RE: A bit disappointed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


bestbabync -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/9/2008 6:40:52 PM)

i think he is human and he just recieved information that will test him to the extreme!




blacksword404 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/9/2008 8:48:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TenorTao

hmmm..

His tone.. his exhausted demeanor..

He probably had been just briefed on a number of issues, he previously had not been fully informed on, dire issues of deep importance, foreign relations etc..
In today's tenuous global situation, could bring anybody "down a notch"





You think you know all the secrets until you actually know all the secrets. I look for him to age quickly as the stress of the job hits him full on. Big jobs ahead for him.




Daddysredhead -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/9/2008 8:56:22 PM)

He certainly has gotten a lot more gray hairs since he started his campaign.  This whole business takes its toll on people.




subfever -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/9/2008 10:17:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Perhaps it is just that he has relized the enourmity of the tasks before him. It almost seems like he was not as confident. That's not so bad because I'm sure he has been told things he did not know until AFTER winning the election. Like reality is upon him.

Perhaps he just found out that there are a bunch of things he just can't do.

Perhaps it was the tone of his voice, which makes me wonder just what he's been told now that he is PE.

T


Perhaps he had been told by a representative of the real PTB how things are going to be.




Bethnai -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 6:06:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I grow weary of people talking about race and it's play in this last election. Let's get down to nuts and bolts.

I saw Obama's "first" news conference or whatever you call it, and I was not impressed. He sounded more like a politician and less like,,,,,, Obama. I am not making snap judgements here, just reporting my observation. I really hope he does not fall into the same hole as the rest of them. It wasn't as bad as Bush, who I actually refused to listen to toward the end, but it still wasn't the same as when Obama was running and hadn't won yet.

Perhaps it was the tone of his voice, which makes me wonder just what he's been told now that he is PE. I surely hope it's not complacency and I am not making that charge in any way. Perhaps it was the questions that were asked, maybe some of those points are something he did not yet focus upon. I don't know.

He seemed more calm, but not more self assured. Perhaps it is merely my perception, but it seems pretty real. Perhaps it is just that he has relized the enourmity of the tasks before him. It almost seems like he was not as confident. That's not so bad because I'm sure he has been told things he did not know until AFTER winning the election. Like reality is upon him. Perhaps he just found out that there are a bunch of things he just can't do.

At least that's how it seems to me.

I wll do the usual, prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Maybe I am more perceptive than most, maybe not, but I was wondering if anyone else noticed this. I am one of those people it is very hard to lie to, I can almost smell it in a face to face conversation, but this was not a face to face conversation. I downloaded a book called How To Get The Truth Out Of Anyone and when I read it I realized I already knew what it said. The problem is I was not alone in a room with the Man. It's a one way thing. Getting the truth is not difficult when you ask the questions. Getting the truth on a TV screen is quite another matter.

I will remain optimistic until I have reason not to be. Perhaps he is trying to say, via attitude, inflection and even body language that we simply can't expect the land of milk and honey overnight. I'll buy that. He could shake the tree by it's roots and I would not expect any significant positive results for at least a year.

One thing that doesn't please me is that he intends to go ahead with the missile plan in Europe, which is pretty much asking for another Cuban missile crisis. Hopefully it is just a bargaining chip for upcoming meetings with the Medvev/Putin administration. Even if he does it, just don't spend billions a month and don't push that button. However I say if you're never going to push the button, why have the missiles ? Perhaps Russia is thinking the same thing.

I hope Obama realizes that the other big kids on the block have been putting up with our antics and even supporting us during these times when we seemed hell bent on pissing everyone in the world off. In other words, I hope he knows how to use the word NO.

NO more. Get out of Iraq, Afghanistan can happen later, you remember what happened to Hitler when the Nazis fought a multi-fronted war. Their reach overextended their grasp. We are on the brink of something like this. Any warrior needs a rest period, and if you think of the US as an entity, we are due. We need to recoup, to rebuild the machine, to actually rest. To heal. Perhaps that's my tribal instinct talking, but it makes sense to me.

Yes I recognize what that is, like a mental throwback, but see it worked. My tribal instincts are that of a Polak hillbilly. Yup, like the Clampetts on Beverly Hillbillies, sans the money and we don't shoot quite as well. No way I could shoot flies off the wall at thirty feet, but we ain't bad.

So did anyone see what I saw ?

T



I did not see the same thing. I heard him say twice that he was not the president, yet, and that Bush was still his president and that he still supported him. He had his first briefing and I'm thinking, it is smarter to keep ones mouth shut in order to receive future information. That would be a common sense thing. There is nothing at the moment that he can do but what he is doing.  Now, the journalists (I use that term loosly) tried to ask questions that would say that with the new knowledge did he change his view and he told them he would not answer the questions.

Now, here is the kicker, he said many months ago that he thought that he thought that Afghanistan was were we needed to be. So, the world cannot act shocked if he does that. He wants the troops out in 16 months of Iraq.
I would keep all foreign policy on hold till after he takes office. Another thing to keep in mind, some countries will flat out be unwilling to enter negotiations until after this man is in office.

