Another Demerate for Obama. Sighhhhhhhhhh

Larry I have to hand it to you are are not an unreasonable Obama zealot. Hell i don't even think you are a fan.

Oh I was a huge fan of Obama's still am on many things. He is just disappointing Me greatly on many issues. No I was "In Love" with Him. That's what makes it hurt even worse.

Larry

Lindsey Graham kicks ass:
check out the statement -

The Republican senator Lindsey Graham described Obama's decision ... "a step toward".

"I agree with the president and our military commanders that now is the time to start over and strengthen our detention policies."

Larry -

They're politicians, all of them. What you hope for is getting someone in office who you believe will do more good than harm and actually accomplish some of the things you think need doing. Ask yourself: Four more years of the GOPiggies, likely to do very little you'd approve of; or Obama, who'll do some things you don't like and some things you will like. When hungry, I'll take a small portion over none at all. Remember, too, the people who're yammering "More of the same!" are the same crew who brought you the last eight years.

"Lindsey Graham kicks ass"

Must not have watched him make a fool of himself the other day during the torture hearing.

I hear Ya Doc Sarvis I hear Ya. Just disheartening to say the least when He fucks up this bad. sighhhhhh. Especially after having loved Him for so long.

Larry

Obama must not have gotten the memo: Obama's going to be shutting down Gitmo, so Obama will have to shelve his plans to have the trials there.

"Lindsey Graham kicks ass"

Must not have watched him make a fool of himself the other day during the torture hearing

you say that because you are from the other side of the aisle Sarvis. but your boy, that guy who murdered that young lady by drowning her, Kennnedey- he is the king of loking like a fuckin jackass when the cameras are rolling. That is your real model for a preening posturing douche bag.

BUT WE DIGRESS let's talk about OBAMA BIG SUPPORTER OF BUSH POLICY

OBAMA = 4 MORE years of the SAME

OBAMA- let's keep sending terrorist prisoners to secret prisons overseas.
PELOSI - Yes, and I wonder if waterboarding is harsh enough, can we be doing MORE?
OBAMA - well whatever we do - I WILL NOT ALLOW any photos of it to be released.
And when the prisons get crowded, Let's have military tribunals, so we can make a formal conviction and execute them. I am allowed to do that.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

- Pete Townsend

No I was "In Love" with Him.

Larry

#3 | Posted by LarryMohr

Especially after having loved Him for so long.

Larry

#7 | Posted by LarryMohr

Geez Lar...make up your mind.

Geez, A1...learn some reading comprehension...HaHa...I read the first line as "wasn't" in love with him...

OBAMA- let's keep sending terrorist prisoners to secret prisons overseas.
PELOSI - Yes, and I wonder if waterboarding is harsh enough, can we be doing MORE?
OBAMA - well whatever we do - I WILL NOT ALLOW any photos of it to be released.
And when the prisons get crowded, Let's have military tribunals, so we can make a formal conviction and execute them. I am allowed to do that.

#11 | Posted by Fredo_C

I have a guess as to why, the government NEVER tells the general population everything. I think Obama has changed his mind after taking office and being briefed on exactly what this country is up against, his utopian ideas sound good until you have access to what threats this country faces why else would he want to do the same as Bush...

"but your boy, that guy who murdered that young lady by drowning her, Kennnedey- [blah, blah, blah]
#9 | Posted by Fredo_C | Flag: Incontinent

#14 | Posted by ATaxpayer

I see what you're saying except the part about "changed his mind"

I think he had some idea, a pretty good idea, that he was going to continue Bush Policy on the WOT if he got elected.
And therefore I beleive he was campaigning like a typical lying politician trying to please whatever the loudest swell of opinion was asking for, let it be damned when he finally wins the office.
And for that reason, he is no Messiah. He is a bad man. A VERY bad man.
AT LEAST he is right in following the Bush policies for the WOT.

OBAMA = BUSH PRESIDENCY PART DUEX

"but your boy, that guy who murdered that young lady by drowning her, Kennnedey- [blah, blah, blah]
#9 | Posted by Fredo_C | Flag: Incontinent

#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-05-15 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag: So What? My Favorite Senator is a Murderer. Don't Bore Me With Details It All Just Sounds Like Blah Blah Blah

When I first heard that they may be reinstating the tribunals I was upset. I called people I knew who worked within the campaign to argue against this and I wrote to the White House on the issue.

