Friday, January 16, 2009
What's a President Elect To Do?
I found this while checking out stuff at the racist and poorly written AmericanThinker.com. Perhaps our Barry supporters should keep this in mind while they celebrate the empty suit on the 20th.
15 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, the issue with Gitmo has never been whether or not this or that or even every single person incarcerated there would kill every single American given a quarter of a chance. The issue was one of its extra-legality, which is to say its basic criminality. Indeed, it was clear from the get-go the Bush Administration chose the prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Stsation because it believed, being a base on foreign soil (in this case that great threat to the world, Cuba), it was not American soil, and so was out of the reach of the American courts. The Supreme Court said, "Uh, no," to that. They have pretty much said "Uh, no," to every claim the Bush Administration has attempted to make in its "legal" maneuverings in regards to our indefinitely detained enemy combatants, a term of art invented, again, so that the Bush Administration could do whatever it wanted to them.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing. In all honesty, I don't care if Brookings, or even Barack Obama came to me with definite, conclusive proof that every single person still held at Guantanamo Bay prison camp would personally slit my throat from ear to ear after raping my wife and forcing me to watch. I would still want them released, because getting them, keeping them, and continuing to hold them has been one gigantic law-breaking exercise. We are no better than a third world police state. As some crazy liberal once said, what profits anyone who gains the world but loses his or her soul? We have lost our souls out of irrational fear and hatred. It is time to gain a little piece of them back.
"Here's the thing. In all honesty, "I don't care if Brookings, or even Barack Obama came to me with definite, conclusive proof that every single person still held at Guantanamo Bay prison camp would personally slit my throat from ear to ear after raping my wife and forcing me to watch. I would still want them released..." J-Off
ReplyDeleteIt's confirmed. J-Off, you're a complete idiot. Your wife must be proud of you...the ultimate beta-male.
Ozzie! Long time no hear from, dude.
ReplyDeleteYour point, beside the one on top of your head?
My point?
ReplyDeleteExactly! Thanks for supporting it.
Why should it bother a liberal to release murderous thugs bent on killing Americans into our society when they're all for a blatant tax-dodger heading up America's treasury?
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey,
ReplyDeletePlease tell me how incarcerating these thugs is any different, or less legal, than the incarcerating of POW's during any other war we've fought. Which of those prisoners had habeus corpus rights or any other rights while the war raged on? These scumbags do not match the description of prisoners as defined by the Geneva Convention. And did we ship all POW's from Germany and Japan or N. Korea or N. Viet Nam to our soil for incarceration and trial?
Here's two points that are painfully obvious:
1) You care little for the legality of this situation except as it might serve to denegrate our current president and cause him legal misery.
2) This bit---"what profits anyone who gains the world but loses his or her soul?" has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this issue.
All you need to do, Marshall, is use this little thing called "Google" and look up the whole series of Supreme Court decisions that detail how and why the detention at Gitmo is illegal.
ReplyDeleteWhy should I do your research for you?
I hadn't read the entire piece at National Defense Examiner in detail so I missed the last, rhetorical, question: "Can this country afford to allow these men spread their hate into our prison systems?"
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon from the late 1970's. The character "Duke" is picked to be envoy to China (this in the days before formal exchange of ambassadors) and is escorted to the China-Soviet border, where, looking through field glasses, he is shown not just Soviet soldiers milling about, but "Cubans - ringers fresh from Angola" (I have the strip in a collection, so this is a direct quote). Duke returns to Beijing and calls the State Department because the Chinese are asking for an official American reaction. During his phone call, he shouts, "The largest country in the world is about to be overrun by communists!"
The guy he is talking to at Foggy Bottom hangs up the phone even as Duke realizes what he is saying. That is what this last line reminds me of, only without the lightbulb of recognition of just how dumb he sounds.
Geoffrey,
ReplyDelete"Why should I do your research for you?"
I love this line. It appears when the questioner has little confidence in his own argument.
I don't expect you to do my research. I expect you to support your contentions. How do I know which piece of information it is you are misunderstanding? Your track record with getting the point is abysmal. There is also the little detail surrounding who gets to run a war---the administration or the courts. I believe the courts have little Constitutional say in how to fight a war. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. If you disagree, bring a little something more than just your too often baseless opinions. It's a rational request.
As to your last comment, Geoffrey, I'm again at a loss as to how your Doonesbury andecdote has relevance to the quote attached. The point being made, and here I am again explaining the point to you, was that it is within the prison system where wacky extremist ideologies are spread, as there are willing recipients of such crap just waiting for some way to express their sociopathic agressions.
ReplyDeleteIt's a prison system, Marshall. It's a festering stew of hated, frustration, and violence, barely contained most of the time. There is no difference in kind, only in degree, between what some alleged Muslim terrorist might or might not say and/or do, and other things that go on in prison. That was my point in recalling the Doonesbury cartoon. Like Duke shouting about the communist threat to communist China, the author of the NDE article wonders about the effect of violent rhetoric on the incarcerated population in the United States. It's a wonder I have to draw you a map of this.
ReplyDeleteI care little for the legality of the situation? My entire point is that this exercise has been, and continues to be, illegal, so I think all I do care about is the legality of the situation. Why don't you read my words, instead of trying and failing to read my mind and intentions?
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the threat isn't to the prison population, which means your cartoon analogy is flawed. The threat is to the the rest of us when those scumbags who take to the radical Islamic rhetoric are released upon us. But your use of cartoons as reference speaks volumes.
You're judging legality based on the opinions of some on the Supreme Court. I'm saying legality is a matter of legislation or Constitutional provision which does not give the courts the power to wage war.
Who said anything about the courts waging war? Where on earth does that come from?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I wonder sometimes. . .
"Where on earth does that come from?"
ReplyDeleteIt comes from your leaning on court decisions regarding how this war is fought.