Obama-Nation

well what I think about obama is that he can leave the presidential seat take a pencil and shove it up his well you know what I,m gonna say so I won,t say it

 

Firstly, with the wealth of news sources out there why do people insist on posting links from the Daily Mail? Seriously, if you read any of the articles with the tinyest bit of attention it becomes patantly obvious what tripe it is!

Secondly, I don't know if you've noticed but that particular prisoner was released by the Bush administration long before the election. Does that mean that Darling Georgie was in league with the terrorists too? My god, who'd have thunk it!?

That is a fantastic statement, 'if you were over here you would understand it, the rest of the world are in the wrong, only the US sees what is going on.' Interesting! You talk about reality, thousands of people being kidnapped, murdered or wrongfully imprisoned in 'post victory Iraq.' I can see the reality, without the benefit of your 'superior vision' thanks mate

 

The point I am making is that with this one example of a freed Gitmo prisoner, imagine what will happen when Osama frees all of the ones currently being held. Those who are self professed terrorisits at that.

 

Genuine question, are they being freed? I know they are shutting the place down but the two aren't entirely the same are they?

The other thing is, how do you justify keeping so many people without trial?

 

I certainly hope not, and I think it is unlikely that a significant number of the detainees will be released any time soon. There are a number of other locations around the world where they may be safely held.

In a very real sense, the justification for holding people indefinitely without a trial stems from the nature of modern asynchronous warfare. POW's can legally be held indefinitely without trial, indeed with typical POW's there is no point in holding a trial because they have committed no criminal act.

But where there is no formal "enemy state", it is the view of most judicial systems that an "enemy combatant" has committed an unlawful act by engaging in warfare without a formal declaration of war and without the typical restrictions placed on soldiers as far as wearing a uniform, and abiding by the conventions of war.

Where this has occurred, there is typically no statute law, nor stare decisis which deals with the fact. In this country, there is an ongoing juridical (and jurisdictional) dispute over how these acts should be viewed and handled. Neither the US Supreme Court, nor the US Congress has provided any firm guidance as to the rights and responsibilities of the state or the detainee. In addition, the government is asserting a special (and obvious) interest in national security, so the issues are extremely complicated.

Unfortunately, the individuals who find themselves acused of unlawful acts of warfare will probably be detained without trial until these issues are resolved, which may take years. The nature of the war is such that it's almost impossible to determine who is, or is not, an enemy combatant; that is not the choice of the US, but of those who choose to make war in this manner. The responsibility is on their heads.

 

That is the question indeed. Osama spoke too soon without having thought out the scenario much he has been of late. Everyone just assumed he meant to free the prisoners. As for holding them, I see them as POWs from the war on terrorism. Is that their status, I don't know but I do not apologize for wanting someone who is caught in planning a terrorist act against a country to be held indefinitely, especially someone who is a fundamentalist believer. They can rot.

 

Indeed. Our American cousins would not be so keen to keep quoting from this paper if they realised just how the paper sees this 'war on terror'.

This is a typical page from the paper:



Like most of the UK Press it is opposed to the rendition and torture of the Blair lap-dog years. They are scathing in their condemation of Bush and the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan:


Tony Blair may be lionised in the US but at home he is derided as a sycophantic American poodle who soold the country out to Bush. He is constantly derided for making obscene amounts of money on the backs dead UK soldiers. He is seen as a money grubbing politician who makes use of this American gratitude (for his support for the war) to line his own pockets.
It would be hard to overstate the amount of disdain heaped on Blair, he is amost uneversaly despised because of his subservience to US interests. Even Labour supporting newspapers ridicule him.

 

This is not meant to criticize your opinions or anything, I'm just curious.
To all of you who live in the US:
How will Obama's new tax plan/politics affect you?

 

well only americans are allowed in the presidential seat and I read fro a reliable internet source he was born in kenya and not on american soil

 

Stefan, I will make this as quick and simple so that even you might be able to understand. I and nobody else here ever said that Americans were the only people to be able to see whats going on. You, are perfectly capable of seeing the light but refuse to do so.

Also, I am taking the above as a sort of compliment and thank you for it. I hope you will do the same when you read my "Foxhole" post.

Cheers and Tea and Hot-Crossed Buns.

 

Read these:

Barack Obama's Lost Years

Althouse: Barack Obama at the University of Chicago Law School.

 

I would add that in addition to the fearful effects of inflation (Round 1 gratis President Carter), BO is repeating Carter's mistake on raising taxes as well. It's the energy taxes that will make $4 a gallon gas seem cheap in about 2 years. So I'd say after devaluing the dollar, and taxing the "evil rich" (also know as hard workers and achievers), and soaking everyone by taxing energy even more, and flooding the country with illegals, BO is well ahead of his plan to "CHANGE" America into a 4th rate bankrupt country.

 

I would say you are probably right

 

You appear to be getting your wish Za. Obama is down to 56% approval and his rating is lower than Bush's in his first term for the same time served.

