Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
No it's not. A prisoner of war is someone that is allied or fighting for a flagged nation. A terrorist/Enemy Combatant is someone that has no recognized nation that they are fighting for. They are fighting for a person or an moral/religious cause.

What if they said they were fighting to liberate Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever? Would that be different than the French resistance fighting Germany?

Here is an interesting link.

The French resistance fighters blew up bridges, derailed trains, directed the British in the bombing of German troop trains, kidnapped and killed German army officers, and ambushed German troops. They took no prisoners, but rather killed any German soldiers who surrendered to them, sometimes mutilating their bodies for good measure. The Nazis referred to them as "terrorists."

It's interesting how we think what's going on now is a "new" kind of war, when this type of stuff has always gone on. I wonder why we have such a problem dealing with it?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
No it's not. A prisoner of war is someone that is allied or fighting for a flagged nation. A terrorist/Enemy Combatant is someone that has no recognized nation that they are fighting for. They are fighting for a person or an moral/religious cause.

What if they said they were fighting to liberate Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever? Would that be different than the French resistance fighting Germany?

Here is an interesting link.

The French resistance fighters blew up bridges, derailed trains, directed the British in the bombing of German troop trains, kidnapped and killed German army officers, and ambushed German troops. They took no prisoners, but rather killed any German soldiers who surrendered to them, sometimes mutilating their bodies for good measure. The Nazis referred to them as "terrorists."

It's interesting how we think what's going on now is a "new" kind of war, when this type of stuff has always gone on. I wonder why we have such a problem dealing with it?

They arent any different. French resistence fighters who were captured were sometimes maybe often given a summary execution by the troops who captured them. We also executed Nazi hit squads near the end of the war who infiltrated past our lines to execute anybody helping the allies within Germany. And after the war the French also shot a few german men who were sabotaging alllied rebuilding projects.

Then there was the whole Eisenhower reclassifying German POWs as disarmed combatants in 1946. Then using them as slave labor in allied countries rebuilding after the war. High estimates put abotu 1 million men died in these labor camps over the next decade.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Then there was the whole Eisenhower reclassifying German POWs as disarmed combatants in 1946. Then using them as slave labor in allied countries rebuilding after the war. High estimates put abotu 1 million men died in these labor camps over the next decade.

Geneva Conventions were signed post ww2. The law of war changed. Maybe it needs to be changed again, but you change the law first. Regardless, Obama is wrong now.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Corn
I wonder if the forum's copy-n-paste macro lovers will start referring to Obama as their traitor-in-chief? I'm gonna guess no.

Why? Did he start a false war like your hero?

Why, thank you for your input, little libertroll. Please comment on the OP. Is Obama right for doing this or not? If you thought that Bush was wrong for doing this, what say you now?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: LunarRay
A POW (enemy combatant) can be held subject to common article 3 until the end of the War. (as I understand it)

I think, however, that since that used to apply to folks in uniform (spies were or could be shot) and these folks don't have a common uniform nor are they a citizen from a country we are at war with - we are at war in a country but not with a country, I wonder on what basis a decision to avoid Article 3 courts can be made? Seems sort of extra-judicial to me.

They are not POW's, they are Enemy Combatants, and thus are not protected by any convention and thus have no rights as viewed under United States law.
I've been a vocal opponent of Obama, but in this case he got it right. Anyone intent on doing harm to this nation and the people of this nation deserve nothing. They need to be flogged for information then shot and thrown into a hole.

enemy combatants? thats just another name for POW. These people should be tried or released back where they were picked up. Not held for as long as the goverment likes.

No it's not. A prisoner of war is someone that is allied or fighting for a flagged nation. A terrorist/Enemy Combatant is someone that has no recognized nation that they are fighting for. They are fighting for a person or an moral/religious cause.

shrug.

i think they are POW's. they fit teh idea of the law. keeping them as Enemy combatants allows the US to ship them off to other countries for torture and keep them in jail until we decide to let them out.

i don't think thats right.

 

[Elias824]

Why is everyone so obsessed with trying them. What are we going to do put them in front of a judge then say they are guilty of X or Y, this is not a civil case. We don't treat them like average criminals because quite frankly we cant. It makes no sense, we cant gather evidence against them in a war zone, nor can we probe into these peoples background, its just not practical. The big difference I see between an "enemy combatant" and a "PoW" is that a PoW has a nation we can return them to. What do we do with someone who dosent fight for a flag? Set them back into a country who wouldn't take them back willingly? The left likes to complain but they dont have any practical answers, not that the right does either.

 

[thraashman]

What the Obama admin is doing is a stretch of the law being cited that was passed after 9/11. It's a stretch to say what is being done is legal under that law. Unfortunately part of our legal system is something called legal precedence. And basically if someone got allowed to do something under the law once, unless that law has changed then being able to cite precedence allows it again. Had Obama been the first to try this, I don't think a mostly Democrat Congress would allow it. But since Bush did it under a Republican Congress that would allow him anything, the Obama administration can cite legal precedence.