After reading the modifications made to the tribunals, specifically that the accused can pick their own lawyers and that evidence obtained through torture will not admissible, I think that the administration is taking a pragmatic approach here.

The accused may actually get a fair trial now and perhaps we will not have to see more cases like Mohammed al-Qahtani.

With these changes in place it may even be the accused now stands a better chance of a fair trial than they might have had in a US jury trial.

and that evidence obtained through torture will not admissible

moot point. there has been no torture.

And then if you want to say, well that's just (Fredo's) opinion, well in reality we still have yet to define what torture is, and did it occur, correct? So isn't this all just more fluff from Obama?

Yes it is.

FACT !

He is Obama nuancing you and you love the sound of the music.

It has been admitted Dubya and Cheney ordered Waterboarding done to detainees including official POW's. Waterboarding IS torture. Always has been Torture. I am saddened to say the US did torture.

Larry

"there has been no torture."

Straight talk from Room 101.

Great fools -

it has to be defined for tribunal proceedings, no?

I mean defined officially for the rules, rather than by cement heads like Doc Sarvis on a web blog.

So how much waterboarding? 1 session? ten sessions?

what if the guy was waterboarded one time, and said nothing, but then 2 months after the waterboarding, he spilled his guts about something - do we say that as a result of the 1 session of waterboarding 2 months ago, this info came out and so it is inadmissable?
get it? this will have to be defined - this will take forever.

"And then if you want to say, well that's just (Fredo's) opinion, well in reality we still have yet to define what torture is, and did it occur, correct?"

Fredo you may want to consider revising your opinion.

The US government has admitted to using water boarding on detainees. Water boarding has been defined as torture by the US government since the Spanish-American war when Major Edwin Glenn was suspended from command for, according the US Army judge, using "torture with a view to extort a confession."

The US government has repeatedly reinforced that legal standpoint multiple times over the past century by convicting/court marshaling both foreign and domestic perpetrators of the act.

JOHNNY YOU ARE MISSING MY POINT -
WHERE ARE THE LINES DRAWN WHERE WE CAN SAY WHAT WAS OR WAS NOT GAINED BECAUSE OF THE WATERBOARDING.

SUPPOSE A GUY CRACKED AND TALKED BECAUSE He wanted a pack of smokes .......but a year earlier he was waterboarded ....who is going to define the rules about evidence gained . can you go back and blame the waterboarding in this case, and throw out the evidence, evn though it was gained by the pack of smokes?

Barack Obama will revive the heavily criticised George Bush-era military tribunals for detainees at Guantnamo Bay ....
by Fredo_C

You must've inadvertantly left off the rest of the sentence: "Barack Obama will revive the heavily criticised George Bush-era military tribunals for detainees at Guantnamo Bay but will make them fairer, according to US officials."

Must've been some sort of computer glitch. Probably Rogers's fault.

here's the problem

Ahmed spilled his guts to the CIA .

he spilled his guts so that they would let him watch Springer for 15 mins each afternoon.

A year earlier he was waterboarded - but held firm and did not say anything.

Tribunal case arrives . Ahmned's lawyer says - my client only spilled his guts becuase he had been waterboarded a year earlier, and he did not want to be waterboarded again, so please throw this evidence out.

I see some problems, here.

Whataya think there, Fredo? Good idea(s) or no? You backing Obama on this or do you stand in opposition?

#27 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

BWAH HA HA you have to ask?
I favor torture until death !

trial my ass!

Here, I'll take care of this whole messy trial business for ya:

GUILTY !

LOL...... Sarvis ...... he he he.

"Because everybody knows it is helpful to bash Bush policies in order to get the sheep to vote for you, but in the end Bush was right."
WRONG!
It means that Bush and Obama are both puppets working for the same new world order, globalist bankers.
The left vs right game is just an illusion.
It amazes me that people can't figure this out.
The FED, and the fiat money system is another big scam that people need to figure out too.

"JOHNNY YOU ARE MISSING MY POINT -
WHERE ARE THE LINES DRAWN WHERE WE CAN SAY WHAT WAS OR WAS NOT GAINED BECAUSE OF THE WATERBOARDING."

Fredo, that was not the point you were making when I wrote my post. That's why my reply included what you said.

You expressed the opinion that there was some question as to whether or not water boarding is torture. I stated that it is long established legal precedent by our government that it is torture.

Jeffn shouldn't you be on 5th and Bdwy holding a cardboard sign?

