Obama's security advisor...

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
CAD, I think that I will take the former Secretary of the Navy's interpretation of what he was trying to say re:Winnie....

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children?s classic, which says: ?Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.?

IOW, if something isn't working effectively, TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

And it isn't working? Have we not foiled attacks? Have we had any? IMO, going back to the 9/10 mentality this guy seems to support(from what I can tell) isn't "different", it's what got us attacked.

Surely you are just playing Devil's advocate and don't really believe this crap, right?

Have we foiled attacks? TBH, I don't know. I know that the Bush admin has claimed that we have but they really won't release any details to support these claims. I do know that they have also exaggerated claims of potential attacks too.

Have we had any? If you only mean domestic? Yes we have. Remember the Anthrax scares? Those were considered terrorist attacks. If you mean globally, there have been thousands.

If you are trying to make the case that Bush's "post 9/11" way of fighting terrorism is somehow working, you're insane.

First, he didn't even finish the job unlike the "9/10 mentality" when the WTC was bombed in '93 and we tracked down, prosecuted and convicted the person behind it. Where's OBL? Secondly, WTF are we doing in Iraq other than strengthening the recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations?

I can only hope that you are joking and this is just a parody thread full of fail.

^^This is an example of people forgetting. ^^

Ofcourse you don't believe we've stopped them, you only seem to believe what you want.
We've had a few domestic nuts. Always have had, always will have.

You can make a case that the "post 9/11" way isn't working? Oh please do share why you think our approach to terrrorism isn't working.... The '93 issue does not it isn't working and the other is just your opinion on the war.


Question for you(and any of the trolls who wish to actually do something besides trolling) - Should we go arrest OBL and prosecute him in our courtroom?

Just what, pray tell did I forget?

What do you base your belief that we are stopping them on? I can point to the Bush administration stating otherwise:

Al-Qaida has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11 capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

Attacks in Pakistan more than doubled from 375 to 887 between 2006 and 2007, and the number of fatalities jumped by almost 300 percent from 335 to 1,335, the State Department said in its annual terrorism report.

In Afghanistan, the number of attacks rose 16 percent, to 1,127 incidents last year, killing 1,966 people, 55 percent more than the 1,257 who died in 2006, it said.

The report said attacks in Iraq dipped slightly between 2006 and 2007, but they still accounted for 60 percent of worldwide terrorism fatalities, including 17 of the 19 Americans who were killed in attacks last year. The other two were killed in Afghanistan.

More than 22,000 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2007, 8 percent more than in 2006, although the overall number of attacks fell, the report says.

And to answer your question, absolutely. If we capture bin Laden alive, he should be transported to the US, given legal counsel and tried in a court of law. Just like you would want and should get if you were accused of doing something.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
CAD, I think that I will take the former Secretary of the Navy's interpretation of what he was trying to say re:Winnie....

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children?s classic, which says: ?Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.?

IOW, if something isn't working effectively, TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

And it isn't working? Have we not foiled attacks? Have we had any? IMO, going back to the 9/10 mentality this guy seems to support(from what I can tell) isn't "different", it's what got us attacked.

Surely you are just playing Devil's advocate and don't really believe this crap, right?

Have we foiled attacks? TBH, I don't know. I know that the Bush admin has claimed that we have but they really won't release any details to support these claims. I do know that they have also exaggerated claims of potential attacks too.

Have we had any? If you only mean domestic? Yes we have. Remember the Anthrax scares? Those were considered terrorist attacks. If you mean globally, there have been thousands.

If you are trying to make the case that Bush's "post 9/11" way of fighting terrorism is somehow working, you're insane.

First, he didn't even finish the job unlike the "9/10 mentality" when the WTC was bombed in '93 and we tracked down, prosecuted and convicted the person behind it. Where's OBL? Secondly, WTF are we doing in Iraq other than strengthening the recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations?

I can only hope that you are joking and this is just a parody thread full of fail.

