Obama Administration halts prosecution of USS Cole bomber

[rudeguy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html

Umm....what the????

While I don't believe he is Muslim, I do believe that he sides with Islamic extremists. Can someone please tell me any other reason why he would keep doing things like this?

 

[Moonbeam]

The article stated many reasons. You either can't read or don't want to comprehend what you read so there is no incentive for me to rewrite what was already written because you will chose not to comprehend that either.

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html

Umm....what the????

While I don't believe he is Muslim, I do believe that he sides with Islamic extremists. Can someone please tell me any other reason why he would keep doing things like this?

Unless the alternative to prosecuting him is to let him walk free, I don't see a problem with letting the terrorist rot in jail.

Actually, scratch that. He should have been executed years ago saving us the cost of care.

 

[umbrella39]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html

Umm....what the????

While I don't believe he is Muslim, I do believe that he sides with Islamic extremists. Can someone please tell me any other reason why he would keep doing things like this?

Bolded for you mind is already made up. How could it not be living in GR...

 

[Moonbeam]

Bolded for you mind is already made up. How could it not be living in GR...

I have the same dilemma. I know Obama is not a Muslim but then I know he is. And I blame Obama for this. Sometimes I wake up screaming at night in a terror sweat, thinking something is wrong with my mind. But as I grow older and a lot more insanely angry the notion that A doesn't equal A is making a lot more sense.

 

[Infohawk]

Not a good headline for Obama, but you can't take too much from this story. They're not letting him go or anything. It's just more legal procedure.

 

[dmcowen674]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html

Umm....what the????

While I don't believe he is Muslim, I do believe that he sides with Islamic extremists. Can someone please tell me any other reason why he would keep doing things like this?

We have no business over there.

You should be thrilled he is saving taxpayer money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

By doing this obama keeps him perpetually locked up. If the man comes to trial there's a chance he'll not be found guilty. Cheney would be proud.

 

[Moonbeam]

By doing this obama keeps him perpetually locked up. If the man comes to trial there's a chance he'll not be found guilty. Cheney would be proud.

On the other hand, one might say, it keeps a murderous piece of shit that would go free on technicalities behind bars where he belongs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

On the other hand, one might say, it keeps a murderous piece of shit that would go free on technicalities behind bars where he belongs.

One might say that, and it's probably true. It would probably hold true in many other cases.

So we have the evil of the government overstepping it's authority to keep the evil of an individual in check.

When all choices are evil, which one is good?

 

[Jhhnn]

Supporting the immoral and anti american detention policy of the bushistas is the great failing of the Obama admin.

Terrarist? Prove it. Stand 'em up in a court of law, give 'em the best legal representation available, and make a case against 'em. If not, cut 'em loose. Otherwise, regardless of the justificational mumbo-jumbo, it's the same practices employed by the British Crown that American colonist found so vile and repulsive 235 years ago.

Righties love to rave on selectively about the constitution while justifying the worst abuse of its authority wrt the very existence of detention facilities w/o legal recourse for those held. They hate teh ebil gubmint, except when the gubmint is actually doing something evil, and then it's OK...

 

[werepossum]

If this looks bad on Obama, it's on the left, that believes that war can and should be conducted by the same rules as petty theft. In this case The Messiah is falling back to the Bush policies, which seems to me to defuse much of the pro-radical Islam support he has shown and actually makes him look more balanced. Sometimes all choices are bad, and I would certainly prefer that he continue to incarcerate the man who purchased the suicide boat rather than freeing him in civilian trial on technicalities, or even worse, trying him, finding him not guilty, and continuing to hold him anyway. Seems to me that by holding him we are granting him the status of an enemy combatant rather than executing him as a non-uniformed combatant as he deserves, but that's got to be better than letting him go free because we can't produce evidence as though he were a common criminal.

 

[Moonbeam]

One might say that, and it's probably true. It would probably hold true in many other cases.

So we have the evil of the government overstepping it's authority to keep the evil of an individual in check.

When all choices are evil, which one is good?

Never having waterboarded the fucker in the first place would be a good place to start. Evil like fear is something that can affect you without you having to have it. I try to avoid getting into a situation where I have to make a choice. As a practical matter, however, I prefer the lesser evil. I just never know which one it is.