 

is that good or bad

 

Stefan, its justified because those imprisoned are there for doing something that im positively am sure you have heard about at least once in your life-which is that they MURDERED innocent people--Muslims at that as well as US and other citizens from other Countries-including your own. That 911 act was not called for and it should also be somehting that you should agree on even with your strange way of thinking in that all of those Citizens trying to go about their weekly tasks in doing an activity called--WORK--which was permanently disrupted for over 3,000 human beings-by a bunch of scum----bags who forcefully took over CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT and on one of the aircraft--those """""brave sons-of-b*****s""""" took it upon theirselves to slit the throat of a Female Flight Attendant-who was unarmed and trying to do her job. How do YOU justify those turds murdering her as well as everybody on all of those airliners that they forced to crash into buildings and attempted to force to crash into buildings?!?!?!?!?! Huh?!?!?! Tell me how murdering over 3,000 people-was justified??? You can't and the only and VERY lame argument you can come up with-is one griping about Prez Bush keeping these scum locked up any unable to slit the throats of innocent British Citizens. In case you don't realize it boy--People who were citizens of the UK, also died needlessly that day.

Cheers Stefan. Have a nice fantasy-filled day.

PS, IM most positive that you will indeed try to find a way to justify those terrorist turds in murdering all of those Civilians.

PSS, other Mods-don't worry, I am not angry with Stefan and this posting is done with complete control-like Jeff, im stopping now so the blood pressure does not rise.

For Stefan--I would not have lost a winks worth of sleep-had everyone of those ""innocent terrorists"" had been stood up against a wall and shot-instead of being allowed to go on living and possibly continuing scheming somehow (like the vast majority of them who have already been released and who-like we with sane minds KNEW would happen--that most of those released went directly back to irak and afghanistan-rejoined the scum they ar allies with-and continued to murder more people and destroy more buildings and such) and you don't seem to realize that they hate YOU and much as they hate Americans and are only waiting for another chance to kill or try to kill, more innocent B.ritish Citizens-like what happened with those train bombings and such.

I happen to like the British people very much having several as good friends and I do care what could happen to them. Somehow-IMO--you could care less-just like being a loyal Patriot-that you seem to roll your eyes at when someone like Richard, Gordon, Ike, Jeff, myself and others here-care to be. I can honestly say that those Gents whose names I posted here as well as many I did not-are loyal to and love whats left-of their-our and my Countries.

I loathe politicians-true-but I love my Country and nothing at all-will make me change my mind about how I feel about this place-even if most of the jerks in charge are evil people.

 

Thank you for the explanation, Slipdigit!

 

Yeah, this is my point, it looks to me like they are shutting down G'mo and moving them elsewhere, hopefully where they won't face what amounts to torture. Frankly I can't see them all being released.

Sorry for chopping your post down a bit, just wanted to save some space on the thread, however basically I see what you are saying and agree. However I feel something needs to be done sooner rather than later. To my mind it is the detention without trial that is the big problem (though allegations of torture etc is a major issue), that is something the state should simply not be able to do. I think the government needs to find away of openly charging these people with a crime, then sentencing them to a punishment. Obviously part of the reason they aren't (apart from those you discussed) is because actually it is quite useful having these people indefinately and being able to do whatever you want to them. It is not however right. Holding people who haven't been found guilty of a crime in any form of court is quite simply wrong in any 'free' state and this needs to be redressed IMHO.

Ike, I think that is pretty much my response to your post, by all means hold people, but don't do it like this. Something I hadn't realised however is that over 420 people have been released from G'mo, there are a little over 200 left and many of these have already been chalked for release but their home nations won't let them return. So ultimately, for all you are attacking Obama, the Bush released more of the detainees than Obama ever can!

Please guys, the next bit is for Carl, don't take it as a reproach to your posts which were pretty much in line with my way of thinking.

Carl, do you know who the people being held in Guantanamo bay are? They aren't all people who were involved in 9/11 and other major incidents. Some of them include individuals who have actually been tried in court and found innocent. Most of the people who were in there have actually been released without charge anyway. Moreover, since few of them have been tried or had the opportunity to prove their innocence we actually do not KNOW whether they actually did what they were accused of.

Nope, there is no justification for terrorism of that kind. There are reasons why it happens but no justification.

And what of liberty? What of the simple principle of innocence until proven guilty? What of the right to a trial? Do you not see that as soon as you start locking people up, subjecting them to what amounts to torture and inhumane conditions without any trial, it doesn't matter whom, all of a sudden it becomes possible to the exact same thing to you. A great and wise American once said 'they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.' That is exactly what Guantanamo bay is about.

Carl mate, you are verging on becoming offensive, but I have a thick skin and a forgiving nature so hey ho. I regard myself as a patriotic British man, however cynical I may be, however I may disagree with what our government etc does, I am still proud to be British. However, one of the basic reasons for that come down to the rights we enjoy, liberty, freedom from persecution based on religion, freedom from arrest and incarceration without trial. Guantanamo bay is a travesty, it is an insult to anyone who loves freedom. Whatever you may think I do not think the inmates should be turned loose with plane tickets to Afghanistan and some ammo from walmart, I do however think that if you are going to keep them, prove they have done something wrong. Show they attacked US/UK troops/civilians, do it in the open, so people can see that these people have had the opportunity to defend themselves in a court or similar situation and failed, just like any criminal.

So, in short, stop trying to make out I'm some sort of terrorist sympathiser just because the idea of the right to a trial is something worth defending, remember that if they can take their freedom there is no reason they can't take yours (think Nazi emergency powers acts, locking up 'undesirables' without a hearing etc) and listen to that faint whirring in the distance, that is Ben Franklin and many like him spinning in their graves.