^^This is an example of people forgetting. ^^

Ofcourse you don't believe we've stopped them, you only seem to believe what you want.
We've had a few domestic nuts. Always have had, always will have.

You can make a case that the "post 9/11" way isn't working? Oh please do share why you think our approach to terrrorism isn't working.... The '93 issue does not it isn't working and the other is just your opinion on the war.


Question for you(and any of the trolls who wish to actually do something besides trolling) - Should we go arrest OBL and prosecute him in our courtroom?

Just what, pray tell did I forget?

What do you base your belief that we are stopping them on? I can point to the Bush administration stating otherwise:

Al-Qaida has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11 capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

Attacks in Pakistan more than doubled from 375 to 887 between 2006 and 2007, and the number of fatalities jumped by almost 300 percent from 335 to 1,335, the State Department said in its annual terrorism report.

In Afghanistan, the number of attacks rose 16 percent, to 1,127 incidents last year, killing 1,966 people, 55 percent more than the 1,257 who died in 2006, it said.

The report said attacks in Iraq dipped slightly between 2006 and 2007, but they still accounted for 60 percent of worldwide terrorism fatalities, including 17 of the 19 Americans who were killed in attacks last year. The other two were killed in Afghanistan.

More than 22,000 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2007, 8 percent more than in 2006, although the overall number of attacks fell, the report says.

And to answer your question, absolutely. If we capture bin Laden alive, he should be transported to the US, given legal counsel and tried in a court of law. Just like you would want and should get if you were accused of doing something.

OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
CAD, I think that I will take the former Secretary of the Navy's interpretation of what he was trying to say re:Winnie....

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children?s classic, which says: ?Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.?

IOW, if something isn't working effectively, TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

And it isn't working? Have we not foiled attacks? Have we had any? IMO, going back to the 9/10 mentality this guy seems to support(from what I can tell) isn't "different", it's what got us attacked.

Surely you are just playing Devil's advocate and don't really believe this crap, right?

Have we foiled attacks? TBH, I don't know. I know that the Bush admin has claimed that we have but they really won't release any details to support these claims. I do know that they have also exaggerated claims of potential attacks too.

Have we had any? If you only mean domestic? Yes we have. Remember the Anthrax scares? Those were considered terrorist attacks. If you mean globally, there have been thousands.

If you are trying to make the case that Bush's "post 9/11" way of fighting terrorism is somehow working, you're insane.

First, he didn't even finish the job unlike the "9/10 mentality" when the WTC was bombed in '93 and we tracked down, prosecuted and convicted the person behind it. Where's OBL? Secondly, WTF are we doing in Iraq other than strengthening the recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations?

I can only hope that you are joking and this is just a parody thread full of fail.

^^This is an example of people forgetting. ^^

Ofcourse you don't believe we've stopped them, you only seem to believe what you want.
We've had a few domestic nuts. Always have had, always will have.

You can make a case that the "post 9/11" way isn't working? Oh please do share why you think our approach to terrrorism isn't working.... The '93 issue does not it isn't working and the other is just your opinion on the war.


Question for you(and any of the trolls who wish to actually do something besides trolling) - Should we go arrest OBL and prosecute him in our courtroom?

Just what, pray tell did I forget?

What do you base your belief that we are stopping them on? I can point to the Bush administration stating otherwise:

Al-Qaida has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11 capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

Attacks in Pakistan more than doubled from 375 to 887 between 2006 and 2007, and the number of fatalities jumped by almost 300 percent from 335 to 1,335, the State Department said in its annual terrorism report.

In Afghanistan, the number of attacks rose 16 percent, to 1,127 incidents last year, killing 1,966 people, 55 percent more than the 1,257 who died in 2006, it said.

The report said attacks in Iraq dipped slightly between 2006 and 2007, but they still accounted for 60 percent of worldwide terrorism fatalities, including 17 of the 19 Americans who were killed in attacks last year. The other two were killed in Afghanistan.

More than 22,000 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2007, 8 percent more than in 2006, although the overall number of attacks fell, the report says.

