been passed by House of Representatives committees.
President Obama said the US was facing an "unprecedented economic crisis" that had to be dealt with quickly.
'Working hard'
"Yes we wrote the bill, yes we won the election," said Democrats leader and House Speak Nancy Pelosi.
|
I
recognize that there are still some difference around the table and
between the administration and members of Congress about particular
details on the plan
|
"But that doesn't mean we don't want it to have sustainability and
bipartisan support, and the president is working hard to get that
done."
Ms Pelosi reiterated the president's position that the bill would get to him by 16 February.
Despite Ms Pelosi's comments, some Republicans have accused the Democrats of "barrelling ahead without any bipartisan support".
Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.
Mr Obama said that while he was confident the bill would be delivered, he recognised that some opposition remained.
"I recognize that there are still some difference around the
table and between the administration and members of Congress about
particular details on the plan," he said.
The bill is currently being scrutinised by Congressional committees.
On Thursday, the ways and means committee approved the $275bn in
planned tax cuts, with the 24 Democrats on the committee voting for the
proposal, while the 13 Republicans voted against.
Another part of the bill, the call for spending $2.8bn on
increased broadband services has passed through the energy and commerce
committee.
|
I'm not at all confident in his approach, I wonder if he is?
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36823
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:23 |
Here's an interesting article from the World Socialist Web Site: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml I won't reprint the whole thing:
On Thursday, President Barack Obama issued executive orders
mandating the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in a year’s
time, requiring that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military
personnel follow the Army Field Manual’s prohibitions on torture, and
closing secret CIA prisons overseas. While the media is
portraying these orders as a repudiation of the detention and
interrogation policies of the Bush administration, they actually change
little. They essentially represent a public relations effort to
refurbish the image of the United States abroad after years of torture
and extralegal detentions and shield high-ranking American officials
from potential criminal prosecution. In cowardly fashion, Obama staged his signing of the orders in a manner
aimed at placating the political right and defenders of Guantánamo and
torture and underscoring his intention to continue the Bush
administration’s “war on terror.”.... |
The more that things change, the more they stay the same?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:56 |
Logan wrote:
Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.
|
So, it would create more jobs if it were cheaper? I think what they really meant is it doesn't throw enough money towards the wealthy.  Makes you wonder sometimes if Republicans are suffering from brain atrophy. By the way a lot of people misunderstood, it was a war on terra http://terraserver-usa.com/ not a war on terror. 
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 13:01
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Obama Presidency