 

[Jhhnn]

In this case The Messiah is falling back to the Bush policies, which seems to me to defuse much of the pro-radical Islam support he has shown and actually makes him look more balanced.

Gawd. You manage to slime Obama with false attribution and innuendo even when he's doing what you want.

Have you no shame, no sense of decency whatsoever?

 

[Moonbeam]

If this looks bad on Obama, it's on the left, that believes that war can and should be conducted by the same rules as petty theft. In this case The Messiah is falling back to the Bush policies, which seems to me to defuse much of the pro-radical Islam support he has shown and actually makes him look more balanced. Sometimes all choices are bad, and I would certainly prefer that he continue to incarcerate the man who purchased the suicide boat rather than freeing him in civilian trial on technicalities, or even worse, trying him, finding him not guilty, and continuing to hold him anyway. Seems to me that by holding him we are granting him the status of an enemy combatant rather than executing him as a non-uniformed combatant as he deserves, but that's got to be better than letting him go free because we can't produce evidence as though he were a common criminal.

I don't think he's falling back on anything. I think he and Bush share this in common. It's the amorality of pragmatism. I think he takes very very seriously his role as protector of the nation and isn't going to allow morality or moral ambiguity to get in his way.

 

[DaveSimmons]

While I don't believe he is Musli...e is from torture and hearsay? Good to know.

 

[SandEagle]

similar to how Johnson halted an investigation and any prosecution against those that attacked the USS Liberty?

 

[werepossum]

Gawd. You manage to slime Obama with false attribution and innuendo even when he's doing what you want.

Have you no shame, no sense of decency whatsoever?

WTF are you smoking? I specifically said it makes him look MORE balanced. And if I had no sense of shame and no decency, then I'd be an Obama supporter insisting that he is absolutely correct to drop the trial, he was absolutely correct to insist on the trial, and anyone who sees an discrepancy is obviously a racist.

I don't think he's falling back on anything. I think he and Bush share this in common. It's the amorality of pragmatism. I think he takes very very seriously his role as protector of the nation and isn't going to allow morality or moral ambiguity to get in his way.

You may be right. I said falling back to the Bush policies because I take him at his word that he wanted civilian trials for everyone at Gitmo, and he moved in that direction before being balked by Republicans and democrats alike. But I certainly support his actions whether he was forced into them by pragmatism or by politics, and if the former than I applaud him for doing what he feels is necessary and right for the country even if it goes against his personal morality. You don't always get a good choice; sometimes all your choices are bad, and that applies an order of magnitude more for a president.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think he's falling back on anything. I think he and Bush share this in common. It's the amorality of pragmatism. I think he takes very very seriously his role as protector of the nation and isn't going to allow morality or moral ambiguity to get in his way.

Except that's not his job at all. All presidents make this affirmation, as inscribed in the Constitution itself-

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's much deeper than merely doing what's represented to be expedient to "protect the nation". The constitution provides the framework in which the president can act- the framework of the rule of law. When and if he acts outside that framework, he's not defending the nation at all, but rather attacking its foundations.

GWB willfully acted outside that framework in the establishment of the prison at Gitmo, acknowledged such at the time. And it wasn't done to protect the nation at all, but rather to gain domestic political advantage. The terrorist threat was completely blown out of proportion to serve as a bludgeon in affairs foreign and domestic.

Obama's rationale is similar in the sense that he extends the situation so as to protect his political position rather than the nation and the constitution he swore to serve. He has some justification in the sense that the law was changed in the meanwhile, but it remains obvious that the constitutionality of those changes are very much in doubt.

Meanwhile, our govt holds prisoners against whom no case can be made, apparently, not even in a court of the kangaroo variety. Whatever evidence there is remains secret and inadmissible in a constitutional court of law, 8 years later, if there really is any at all.

Even more astounding is that people who otherwise have a more than healthy skepticism wrt govt in general support the practice, accept as gospel the pronunciations of the people who perpetrated the whole thing as a way to achieve their own ends, which really had nothing to do with protecting the nation at all.

 

[PeshakJang]

I have the same dilemma. I know Obama is not a Muslim but then I know he is. And I blame Obama for this. Sometimes I wake up screaming at night in a terror sweat, thinking something is wrong with my mind. But as I grow older and a lot more insanely angry the notion that A doesn't equal A is making a lot more sense.