And to answer your question, absolutely. If we capture bin Laden alive, he should be transported to the US, given legal counsel and tried in a court of law. Just like you would want and should get if you were accused of doing something.

OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

It doesn't matter if he is a US citizen. He is accused of crimes by the US and therefore is afforded the right to defend himself against such claims in US courts.

Are you really this freaking stupid?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

I agree. This is why I support Senator Obama's new plan to take Osama bin Laden out into the hundred acre woods and lose him there. That should take the spring out of that spry terrorist's step!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
CAD, I think that I will take the former Secretary of the Navy's interpretation of what he was trying to say re:Winnie....

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children?s classic, which says: ?Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.?

IOW, if something isn't working effectively, TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

And it isn't working? Have we not foiled attacks? Have we had any? IMO, going back to the 9/10 mentality this guy seems to support(from what I can tell) isn't "different", it's what got us attacked.

Surely you are just playing Devil's advocate and don't really believe this crap, right?

Have we foiled attacks? TBH, I don't know. I know that the Bush admin has claimed that we have but they really won't release any details to support these claims. I do know that they have also exaggerated claims of potential attacks too.

Have we had any? If you only mean domestic? Yes we have. Remember the Anthrax scares? Those were considered terrorist attacks. If you mean globally, there have been thousands.

If you are trying to make the case that Bush's "post 9/11" way of fighting terrorism is somehow working, you're insane.

First, he didn't even finish the job unlike the "9/10 mentality" when the WTC was bombed in '93 and we tracked down, prosecuted and convicted the person behind it. Where's OBL? Secondly, WTF are we doing in Iraq other than strengthening the recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations?

I can only hope that you are joking and this is just a parody thread full of fail.

^^This is an example of people forgetting. ^^

Ofcourse you don't believe we've stopped them, you only seem to believe what you want.
We've had a few domestic nuts. Always have had, always will have.

You can make a case that the "post 9/11" way isn't working? Oh please do share why you think our approach to terrrorism isn't working.... The '93 issue does not it isn't working and the other is just your opinion on the war.


Question for you(and any of the trolls who wish to actually do something besides trolling) - Should we go arrest OBL and prosecute him in our courtroom?

Just what, pray tell did I forget?

What do you base your belief that we are stopping them on? I can point to the Bush administration stating otherwise:

Al-Qaida has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11 capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

Attacks in Pakistan more than doubled from 375 to 887 between 2006 and 2007, and the number of fatalities jumped by almost 300 percent from 335 to 1,335, the State Department said in its annual terrorism report.

In Afghanistan, the number of attacks rose 16 percent, to 1,127 incidents last year, killing 1,966 people, 55 percent more than the 1,257 who died in 2006, it said.

The report said attacks in Iraq dipped slightly between 2006 and 2007, but they still accounted for 60 percent of worldwide terrorism fatalities, including 17 of the 19 Americans who were killed in attacks last year. The other two were killed in Afghanistan.

More than 22,000 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2007, 8 percent more than in 2006, although the overall number of attacks fell, the report says.

And to answer your question, absolutely. If we capture bin Laden alive, he should be transported to the US, given legal counsel and tried in a court of law. Just like you would want and should get if you were accused of doing something.

OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

It doesn't matter if he is a US citizen. He is accused of crimes by the US and therefore is afforded the right to defend himself against such claims in US courts.

Are you really this freaking stupid?

So, OBL gets captured by US troops... we have to ship him into the US for court? You know how stupid that sounds? I'm sure there are other means of trying him...if it comes to that without bringing him to the US - no?

 

[NeoV]

"And it isn't working? Have we not foiled attacks? Have we had any? IMO, going back to the 9/10 mentality this guy seems to support(from what I can tell) isn't "different", it's what got us attacked"

Well, lets see - there was the terror cell in Buffalo that was arrested and convic.....wait....no....

