What A Difference A Messiah Makes
Jun 27, 2009 Political, Terrorism
When George Bush was president he had the terrorists who were caught on the battlefield held at various prisons and they were supposed to be tried under military commissions. Some were not, others were just held without being charged and others were deemed not to be a threat but no country would take them including the ones from which they came. Some said they could not go back or they would be executed (and people complain about how our government treats them).
The liberal left and their sock puppets at the ACLU were beside themselves. How dare Bush hold these people indefinitely without a trial or charges. We picked them up on a battlefield so let’s call them prisoners of war. We can hold them for a long time like until the war is over. The left did not like that and I can sympathize. This is not like a normal war where our enemy wears uniforms and represent a country. The terrorists are cowards who sneak around and fight for the cause regardless of what country they are from or which one they are in. But is it our fault no one will take them? Is it our fault that they were caught on a battlefield? If you don’t want to get caught don’t be on the battlefield.
Barack Obama said he would close Gitmo by January 2010 but he is finding it difficult to get rid of the detainees. He is learning that campaign rhetoric is one thing but when you actually have the information in front of you that things are a lot different. However, Obama is about to take care of this. The administration is carefully crafting an Executive Order allowing the indefinite imprisonment of some Gitmo detainees who are deemed to dangerous to send to trial or to release.
What was that? Obama is going to sign an Executive Order allowing the same thing that Bush did. Well where is the outrage by the left? The ACLU is up in arms but where are the morons at Kos? Where are the HuffPo blowhards? Where are the Code Pink twits? Where are all these groups that had epileptic seizures over this issue?
Seems that there is not much opposition when the messiah decides to do this. However, it is not final and the story hit just before the weekend, a classic way to avoid scrutiny and it was released at a time the news is dominated by the death of pop culture idol Michael Jackson.
Let’s see how this plays out. Will the Democrats oppose this? Will they lose their minds or will they embrace it? Will they do like that moron Olberman who praises Obama for things that Bush did and which earned the scorn of the dork at PMSNBC?
I think we should hold them as long as we need to. If they can be released we need to keep looking for places that will take them (the USA is not an option) just like Bush did. If we have people who can be tried then we should have a trial and if they win they get to go home, not stay here.
We also need to tell our troops that capturing these people on the battlefield is not an option. Shoot to kill them all and we will not have to worry about this.
However, the issue here is Obama and his endorsement of the policies of George Bush and the relatively little notice it has gotten. If Obama keeps endorsing the tactics of Bush then Bush’s place in history will be a good one that Democrats cannot debate (it will be good regardless).
Where is that fickle left? I want to see the outrage from the same groups that went after Bush. I want to see them have some guts and stand up for what they say they believe in.
Fat chance. They voted for this piker and they will do everything to make sure he is a “success.”
Source:
Yahoo News
Salon (one lefty loon who is opposed)
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: detainees, hypocrisy, indefinite hold, michael jackson, no trial, Obama, terror
SCOTUS Ignores History in Decision
Jun 14, 2008 General, Terrorism
The Supreme Court ruled this past week that terrorists at Gitmo had the same rights as American citizens even though they are not in our country and they are not citizens. In so deciding, the majority, comprised of the liberals on the court, and the new Sandra O’Connor, Anthony “Swing Vote” Kennedy decided that they would ignore centuries of legal precedent. Amazingly, Democrats like Chuck Schumer are not jumping up and down and screaming at the court.
You see, Schumer was one of the libs who grilled John Roberts in his confirmation hearing on the subject of abortion. The concept of stare decisis came up and Roberts agreed that it was important. Stare decisis is a doctrine that says courts will follow previous judicial decisions unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. Schumer wanted to make sure Roberts understood that the Democrats viewed the issue of abortion settled law and they wanted Roberts to affirm his belief in the settled law, the principle of stare decisis.
With regard to Boumediene v Bush, the court ignored centuries of legal precedent and they ignored the Constitution. They cite article I Section 9 which states the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in time of rebellion or invasion. This is all well and good but it means with regard to whom the Constitution applies. The terrorists at Gitmo are not citizens and they are not even in our country. Not only did the majority ignore history but they admitted they have no basis upon which to justify the ruling:
The court majority did so acknowledging that they could find no precedent to confer such a right to alien enemies not within sovereign U.S.
They could find no precedent to confer such a right on aliens but they certainly had plenty of precedent to deny the right. They ignored the precedent and though only they know absolutely why, their actions make it appear as if they support the enemy and want to see America weakened.
Americans who are bothered by this decision and the blatant disregard for our Constitution should remember this. The next president will likely get to appoint two or three justices. Do we really want two or three more of the kind of people who gave us this ruling? As an aside, these are the people who ruled that it was OK for the government to take your property and give it to private entities.
Do we really want more people like this on the court or do we want justices who use the Constitution and the rule of law to make decisions?
Sources:
Townhall
US Constitution
Tags: liberal majority, poor ruling, precedent, stare decisis, supreme court
Soldiers Can Solve Detainee Problem
Jun 13, 2008 Political, Terrorism
The more liberal members of the US Supreme Court did something extraordinary yesterday when they conferred Constitutional protection on people who are not covered under our Constitution. The Constitution of the US is a document that applies to citizens and those here legally. By saying that the detainees at Gitmo have the same Constitutional rights as others (especially for acts committed outside the US) the court has weakened our country. What next, will it be OK for them to be released and walk around the US keeping and bearing arms? Will they be allowed to vote? If we say that they are protected by the Constitution it has to mean the whole document, not just a part of it.
I don’t understand why this is an issue to begin with. Why don’t we call them Prisoners of War and call Gitmo a POW camp? We will release them when the war is over just as we have done in other wars. If some of them are suspected of crimes then we should put them on trial and be done with it. If all else fails, send them to another country and release them. I think there are a few places where they could go and be treated very badly.
Our soldiers can solve part of this problem by not taking prisoners, excuse me, detainees. Kill them in battle and there will be no problem with Gitmo and the Supreme Court. This is something that is easy to do. Refuse to allow surrender except under the most obvious conditions such as they lay down their arms and lie down with their hands behind their heads. Shooting them then would be murder. Killing them while they still look ready to fight is not.
In the event that these animals absolutely have to be captured then they should never be taken to a base where the SCOTUS would have any say. Hold them in POW camps in other countries. I am all in favor of handing them over to the Iraqi military and letting them deal with them. If the whiners think these animals have been treated badly at Gitmo they should wait and see how they are treated in other places by other countries.
We have already seen where some of these so called innocent people have been recaptured or killed on the battlefield. One can only pray that if they are released they do not make their way to the US and detonate a bomb killing untold numbers of innocent civilians.
Of course, the five justices who decided this will never have to worry about being affected. They live in relative safety and that is unfortunate (not that they are safe but that it skews their view of how others are affected).
I wonder how these people would have ruled if one of those planes had been heading for the Supreme Court building?
Source:
My Way News
Tags: bad ruling, liberal justices, supreme court, terrorists