#28 | Posted by Fredo_C

Why, after reading that, Fredo, do I think of Dwight Frye playing Renfield in "Dracula"?

"Jeffn shouldn't you be on 5th and Bdwy holding a cardboard sign?"

Takeitez, or whatever the hell his moniker is, takes the morning shift. Jeffn's not on until after lunch.

OK john of the hot sauce yes i see your point

so i moved on from that and granted while people might think there is a legal definition, i am not sure anyone agrees it applies to enemy combatants- i know you believe so, but i dont care.... but if i was to stipulate that the definition of torture for POWs should be extended to terorists, then my next point is what i said:
it has to be defined for tribunal proceedings, no?

I mean defined officially for the rules, rather than by cement heads like Doc Sarvis on a web blog.

So how much waterboarding? 1 session? ten sessions?

what if the guy was waterboarded one time, and said nothing, but then 2 months after the waterboarding, he spilled his guts about something - do we say that as a result of the 1 session of waterboarding 2 months ago, this info came out and so it is inadmissable?
get it? this will have to be defined - this will take forever.

OBAMA DIGS :

secret foreign prisons

hiding evidence of what his supporters call "torture"

keeping the terrorists in gitmo and denying them the rights that American citizens have to be tried in the USA court sytem.

hmmmmm .... wait a sec

maybe this guy is not so bad ????

!!!!

8-O

Obama 2012 !!!!

To your later point, I will once again point to our established laws. The 5th Amendment provides the government with the power to detain them however the 6th. Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial to all who face criminal prosecution.

According to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions POW's who face judgment are to be granted "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." The US Supreme Court affirmed in Hamden v. Rumsfeld that Article 3 applies even in the case of non-state actors such as al-Qaeda members.

If we, as civilized people, guarantee the right to a speedy trial to the trial to all who face prosecution then Guantanamo detainees should be afforded the same.

It is my opinion that in just about any case that the situation that you describe occurs then the confession is illegal and therefore should not admissible. It is either illegal because it came as a result of torture, which is banned by both US law and International law. Or if it comes months or years after the torture occurred then it is still illegal as we have violated the the 6th. Amendment protection which is extended to the detainees by way of Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

The US Court system affirmed this position in July of 2008 when it was ruled that the US Gov. must provide detainees with a speedy trial or release them.

Further more the US Supreme, in March of this year, invalidated a previous ruling from a lower court that administrative branch has the right to indefinitely detain terror suspects.

OK first of all let's dispense with the Geneva conventions this ain't WWII

(that argument is still on the table BTW, we are talking about non uniformed non country affiliated terrorists.
So please spare me the Geneva conventions.)

Why you think you can make a bridge between speedy trial ( again a guarantee to AMERICAN CITIZENS) and the methods of evidence gained is beyond me.

You just stopped appearing as a credible person with your last post.

good day.

(I like the work you do on tacos, BTW).

"we are talking about non uniformed non country affiliated terrorists. So please spare me the Geneva conventions."

Once again I refer you to the US Supreme Court decision in Hamden v. Rumsfeld that determined that Article 3 of the Conventions apply to non-state actors so you may wish to ignore what that Article states the highest court in the land has affirmed that the US Government may not ignore it.

"Why you think you can make a bridge between speedy trial"

I am not making that bridge. That has already been established by the US legal system.

If you know of other court decisions that invalidate those that I cite then I welcome you to point me to them. I'd like to read them.

if Ahmed hires his lawyer ( let's call him Abdul)
....and Ahmend incriminated himself in 2004 for a pack of smokes, Abdul the lawyer is going to go to the tribunal and say " Ahmed did not incriminate himself for the pack of smokes, my friend. You see my friend, Ahmed was waterboarded in 2002 and this was very very very ( wagging finger) traumatic for him. and so he was willing to make any lie he could think of in 2004.

So every jackass at Gitmo, who has confessed information for any reason , can use this as a loophole.

WHAT ARE THE DEFINITIONS OF EVIDENCDE GAINED/ OR NOT GAINED BY WATERBOARDING

JH go run along and see if you can google that.

JH you want to apply the right to a speedy trial to that scenario?

Is that the avenue you're goin down?

You are a terorist sympathizer my friend
allah is great my friend

AND THIS WHOLE DAMN THING IS

that's right ....

OBAMA'S FAULT

FACT!