There was that terror cell in Miami, with a group that wanted to.....buy some guns or something....from FBI agents........but they couldn't even read a map, much less plan a terrorist attack...

There was that guy in Columbus - remember Ashcroft's news conference - "today, Terror in the Heartland has been prevented" - some guy wanted to bomb a mall - but he had already been in prison for 7 or 8 months....oops...

Well, GWB himself did tackle Richard Reid on that airplane, preventing that tragedy, so yes, we have stopped at least one terror attack.


Saying that we haven't had any more international terrorist attacks on our soil isn't exactly a great defense for our current foreign policy - we've had two - 1993, and 2001. We can argue all day about the causes/reason for those, but we have yet to see proof of any real plot foiled since then - the dog and pony shows that Ashcroft created with his press conferences were laughable at best - let's see some actual evidence of real plots that have been stopped in this country if you want to boast about it.

As to the original topic, and the Winnie the Pooh stuff - please tell me you are kidding - please, please, please tell me you aren't that narrow minded. Are democrats not allowed to use metaphors and allusions anymore, because the extremists on the right will take everything literally?

This sounds like some of the garbage that comes out of that completely worthless POS Rush Limbaugh's mouth - have you been plugging into that pill-popping, lying, hypocritical turd again?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NeoV
"And it isn't working? Have we not foiled attacks? Have we had any? IMO, going back to the 9/10 mentality this guy seems to support(from what I can tell) isn't "different", it's what got us attacked"

Well, lets see - there was the terror cell in Buffalo that was arrested and convic.....wait....no....

There was that terror cell in Miami, with a group that wanted to.....buy some guns or something....from FBI agents........but they couldn't even read a map, much less plan a terrorist attack...

There was that guy in Columbus - remember Ashcroft's news conference - "today, Terror in the Heartland has been prevented" - some guy wanted to bomb a mall - but he had already been in prison for 7 or 8 months....oops...

Well, GWB himself did tackle Richard Reid on that airplane, preventing that tragedy, so yes, we have stopped at least one terror attack.


Saying that we haven't had any more international terrorist attacks on our soil isn't exactly a great defense for our current foreign policy - we've had two - 1993, and 2001. We can argue all day about the causes/reason for those, but we have yet to see proof of any real plot foiled since then - the dog and pony shows that Ashcroft created with his press conferences were laughable at best - let's see some actual evidence of real plots that have been stopped in this country if you want to boast about it.

As to the original topic, and the Winnie the Pooh stuff - please tell me you are kidding - please, please, please tell me you aren't that narrow minded. Are democrats not allowed to use metaphors and allusions anymore, because the extremists on the right will take everything literally?

This sounds like some of the garbage that comes out of that completely worthless POS Rush Limbaugh's mouth - have you been plugging into that pill-popping, lying, hypocritical turd again?

Have I stated it is working perfectly? Hells no, but some seem to think it's failed and that we need to go back to the Clinton era approach(the pooh guy is a Clinton guy).

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

It doesn't matter if he is a US citizen. He is accused of crimes by the US and therefore is afforded the right to defend himself against such claims in US courts.

Are you really this freaking stupid?

So, OBL gets captured by US troops... we have to ship him into the US for court? You know how stupid that sounds? I'm sure there are other means of trying him...if it comes to that without bringing him to the US - no?

Trimmed for ease of reading. For some reason, I knew that you were going to question it.

Equally important, under America?s criminal-justice system these rights inure to any person, including foreign citizens, whom federal officials charge with a crime. That point shocks some Americans. They cannot believe that foreigners accused of a crime are guaranteed the same procedural rights as Americans who are accused of a crime. But it?s true ? and it has long been one of great hallmarks of America?s criminal-justice system. It is something that Americans can take pride in.

source

More proof:

AMERICA has told Britain that it can ?kidnap? British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the ?extraordinary rendition? of terrorist suspects.