You keep showing us that you're nothing but a small, quivering, terrified child... you crave protection and will take it anywhere you can get it.

Stop hiding under your bed, little child... we'll protect you from the monsters.

Oh, the monsters are in you? It's ok, little moonbeam.... don't cry now. Time to sleep.

Don't cry, little child.

 

[hal2kilo]

Have you no shame, no sense of decency whatsoever?

Nope, that's what's great about being a wing-nut righty.

 

[Moonbeam]

Except that's not his job at all. All presidents make this affirmation, as inscribed in the Constitution itself-



That's much deeper than merely doing what's represented to be expedient to "protect the nation". The constitution provides the framework in which the president can act- the framework of the rule of law. When and if he acts outside that framework, he's not defending the nation at all, but rather attacking its foundations.

GWB willfully acted outside that framework in the establishment of the prison at Gitmo, acknowledged such at the time. And it wasn't done to protect the nation at all, but rather to gain domestic political advantage. The terrorist threat was completely blown out of proportion to serve as a bludgeon in affairs foreign and domestic.

Obama's rationale is similar in the sense that he extends the situation so as to protect his political position rather than the nation and the constitution he swore to serve. He has some justification in the sense that the law was changed in the meanwhile, but it remains obvious that the constitutionality of those changes are very much in doubt.

Meanwhile, our govt holds prisoners against whom no case can be made, apparently, not even in a court of the kangaroo variety. Whatever evidence there is remains secret and inadmissible in a constitutional court of law, 8 years later, if there really is any at all.

Even more astounding is that people who otherwise have a more than healthy skepticism wrt govt in general support the practice, accept as gospel the pronunciations of the people who perpetrated the whole thing as a way to achieve their own ends, which really had nothing to do with protecting the nation at all.

You know that and I know that but when it comes to releasing as mass murdering psychotic back into the wilds just because your evidence against him is legally tainted but pretty solid otherwise, who gives a fuck about their oath to abstractions. Don't you think moral absolutism sometimes equals stupid? It is wrong to kill life so abortion is wrong, but it also violates a right a woman has to her own body. It is wrong not to follow the constitution but it is wrong to let a murdering psychotic go even if you can't constitutionally hold him, don't you think?

 

[Rainsford]

If this looks bad on Obama, it's on the left, that believes that war can and should be conducted by the same rules as petty theft. In this case The Messiah is falling back to the Bush policies, which seems to me to defuse much of the pro-radical Islam support he has shown and actually makes him look more balanced. Sometimes all choices are bad, and I would certainly prefer that he continue to incarcerate the man who purchased the suicide boat rather than freeing him in civilian trial on technicalities, or even worse, trying him, finding him not guilty, and continuing to hold him anyway. Seems to me that by holding him we are granting him the status of an enemy combatant rather than executing him as a non-uniformed combatant as he deserves, but that's got to be better than letting him go free because we can't produce evidence as though he were a common criminal.

Common criminal is enough of a classification to handle mass murderers, mafia members and domestic terrorists, I don't see any reasonable argument that it can't handle terrorists. They're not supervillians...

For me, it comes down to this: either we believe in the rule of law or we don't. If we do, then we need to try terrorists according to our laws. If we don't, they we should stop pretending we're in favor of any principles beyond convenience.

 

[Rainsford]

You know that and I know that but when it comes to releasing as mass murdering psychotic back into the wilds just because your evidence against him is legally tainted but pretty solid otherwise, who gives a fuck about their oath to abstractions. Don't you think moral absolutism sometimes equals stupid? It is wrong to kill life so abortion is wrong, but it also violates a right a woman has to her own body. It is wrong not to follow the constitution but it is wrong to let a murdering psychotic go even if you can't constitutionally hold him, don't you think?

I wish this was just a discussion about abstract principles, but it's not. We don't have rules about legal evidence because they sounded fun, we have them to protect the rights of the accused, not all of whom are actually guilty of what they are being accused of. Casting those rules aside because doing so makes it easier to prosecute SOME people also makes it easier for the government to prosecute everyone. If trials for accused terrorists allow evidence obtained via torture, for example, that allows for trials of innocent people who were tortured into confessing.

What makes principles worth upholding is that they protect something real, they aren't just intellectual exercises for a civics class.

 

[Carmen813]

We could have solved all these trial problems so easily if we had just declared war on Al-Qaeda.