"JH you want to apply the right to a speedy trial to that scenario?
Is that the avenue you're goin down?
You are a terorist sympathizer my friend"

I didn't say I want to apply that, I said that is how the US Court system has decided the law. If you want to call someone a terrorist sympathizer then aim that assertion at the judges who decided as much, the President's who appointed, the documents that they based their decisions on and the people who wrote those documents.

What I want to apply is irrelevant. I want to go next door and set the car on fire that is owned by the 16 year old kid who sits out there blasting his music at 11 at night even though I've asked him to stop and have talked to his parents. I can't legally do that.

I don't like it but that's the way it is. I have to work within the system as it has been designed otherwise I become as guilty as he.

you cite case law to support your point that gitmo detainees are guranteed a speedy trial.

your PROBLEM is you think you are proving that the right to speedy trial means all evidence gained reverts back to any time they were ever waterboarded :

"It is my opinion that in just about any case that the situation that you describe occurs then the confession is illegal and therefore should not admissible. It is either illegal because it came as a result of torture, which is banned by both US law and International law. Or if it comes months or years after the torture occurred then it is still illegal as we have violated the the 6th. Amendment protection which is extended to the detainees by way of Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions."

Above I have italicized where you have stopped making any kind of sense

you have no way you can make that jump.

You are saying that if speedy trial right is violated, ALL evidence becomes inadmissable, regardless of the laws defining what is admissable/inadmissable evidence

ITS FOOLHARDY my lad !
DAMN FOOLHARDY ! ... NOW SHET EP AND GO GIT ME SAMMICH!

AND THIS WHOLE DAMN THING IS
that's right ....
OBAMA'S FAULT

FACT!

HILARIOUS flag

FACT!

Not living up, not living up. It's a shame.

It's a lot easier to rip Bush for military tribunals than it is to actually be the person responsible for closing them. Obama's starting to realize that and in the end will not be held accountable in the voting booths by most Democrats no matter what he does.

It's a lot easier to rip Bush for military tribunals than it is to actually be the person responsible for closing them.

Actually it was a lot easer for Bush to create the problem and than hand it over to the next guy to deal with the Bush mess...

wow, Joe. You presume to know a lot about people you habitually call, in essence, stupid. Can your crystal ball also tell us what the weather will be like on October 3rd, 2011? And why in the hell didn't you tell us about AIG? What a jerk you are for using all your powers for the sole purpose of zinging the DR left rather than helping people.

That makes no sense. If there was a better option when Bush was president, then there's a better option now, and Obama should go with it.

"There's no detainee at Guantanamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system."

That's a lie. All of these men could be admitted members of Al Queda and they still wouldn't necessarily have broken any US laws anywhere that the US federal courts have jurisdiction.

Not only that, but these people weren't arrested by law enforcement which means whatever evidence we have on them was not prepared and handled the way it would be by people who are accustomed to having to present evidence in civilian courts. There is a good chance that whatever evidence exists would be inadmissable or has chain of custody issues, etc.

With a week's prep, I could defend these guys in a civilian court and get them off.

Saying we should try them in civilian courts is saying we should let go. An arguement can be made for that position but first those condoning it would have to be honest with themselves and everyone else about what they really want.

That was to #48.

#49, if you don't think it's easier to rip Bush for military tribunals than it is to be the person responsible for closing them yourself, there's no helping you. If you have a better reason for why Obama is backpedaling on this, other than that he's just a liar, feel free.

That makes no sense. If there was a better option when Bush was president, then there's a better option now, and Obama should go with it.

There are always options BEFORE, not so much afterward, you can't un-ring a bell.

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

too late now

Obama Breaks Major Campaign Promise as Military Commissions Resume, Says Amnesty International
Human Rights Organization Reiterates Call for Detainees to be Tried in US Federal Courts
WASHINGTON - May 15 - In response to President Barack Obama restarting the military commissions at the U.S.-controlled detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Amnesty International's executive director Larry Cox issued the following statement:

"President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an 'enormous failure.' In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency.

"Whatever revisions the Obama administration has made to the commissions do not change the fact that the commissions do not provide an adequate standard of justice for the detainees nor the victims of terrorism--they merely mock the U.S. Constitution, international laws and undermine fundamental human rights standards.

"What happened to President Obama's confidence in the U.S. justice system's ability to try detainees? He himself said that 'we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism.'

Now the muslims will hate us and the french will not respect us

#51 | Posted by Sully !!!!!

Give that Sully a CEEE- GAR !!!!!