Being able to bullshit it as legal or not still doesn't stop it from being horribly wrong. You can't beat evil by becoming it. I said it under Bush, I'll say it under Obama. Obama is nowhere near the level of evil that Bush/Cheney were. But he's taking some bad pointers from the way that admin did business unfortunately. Seems he's forgotten one of the reasons many of us voted for him was to bring the honor back to the office of the Executive that the Bush admin had destroyed.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Elias824
Why is everyone so obsessed with trying them. What are we going to do put them in front of a judge then say they are guilty of X or Y, this is not a civil case. We don't treat them like average criminals because quite frankly we cant. It makes no sense, we cant gather evidence against them in a war zone, nor can we probe into these peoples background, its just not practical. The big difference I see between an "enemy combatant" and a "PoW" is that a PoW has a nation we can return them to. What do we do with someone who dosent fight for a flag? Set them back into a country who wouldn't take them back willingly? The left likes to complain but they dont have any practical answers, not that the right does either.

I think the reason why we should be interested in trying them is because of things like this report. Now I don't care if you agree with their conclusions from it, but the classifications of the combatants by the military are not in dispute that I am aware of.

When you see the numbers of people that are detained over such nebulous reasons, I think the reason we need judicial oversight becomes pretty clear.

 

[Jhhnn]

The practice remains shameful and cowardly, basically beneath contempt.

It's sad that the Obama Admin would continue the practice instituted by their fearmongering predecessor, and that the public accepts it, believes things about the whole affair that aren't true. Few of those held were taken anywhere near a "battlefield", and many were foreigners in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fingered for reward money by their neighbors.

"Tell us what we want to hear, and we'll give you money!"

No retribution, of course, because the victims don't have any brothers nearby, and they're not members of a local clan, either... just gone, whisked away... and they'll tell their captors anything they want to hear, too, just for entirely different reasons.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
lol@burying the story on page 23. Shouldn't that have been a front page splash?

Not if the party in power has a (D) behind their name. Proof of liberal Bias.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Sawyer
lol@burying the story on page 23. Shouldn't that have been a front page splash?

Not if the party in power has a (D) behind their name. Proof of liberal Bias.

I feel like I'm following you around from thread to thread calling you a moron, but christ you're making it hard not to.

Detention of people without trial is overwhelmingly popular in the US. Only in the deranged mind of the ultra right is a newspaper 'hiding' a story about a Democratic president taking a popular position proof of the paper's bias in his FAVOR. Then again, it's not like you ever needed evidence for the 'librul media' charge before either so I'm not sure why I'm surprised now.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Sawyer
lol@burying the story on page 23. Shouldn't that have been a front page splash?

Not if the party in power has a (D) behind their name. Proof of liberal Bias.

I feel like I'm following you around from thread to thread calling you a moron, but christ you're making it hard not to.

Detention of people without trial is overwhelmingly popular in the US. Only in the deranged mind of the ultra right is a newspaper 'hiding' a story about a Democratic president taking a popular position proof of the paper's bias in his FAVOR. Then again, it's not like you ever needed evidence for the 'librul media' charge before either so I'm not sure why I'm surprised now.

lol I feel the same way. go post at the other thread now! you're an arrogant know it all ass. You always have been.


I am in favor with this position to with non-U.S. citizens. Funny it is popular but who is it popular with? Not with his party. So bury it on page 23.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Sawyer
lol@burying the story on page 23. Shouldn't that have been a front page splash?

Not if the party in power has a (D) behind their name. Proof of liberal Bias.

I feel like I'm following you around from thread to thread calling you a moron, but christ you're making it hard not to.

Detention of people without trial is overwhelmingly popular in the US. Only in the deranged mind of the ultra right is a newspaper 'hiding' a story about a Democratic president taking a popular position proof of the paper's bias in his FAVOR. Then again, it's not like you ever needed evidence for the 'librul media' charge before either so I'm not sure why I'm surprised now.

lol I feel the same way. go post at the other thread now! you're an arrogant know it all ass. You always have been.


I am in favor with this position to with non-U.S. citizens. Funny it is popular but who is it popular with? Not with his party. So bury it on page 23.

I'm enjoying watching you go into contortions trying to rationalize in your brain about how a newspaper not reporting on overwhelmingly popular actions by a president is bias in his favor.

Don't worry though, that uncomfortable feeling in your brain that you get when confronted with inconvenient facts? That's actually something that's okay to feel, you don't have to doublethink your way out of it. Maybe you were just wrong, you can admit that you know.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Sawyer
lol@burying the story on page 23. Shouldn't that have been a front page splash?