Now let's have a look at United States v. Alvarez-Machain

The ruling established that foreign citizens who commit crimes against U.S. citizens outside U.S. boundaries still come under jurisdiction of U.S. courtseven when forcibly abducted from their country over official protests of thatnation. Abducted defendants can still receive fair trials under the Due Process Clause. Government-sponsored abductions of another country's citizens inabsence of explicit treaty prohibitions was approved. The Court, relying solely on U.S. domestic law precedents while ignoring international law, held that international implications were more appropriately the concern of the executive branch. The abduction and Court decision led to an outcry from other nations and efforts in the United States to restrict further foreign abductions.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I am not surprised that the Obamabots and some others don't want to discuss this issue and just keep trolling. It seems to be the default reaction of late to anything that questions Obama or his campaign.

Meh, suit yourself.... troll away

Discussions occur in most threads posted in P&N regardless of the opinions "Obamabots" and trolls. This topic is not being discussed because it sucks.

Sure are alot of you obamabots in here....not doing any discussing.

What is an Obamabot?

Is that a Democrat?

Is it a looney liberal?

Is it anyone that does not subscribe the agenda of the radical righties?

Of course it is all of the above.

Speaking of radical righties, Sean Hannirty now refers to Democrats as the "Radicals".

Of course this is an attempt to get people to stop calling the righties the Radical Right.

It seems to be working of course.

I am the only one still refering to the Republicans for what they are, the radical right.

That radicalness on their part for the past seven years has worked out great for us eh?

Oh and how can Obama really have a "security advisor" at this point?

He is not the President.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

It doesn't matter if he is a US citizen. He is accused of crimes by the US and therefore is afforded the right to defend himself against such claims in US courts.

Are you really this freaking stupid?

So, OBL gets captured by US troops... we have to ship him into the US for court? You know how stupid that sounds? I'm sure there are other means of trying him...if it comes to that without bringing him to the US - no?

Trimmed for ease of reading. For some reason, I knew that you were going to question it.

Equally important, under America?s criminal-justice system these rights inure to any person, including foreign citizens, whom federal officials charge with a crime. That point shocks some Americans. They cannot believe that foreigners accused of a crime are guaranteed the same procedural rights as Americans who are accused of a crime. But it?s true ? and it has long been one of great hallmarks of America?s criminal-justice system. It is something that Americans can take pride in.

source

More proof:

That's nice and all but are you suggesting that the only way is to give him access to our courts? There is no other means of trying him?


This is exactly the problem with you "give them access" people, you think it's all about us and that the US is the world court. It is not the world's court. Just like the Gimo people shouldn't have access, neither should we give access to OBL.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

It doesn't matter if he is a US citizen. He is accused of crimes by the US and therefore is afforded the right to defend himself against such claims in US courts.

Are you really this freaking stupid?

So, OBL gets captured by US troops... we have to ship him into the US for court? You know how stupid that sounds? I'm sure there are other means of trying him...if it comes to that without bringing him to the US - no?

Trimmed for ease of reading. For some reason, I knew that you were going to question it.

Equally important, under America?s criminal-justice system these rights inure to any person, including foreign citizens, whom federal officials charge with a crime. That point shocks some Americans. They cannot believe that foreigners accused of a crime are guaranteed the same procedural rights as Americans who are accused of a crime. But it?s true ? and it has long been one of great hallmarks of America?s criminal-justice system. It is something that Americans can take pride in.

source

More proof:

That's nice and all but are you suggesting that the only way is to give him access to our courts? There is no other means of trying him?


This is exactly the problem with you "give them access" people, you think it's all about us and that the US is the world court. It is not the world's court. Just like the Gimo people shouldn't have access, neither should we give access to OBL.

Who is sayin that the US is a world court? These are people captured by the US and now it is the US's responsibility to prove they are guilty.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

It doesn't matter if he is a US citizen. He is accused of crimes by the US and therefore is afforded the right to defend himself against such claims in US courts.

Are you really this freaking stupid?

So, OBL gets captured by US troops... we have to ship him into the US for court? You know how stupid that sounds? I'm sure there are other means of trying him...if it comes to that without bringing him to the US - no?