I have said a BILLION times on DR that so many of these freaks will get their lawers to get them off on procedural technicalities (among other loopholes) if they were to enter the US Judicial system !

That is the reason you cannot do it.

If you libs MUST extend some sort of trial to these animals, the best your gonna get is a tribunal

shark bait ooh hah hah!

"There are always options BEFORE, not so much afterward, you can't un-ring a bell."

If the better option before way to try these people in civilian courts, and that option still exists today (which it does - the people are still alive and courts still exist), then this bell can be un-rung. The fact of the matter is that Obama talked a big game but either never intended to close the tribunals, or has realized that doing so would be more politically difficult than he originally thought.

Joe, assuming is exactly what I'm NOT going to do. And I think it has much more to do with what to do with these prisoners (who may or may not be dangerous, pissed, tortured, broken, innocent, etc.) than it doesn about "taking responsibility" for shutting down a system no one liked to begin with. Obama has already made his feelings public during an actual election season (you know when it actually matters). I highly doubt he's pissing his pants about it now. The REAL problem is you have a bunch of people detained with no good evidence and no good procedure of detainment or legal council...lawyers will rip the cases apart in any real court.

The real problems arose long before Obama...now he gets to sort out the mess while you sit back and hurl stones at him for not cleaning it up in a half-assed, non-pragmatic, and overly ceremonious way. Sorry, but that's the Bush way...nothing to brag about.

way=was

"Joe, assuming is exactly what I'm NOT going to do."

Followed by:

"And I think it has much more to do with what to do with these prisoners blah blah blah"

Yeah...

"The REAL problem is you have a bunch of people detained with no good evidence and no good procedure of detainment or legal council...lawyers will rip the cases apart in any real court."

That was the problem before Obama said he was elected. He said he would do something about it. That isn't a new problem that began after he took office. So why has his stance changed?

#55 | Posted by scooter28054 at 2009-05-15 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag: INTERESTING

I wonder how Obama will do on this with the +/- vote count. he is definitely going to alienate some far left, but how many moderate rights does he pick up.....i mean the ones who are sorta like- "let's wait and see how much of a left wing ass kisser this guy is".
Obama is obviously "triangulating" on this, and on other matters . I just wonder if he will get a net gain in support for moving to the middle.

Hey but you never know, the far left is a bitter, powerful bunch. that Mr. Soros , he ain gone like dis. He be callin obammy up righ now, say watchoo talking bout bama???!!!

Remember, too, the people who're yammering "More of the same!" are the same crew who brought you the last eight years.

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Yeah, damn Bush and Co. spent us through the roof in the Billions. As of this day, Obama has only put us some 9 trillion in debt.

Change you can believe in!

That was the problem before Obama said he was elected. He said he would do something about it. That isn't a new problem that began after he took office. So why has his stance changed?

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-15 01:58 PM

He is doing "something". He's not detaining people and putting them in detention with no legal recourse. That's a great start. Now it's all about sorting and cleaning the mess. If you don't think he's exploring any and all options, you need to read the news. No one wants them. Lawyers will eat the gov't alive in a real court. Yet some of these guys could be very dangerous. At this point, it is a balancing test, and a clear policy of lets never put ourselves in this position again.

So, what is your beef, really? That some people on the left use this as an excuse to bash the policies and people who got us in this mess? Boo f'ing Hoo.

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-15 01:57 PM

Way to avoid reading for comprehension. But yes, I say "I think" instead of assuming I'm right. See how that works?

If Obama now acknowledges Bush was right.

Bush 44 now in office. Sucker Dems fall for the liberal lies every time. They probably still believe Pelosi didn't know about waterboarding.

"No one wants them. Lawyers will eat the gov't alive in a real court. Yet some of these guys could be very dangerous."

I agree with all of that, and that it's a real mess.

"So, what is your beef, really?"

My beef is that Obama is a liar, and people like you feel compelled to pretend that he is not. During the campaign, Obama called the military commission system put in place by Bush "an enormous failure" and vowed to "reject the Military Commissions Act." www.nytimes.com Now, he plans to continue using tribunals for at least some of the detainees. That is not a "rejection" of the Military Commissions Act. That means he lied. If you don't care, that's your business.

#67 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-15 02:18 PM

Going forward, he's doing exactly that. As for past detainees, he's making judgment calls to balance national security with the need to put detainees through a judicial process.

Yeah, that's really some shit to get your panties twisted over. Jeez.