Not if the party in power has a (D) behind their name. Proof of liberal Bias.

I feel like I'm following you around from thread to thread calling you a moron, but christ you're making it hard not to.

Detention of people without trial is overwhelmingly popular in the US. Only in the deranged mind of the ultra right is a newspaper 'hiding' a story about a Democratic president taking a popular position proof of the paper's bias in his FAVOR. Then again, it's not like you ever needed evidence for the 'librul media' charge before either so I'm not sure why I'm surprised now.

lol I feel the same way. go post at the other thread now! you're an arrogant know it all ass. You always have been.


I am in favor with this position to with non-U.S. citizens. Funny it is popular but who is it popular with? Not with his party. So bury it on page 23.

I'm enjoying watching you go into contortions trying to rationalize in your brain about how a newspaper not reporting on overwhelmingly popular actions by a president is bias in his favor.

Don't worry though, that uncomfortable feeling in your brain that you get when confronted with inconvenient facts? That's actually something that's okay to feel, you don't have to doublethink your way out of it. Maybe you were just wrong, you can admit that you know.

What don't you undestand about it being on page 23 when he is agreeing with people from the other side of the isle? Or That this was front page news when Bush was in office. Now Obama has adopted a Bush policy and there it is on page 23. hmm why the double standard? Why did the big 3 news stations dot carry anything initially about ACORN and one turned down the acorn scandle due to its political rammifications.

You are missing a whole component of the arguement. And you want to confuse popularity with what Obama has stood for before being elected. Go back and look this is going against his champaign rhetoric.

LMK and then you can drop the smartass reponse and formulate a better arguement. I expect more of your point the finger and laugh foil hat stuff though!

Cheers!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EXman

What don't you undestand about it being on page 23 when he is agreeing with people from the other side of the isle? Or That this was front page news when Bush was in office. Now Obama has adopted a Bush policy and there it is on page 23. hmm why the double standard? Why did the big 3 news stations dot carry anything initially about ACORN and one turned down the acorn scandle due to its political rammifications.

You are missing a whole component of the arguement. And you want to confuse popularity with what Obama has stood for before being elected. Go back and look this is going against his champaign rhetoric.

LMK and then you can drop the smartass reponse and formulate a better arguement. I expect more of your point the finger and laugh foil hat stuff though!

Cheers!

It was front page news when Bush was in office because it was 1.) New, and 2.) Because the Democrats in Congress pushed to have it be front page news. Now the Democrats in Congress don't want to fight with their own president, and the Republicans in Congress are happy to get what they wanted all along. Hence, page 23. This is not difficult.

Think about what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say that a paper hiding incredibly popular actions by a president is bias in his favor. Do you know how insane that sounds? I don't even know how to argue against you, because in your world doing things that rational people would view as unsupportive of the president you view as bias in his favor. How do you logically explain things to Bizarro Superman?

Oh, and I'm not going to get into your wild, flailing tangents on ACORN. Try to stay focused. I want you to explain what exactly you think the paper's goal was in putting it on page 23, and exactly what gains you believe the paper believes it will net for the president by doing so.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

What don't you undestand about it being on page 23 when he is agreeing with people from the other side of the isle? Or That this was front page news when Bush was in office. Now Obama has adopted a Bush policy and there it is on page 23. hmm why the double standard? Why did the big 3 news stations dot carry anything initially about ACORN and one turned down the acorn scandle due to its political rammifications.

You are missing a whole component of the arguement. And you want to confuse popularity with what Obama has stood for before being elected. Go back and look this is going against his champaign rhetoric.

LMK and then you can drop the smartass reponse and formulate a better arguement. I expect more of your point the finger and laugh foil hat stuff though!

Cheers!

Think about what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say that a paper hiding incredibly popular actions by a president is bias in his favor.

OK focus on this... and then ask WHO IT IS POPULAR WITH?

and then WHO WOULD THIS PISS OFF?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

What don't you undestand about it being on page 23 when he is agreeing with people from the other side of the isle? Or That this was front page news when Bush was in office. Now Obama has adopted a Bush policy and there it is on page 23. hmm why the double standard? Why did the big 3 news stations dot carry anything initially about ACORN and one turned down the acorn scandle due to its political rammifications.

You are missing a whole component of the arguement. And you want to confuse popularity with what Obama has stood for before being elected. Go back and look this is going against his champaign rhetoric.

LMK and then you can drop the smartass reponse and formulate a better arguement. I expect more of your point the finger and laugh foil hat stuff though!

Cheers!

Think about what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say that a paper hiding incredibly popular actions by a president is bias in his favor.

OK focus on this... and then ask WHO IT IS POPULAR WITH?

and then WHO WOULD THIS PISS OFF?

IT IS POPULAR WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT VOTERS, THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC VOTING BLOC.