Trimmed for ease of reading. For some reason, I knew that you were going to question it.

Equally important, under America?s criminal-justice system these rights inure to any person, including foreign citizens, whom federal officials charge with a crime. That point shocks some Americans. They cannot believe that foreigners accused of a crime are guaranteed the same procedural rights as Americans who are accused of a crime. But it?s true ? and it has long been one of great hallmarks of America?s criminal-justice system. It is something that Americans can take pride in.

source

More proof:

That's nice and all but are you suggesting that the only way is to give him access to our courts? There is no other means of trying him?


This is exactly the problem with you "give them access" people, you think it's all about us and that the US is the world court. It is not the world's court. Just like the Gimo people shouldn't have access, neither should we give access to OBL.

One last time before I go for the day for the completely dense (that's you).

He is accused of crimes by the United States (not the world). We are the ones making that accusation. We are the ones that have to prove it if he is captured alive. The only way to prove that is to convince a judge and jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence that we have of him committing a crime against us is to try him.

Unless of course you are advocating further pissing on of the constitution and the very principles that this country was founded upon?

For some reason, I really wouldn't be caught by surprise if you are. I might be that you admit to it....but not that you would.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy


Winnie the Pooh, "violent" football(soccer) fans, and Luke Skywalker? Uhh, two of those 3 are FICTION yet they tell us about terrorism?

Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.

And this guy could be Obama's National Security Adviser? Wow. "judgment to lead" indeed...:roll:

The guy might have some good ideas on a few things but it looks like his overall view is loony as hell.

Thoughts?

Thread unlocked pending resolution.

Perknose
Senior AT Mod

Your post is pretty useless because you don't identify what you think is loony and what might be good ideas? How can I discuss anything without knowing that?

You seemed to be put off, i guess, by the fact that Pooh and Skywalker are fictional, but in the case of the former a lesson from the book is applied to what we've done in Iraq, and in the second, how real people identify with a fictional character. The only quibble you can have with that is if people don't so identify and such a lesson isn't in Pooh, but in either case, the fact they're fictional has no bearing.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

OBL is NOT a US citizen and as such has no business having access to our court system.

It doesn't matter if he is a US citizen. He is accused of crimes by the US and therefore is afforded the right to defend himself against such claims in US courts.

Are you really this freaking stupid?

So, OBL gets captured by US troops... we have to ship him into the US for court? You know how stupid that sounds? I'm sure there are other means of trying him...if it comes to that without bringing him to the US - no?

Trimmed for ease of reading. For some reason, I knew that you were going to question it.

Equally important, under America?s criminal-justice system these rights inure to any person, including foreign citizens, whom federal officials charge with a crime. That point shocks some Americans. They cannot believe that foreigners accused of a crime are guaranteed the same procedural rights as Americans who are accused of a crime. But it?s true ? and it has long been one of great hallmarks of America?s criminal-justice system. It is something that Americans can take pride in.

source

More proof:

That's nice and all but are you suggesting that the only way is to give him access to our courts? There is no other means of trying him?


This is exactly the problem with you "give them access" people, you think it's all about us and that the US is the world court. It is not the world's court. Just like the Gimo people shouldn't have access, neither should we give access to OBL.

"...give [OBL] access to our courts"

i love it when the Right's talking points are blatant false dichotomies or are otherwise suggestive and misleading. it reveals how weak their arguments really are.

trying someone in court is not GIVING ACCESS. we would not be feeding OBL gov't secrets or otherwise putting America in jeopardy (as your chosen wording implies) by prosecuting him.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy


Winnie the Pooh, "violent" football(soccer) fans, and Luke Skywalker? Uhh, two of those 3 are FICTION yet they tell us about terrorism?

Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.

And this guy could be Obama's National Security Adviser? Wow. "judgment to lead" indeed...:roll:

The guy might have some good ideas on a few things but it looks like his overall view is loony as hell.

Thoughts?

It sure is better than using "24" as a training tool!