"The REAL problem is you have a bunch of people detained with no good evidence and no good procedure of detainment or legal council...lawyers will rip the cases apart in any real court."

That was the problem before Obama said he was elected. He said he would do something about it. That isn't a new problem that began after he took office. So why has his stance changed?

Yea yea hang him on dealing with what he was dealt. Again the Bushies created this problem and wanted to Kangaroo court any one caught in their net Guilty or Not.

CHANGE is a more fair solution which seems to be what will happen.

Another Demerate for Obama. Sighhhhhhhhhh

#1 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-05-15 07:32 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Larry I have to hand it to you are are not an unreasonable Obama zealot. Hell i don't even think you are a fan.

#2 | Posted by Fredo_C at

FREDO....I 2nd that..........

now larry if you could just come to your senses on justice for killers and how killing innocent life in the womb is so bad and understand why national health care will be the destruciton of the best care in the world..

well, then you will really be 'sumthin'

Must not have watched him make a fool of himself the other day during the torture hearing.

#6 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009

then I didnt either because he didnt

calling this pig a pig isnt making an ass of himslef.

(HEY Look ...are we talking in 'barnyard' today???)

that whole thing was a political dog and pony show.

when obama releases everything and EVERYONE is asked questions instead of asking the questions, THEN it might be a hearing

and besides...the dems PURPOSELY 'drew it up' to where whatever they came up with would GO NOWHERE.

"As for past detainees, he's making judgment calls to balance national security with the need to put detainees through a judicial process."

He never mentioned that during the campaign, when he ripped the military tribunal system for being unconstitutional and ineffective.

I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America's courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.

Here's a quote from an Obama official:

""The more they look at it," said one official, "the more commissions don't look as bad as they did on Jan. 20."

AFKA

what's with the 2:30 arival?

to quote Ricky Ricardo

You've got some splainin to do

CARRYING YOUR WATER IS KILLIN ME

Obama 2012 !!!!

#36 | Posted by Fredo_C at

CAREFULL NOW........libs here will use this and "Rewrite" all of your other posts

and.................

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

too late now

#54 | Posted by scooter28054 at 2009

pretty clever...if for not being so sad...

and its not too late to neutralize him in 2010 and do something more in 2012.
but REPUBLICANS are going to have to stand up to the 'remaking' of the party that the left and media keeps talking about...

#74 | Posted by afkabl2

I'm amazed you're able to access jibberish and jabberwocky generators online at the Wildorado Large Animal Massage Parlor, Happy Ending Playschool and Libarry. Must've been a good year for the communal jalapeno garden and torilleria.

"If the better option before way to try these people in civilian courts, and that option still exists today (which it does - the people are still alive and courts still exist), then this bell can be un-rung. The fact of the matter is that Obama talked a big game but either never intended to close the tribunals, or has realized that doing so would be more politically difficult than he originally thought."

Joe - I realize that your problem with Obama is that he said he was going to end these tribunals knowing full well we already had these people in custody and that civilian courts would be very problematic (impossible to convict, IMO). He knew then what he knows now and he's gone back on his word. All true.....

But as far as "unringing the bell".... Back when this whole mess started, I said we should never take these people into custody because they would be in legal limbo and the fact that the US is holding them would bring attention to them. Had we left them to our Afghani allies to torture and then suffocate them in boxcars, not only would they no longer be a potential threat but nobody outside their families would have given a shit. That's not hindsight, I said it back then.

So now that the mistake has been made and we have custody, we're stuck. Can't undo the mistake. But Barry had to have known that before now.

"This says nothing about continuing to use tribunals for current detainees. It suggests that he will close Guantanamo and send the detainees to our courts martial."

I forgot, you're the resident expert on the inner workings of the liberal mind. Never mind the words and the context, lets go after the suggestion and pretend there is no such thing as a mitigating circumstance.

"The more they look at it," said one official, "the more commissions don't look as bad as they did on Jan. 20."

Shocking. I know. Sometimes things aren't as they once appeared, circumstances change, situations are fluid, new info comes to light, etc. Really shocking stuff.

If Obama ever suggests implementing this system going forward, then he's reversing himself. But pretending that he's some kind of malicious liar because he's trying to deal with a situation with no good solution and being pragmatic about it...that's just dishonest and counter-productive from everything but a partisan stand-point.

"I'm amazed you're able to access jibberish and jabberwocky generators online at the Wildorado Large Animal Massage Parlor, Happy Ending Playschool and Libarry."