IT WOULD PISS OFF THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT OBAMA ANYWAY.

THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

What don't you undestand about it being on page 23 when he is agreeing with people from the other side of the isle? Or That this was front page news when Bush was in office. Now Obama has adopted a Bush policy and there it is on page 23. hmm why the double standard? Why did the big 3 news stations dot carry anything initially about ACORN and one turned down the acorn scandle due to its political rammifications.

You are missing a whole component of the arguement. And you want to confuse popularity with what Obama has stood for before being elected. Go back and look this is going against his champaign rhetoric.

LMK and then you can drop the smartass reponse and formulate a better arguement. I expect more of your point the finger and laugh foil hat stuff though!

Cheers!

Think about what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say that a paper hiding incredibly popular actions by a president is bias in his favor.

OK focus on this... and then ask WHO IT IS POPULAR WITH?

and then WHO WOULD THIS PISS OFF?

IT IS POPULAR WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT VOTERS, THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC VOTING BLOC.

IT WOULD PISS OFF THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT OBAMA ANYWAY.

THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.

then why did it take so long?

:beer: and 's for you!

 

[EXman]

This is a good thread to show the process of how Libs/conservatives think and argue.

and then respond... 3...2...1...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

What don't you undestand about it being on page 23 when he is agreeing with people from the other side of the isle? Or That this was front page news when Bush was in office. Now Obama has adopted a Bush policy and there it is on page 23. hmm why the double standard? Why did the big 3 news stations dot carry anything initially about ACORN and one turned down the acorn scandle due to its political rammifications.

You are missing a whole component of the arguement. And you want to confuse popularity with what Obama has stood for before being elected. Go back and look this is going against his champaign rhetoric.

LMK and then you can drop the smartass reponse and formulate a better arguement. I expect more of your point the finger and laugh foil hat stuff though!

Cheers!

Think about what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say that a paper hiding incredibly popular actions by a president is bias in his favor.

OK focus on this... and then ask WHO IT IS POPULAR WITH?

and then WHO WOULD THIS PISS OFF?

IT IS POPULAR WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT VOTERS, THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC VOTING BLOC.

IT WOULD PISS OFF THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT OBAMA ANYWAY.

THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.

then why did it take so long?

:beer: and 's for you!

You realize that proves my point, right? Keeping that information from people HURTS Obama, it doesn't help him.

I have no idea why it took this long for you to figure it out.

 

[blackangst1]

I support Obama's stance on Gitmo, but I disagreed with Bush on his.
I support Obama's stance on the WOT, but I disagreed with Bush.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

What don't you undestand about it being on page 23 when he is agreeing with people from the other side of the isle? Or That this was front page news when Bush was in office. Now Obama has adopted a Bush policy and there it is on page 23. hmm why the double standard? Why did the big 3 news stations dot carry anything initially about ACORN and one turned down the acorn scandle due to its political rammifications.

You are missing a whole component of the arguement. And you want to confuse popularity with what Obama has stood for before being elected. Go back and look this is going against his champaign rhetoric.

LMK and then you can drop the smartass reponse and formulate a better arguement. I expect more of your point the finger and laugh foil hat stuff though!

Cheers!

Think about what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say that a paper hiding incredibly popular actions by a president is bias in his favor.

OK focus on this... and then ask WHO IT IS POPULAR WITH?

and then WHO WOULD THIS PISS OFF?

IT IS POPULAR WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT VOTERS, THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC VOTING BLOC.

IT WOULD PISS OFF THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT OBAMA ANYWAY.

THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.

then why did it take so long?

:beer: and 's for you!

You realize that proves my point, right? Keeping that information from people HURTS Obama, it doesn't help him.

I have no idea why it took this long for you to figure it out.

lol soooo blind it is comical! LoL. You cannot see the forrest through the trees.

neat!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EXman

lol soooo blind it is comical! LoL. You cannot see the forrest through the trees.

neat!

/facepalm

 

[kage69]

Presidence can indeed be a quirky thing, but even though I disapprove of Obama not distancing himself from this tactic, calling his "keeping it on hand" is a far, faaaar stretch from Cheney's unapologetic advocacy and practice of it.

All those bent on framing Obama as no different than the Cheney and Rumsfeld crowd here are only displaying gleeful historical ignorance. Geneva Convention protected POWs were tortured and some met their ends under the past admin's interrogations. No such incidents have occurred under the Obama admin thus far, so this notion of equivalency over the issue is about as lame as it gets.

Would Obama have pursued this policy had it not been already put in place? I seriously doubt it. I also doubt this sudden concern for "buried stories" will manifest itself in application to Faux and all the other outlets right wingers are usually tripping over themselves to defend.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I support Obama's stance on Gitmo, but I disagreed with Bush on his.
I support Obama's stance on the WOT, but I disagreed with Bush.