Hey! When did they move those from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? I thought Gibbs was still tending those things.

Every WH press secretary gets 24/7 access to the jibberish 3.2 and jabberwocky 8.5 online generators. Members of Congress must make do with jibberish 2.1 and jabberwocky 3.0.

"I forgot, you're the resident expert on the inner workings of the liberal mind."

So now we aren't allowed to read statements by Obama and interpret their meaning according to the words used? Isn't that what language is for? Nobody's pretending to read any minds here - he said that he would "reject" the use of military tribunals, that they "do not work," and that he "has faith in America's courts and our JAGs." No mind-reading necessary there - he is saying he will stop using military tribunals because they don't work, and will instead use "America's courts and our JAGs."

I suppose when you are proven to be a moron, the only thing you have left is to pretend the other person is trying to be a "mind reader" even though they are only taking Obama's words at face value.

Further, Kevin, if Obama is opposed to using military tribunals for future persons suspected of terrorism, why is he okay with using them for current detainees? In either case you have a person in your custody who is suspected of terrorism and could very well be dangerous. What makes current detainees any more dangerous or less deserving of a civilian court than future suspects?

Joe, you can keep lashing out all you like. And I know you will. :)

He doesn't like the system. But now he has no choice but to use it due to circumstances he inherited. Not that complicated. He still meant what he said, and has backed them up wherever possible. Not that big of a deal.

He knew he was inheriting those circumstances when he said that military tribunals do not work and that he will stop using them. That also does not answer the question of what makes future suspects any less dangerous or more deserving of civilian courts than current detainees.

Joe, you can keep lashing out all you like. And I know you will. :)

#82 | Posted by kevin23

He wasn't lashing out - that phrase is a cheap device poorly contrived to personally debase the other on a personal level, rather than face their argument.
It is not a very admirable construct if you are trying to look like a respectable knowledgeable person and I myself only use that to aggravate women because they hate it so much when you paint them as "hysterical".
Just because you are losing the argument please try to refrain from cheap shots that are completely out of bounds from the argument at hand. Especially when the other person is taking you apart handily and their manner is far from "lashing out".
Smiley faces such as these :) do not mitigate the fact that you just wrote something douchey and further they make you look like somewhat of a queer.
Your savior has turned out to be a false prophet and you can blindly flail your arms grasping for straws , for last gasps of hope about the Obama fairy tale but I sense you are now suffocating on the dashed dreams shared by yourself and half of America.
I will not suggest suicide because I do not wish to incur another dump so early after entering the DR prison release program- but I think you can read between the lines. Perhaps joining some sort of community group, a chess club, the 4H, may be a means of social- psycho therapy for you to learn how to find a resolution of your bitterness over the Obama lies and your need to have to face other members of your community.

CARRYING YOUR WATER IS KILLIN ME

#73 | Posted by Fredo_C at 2009

I assure you

you are up to the task....

keep up the good work

AND NEVER LET THEM SEE YOU SWEAT>...

I'm amazed you're able to access jibberish and jabberwocky generators online at the Wildorado Large Animal Massage Parlor, Happy Ending Playschool and Libarry. Must've been a good year for the communal jalapeno garden and torilleria.

#75 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009

NOW SOMEONE TELL ME this isnt the definition of
GIBBERISH>.............

DAG NABIT the SHERRIFFS A NIG...........

I'm a shuttin down Gitmo in 2010 errrr, 2011, errr maybe 2012 or 13.

I was against tribunals before I was for them.

Obama/Kerry 2012

Barrick:A Total Bought & Paid for Whore!"

So these Gitmo prisoners,that the very willing (and oh so Gutless) "Sadists" in the US Military have Deprived and Tortured for the past 6-7 years are now going to go on trial! Holy Fuck that Truly says more than enough about your ethics,morality and humaity Mr.Obama!!! Whats it like to be a Total "Bought & Paid for Whore" like you Barrick - Wow you're karma is so fucked Baby!!!

Obama must not have gotten the memo: Obama's going to be shutting down Gitmo, so Obama will have to shelve his plans to have the trials there.

#8 | Posted by rightisright
-------------------
LMFAO. Closing GITMO was never the plan but to shut down the detention facility located there.

The US government has admitted to using water boarding on detainees. Water boarding has been defined as torture by the US government since the Spanish-American war when Major Edwin Glenn was suspended from command for, according the US Army judge, using "torture with a view to extort a confession."

The US government has repeatedly reinforced that legal standpoint multiple times over the past century by convicting/court marshaling both foreign and domestic perpetrators of the act.

#23 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce
---------------------
Johnny, I hope you know that the procedure used in the Spanish-American war are not the same techniques used today. Also it is a bold faced lie that the water torture technique used by Japan is the same as used at GITMO. To say they are the same is to be intellectually dishonest!

Lonnie

"All Democrats in favor of standing with your president to shout out the evils of Guantanamo, shout aye!

"Aye!"

"All Democrats in favor of doing what would be necessary to close Guantanamo, shout aye! . . . What, nobody?"

LOL.......

Johnny, I hope you know that the procedure used in the Spanish-American war are not the same techniques used today. Also it is a bold faced lie that the water torture technique used by Japan is the same as used at GITMO. To say they are the same is to be intellectually dishonest!

Lonnie

Posted by lwalk17 at 2009-05-16 08:15 AM | Reply

No what is intellectually Dishonest is trying to say ours is different. It's no different.

Larry

If the better option before way to try these people in civilian courts, and that option still exists today (which it does - the people are still alive and courts still exist), then this bell can be un-rung. The fact of the matter is that Obama talked a big game but either never intended to close the tribunals, or has realized that doing so would be more politically difficult than he originally thought.

#57 | Posted by JOE
-------------------
Hello? civilians laws don't cover what these people are guilty of. Additionally, most of the evidence is classified information so are we supposed to air that out in open court? Hello? We're talking Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret information. That is the real reason he had to change his mind on the tribunals. Bringing out the classified information would compromise our intelligence gathering/national security.

Lonnie

No what is intellectually Dishonest is trying to say ours is different. It's no different.

Larry

#92 | Posted by LarryMohr
-------------
Bullshit Larry! The Japanese stuffed a hose down their throat and filled their stomach up with water to the point their stomach was 2 times bigger or even more. Then they put a board on their stomach and 2 men applied their body weight in a see saw motion. That is a whole lot different than making them feel like their drowning.

Lonnie

LWalk, had you read the rest of the thread, you'd know I was referring to courts martial, not your average county circuit court. Further, if that's the "real reason" Obama had to change his mind on tribunals, why hadn't he thought of that during the campaign when he said he'd end the tribunals? Did he not know that trials of Guantanamo detainees would involve sensitive information at that time?

Obama siding with Bush policies more and more everyday. GITMO still open. Trial policy continues and even holding some prisoners indefinitely without trial continue. Both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continues. The Patriot Act continues.

Bush 44 now in office. Bush was right. Suck it Dems!

"Bush 44 now in office"

So Obama's not a radical/leftist/Marxist after all? You rtards really ought to get your stories straight. Obama can't be both "no change" and "extreme left change" at the same time. How do you dumbshits remember to breath?

MABUS the 3rd AntiChrist!!!

Nostradamus said that the 3rd AntiChrist was named "MABUS" thats a contraction of Obama & Bush" or obaMABUSh!!!

Nostradamus said that the 3rd AntiChrist was named "MABUS" thats a contraction of Obama & Bush" or obaMABUSh!!!

Or it could be an acronym (like the word "Amen") for:

More
Astounding
Bullshit
Undermining
Sanity

In that case, Jeff and Anticadillac are vying for the title of 3rd antichrist... or Nostradamus may just be full of shit. Ever consider that?

Or it could be an acronym

An acronym?

Here's one...

Evil's Agent = Evangelist

Admittedly, could just be a coincidence.

Be Well.

I think that's an anagram... but I don't think that one's a coincidence.

Three Guantanamo detainees have been convicted in the tribunals so far and the restrictions on evidence will almost certainly mean only a fraction of those held will go to trial.

The rest of the detainees would either be released, transferred to other countries or tried in civilian courts, officials said.

The decision to restart the process puts the administration in a race against the clock to conclude commission trials before the navy prison is closed by January 2010.

Is shutting down Gitmo.

Point fer Obama.

Is not allowing coerced testimony in trials.

Point fer Obama.

Is not shutting down the Military Commisions trial en toto.

Demerit for Obama.

Never sed Obama was perfect just better than the alternative.

Be Well.

I think that's an anagram... but I don't think that one's a coincidence.

"Ipswitch" is not a palindrome fer "Bolton".
The Palindrome fer "Bolton" is "Notlob".

/Obscure?

Be Well.