I think he is pretty much aware that people are going to watch him and make a big toodoo over what can be accomplished in the first 100 days. Podesta has spoken about things that can be accomplished as quickly as possible.









mc1234 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 7:04:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bethnai

I think he is pretty much aware that people are going to watch him and make a big toodoo over what can be accomplished in the first 100 days. Podesta has spoken about things that can be accomplished as quickly as possible.


A 'talking head' on one of the news stations made a great point - he wishes the whole concept of the 'first hundred days' went away forever.  Obama made the point that things take time to accomplish and may not even be straightened out over one term, let alone 100 days.  I fully agree. 




Owner59 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 8:55:54 AM)

 
The press gave bush a 4-5 year honeymoon.

We should at least give this guy the customary one year honeymoon that all 1st term guys get.

The man just saw the Oval Office for the 1st time.

It takes time to absorb it all.

The guy`s only human.We`re not going to see sparks fly out of his head.

Here`s something to naw on.[&:]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_guantanamo

He`s going to clean that mess up,forthwith and restore the rule of law at the same time,all while chewing gum.[;)]




celticlord2112 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 9:01:18 AM)

quote:

He`s going to clean that mess up,forthwith and restore the rule of law at the same time,all while chewing gum.

You need to read more closely.  He's going to manufacture new law to cover the situation, complete with new (and secret) tribunals, based on the cited article.

Major problem with his idea--excepting for any who committed illegal acts within US jurisdiction, there is not a US court competent to hear any charges against the Guantanamo detainees.




Owner59 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 9:07:49 AM)

now you`re a lawyer also?
[8|]

I bet you really miss Fredo........




celticlord2112 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 9:35:16 AM)

Perhaps, then, you can provide the specific sections of the U.S. Code under which the detainees at Guantanamo may be lawfully charged, and which lawfully were applicable to the circumstances of their original capture and detention.

Set aside the legality (and propriety) of the detention itself.  If two non-US citizens sit in a foreign country, and gather weapons and explosives with the intent of doing harm on American soil, what crime is committed under U.S. law?

It is easy to say "terrorism" is wrong--whether it is a "crime" is an entirely different discussion, with a much more difficult answer to derive.




Termyn8or -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 10:18:47 AM)

celt, I couldn't agree more. Actually if people are in foreign countries plotting against us, other than it being our own damn fault, we have no claim of jurisdiction. 

I refuse to study law in the conventional sense because there is so much law it would take a lifetime. However I have studied some of the other aspects of law, supreme court case law, Constitutional law and so forth.

I see no way to claim jurisdiction save one. Certain parts of the Trading With The Enemy Act taken together out of context could do it. It is very far fetched but they can make building code violations a felony if they want to. In this case let's say an Iraqi insurgent blows up some of our military equipment and/or personell.

Well first of all he should just be shot, the only reason to take POWs is for bargaining chips or information. For Gitmo to be legal certain assumptions must be made, and all under US law. There is a provision for siezure under the TWTEA, in that since we defeated Iraq, all it's land and everything is ours, and that includes the oil. That when a ship is captured at sea that US law can be applied, and that becomes part of our territory. This is a long stretch even using the TWTEA, but the provisions are there. I think a good lawyer can make it hold up.

Military law is a different thing, and they want to try these detainees under military jurisdiction. There are many aspects to this. First of all when you go into a US court for anything, say a speeding ticket, the flag you see has a gold fringe. That is a military flag (in that venue) and indicates that the court operates under Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction. That means that the TWTEA can be applied to US Citizens because it is right in there and I have read it. Anyone can be tried in a military court due to more recent actions, even though the regular courts don't have to follow the Constitution.

If you remember Kevorkian, they tried him multiple times under statutory law, which is what AMJ courts administer and they couldn't get a conviction until they tried him in Michigan under common law. That means they remove the gold fringed flag and the judge removes his robe. Although Robert's rules of order still apply, the major rules are a bit different. They tried the case basically under a different jurisdiction, and that is proof that jurisdiction can be challenged, and it has. I have seen it done sucessfully.

That is good reason why they must try these detainees in a military court, because they will entertain no notions that they might not have jurisdiction, the assertion is simple, we have the guns and the keys to the jail. You deal with us our way.

Yes it is arrogant, but that seems to be our style.

So the premise is that since we occupy Iraq, it is US soil. That provision though there is rarely evoked, but if someone commits a crime in the Green Zone, there is no doubt because it is a US military installation. The wording of the law is clear, the green zone is like being at any other such installation, or being within ten square miles of the capitol.

This well defined tenet has been successfully used in courts by US Citizens to get out of charges in US courts. Once jurisdiction is challeged by a defedant, the prosecution has to prove that the court has jurisdiction. Don't try this if you don't know what you are doing, and if you do you already know to submit the challenge in writing before the court date. That way they can't rule it out of the public record. Talking doesn't help, it's been said that the pen is mightier than the sword, and that just may apply, but it did not include the spoken word, which can easily be struck  from the record.

The Gitmo issue is pretty large in my mind, I remember at the beginning of the campaign Obama saying "We don't do that". Now we will find out if we don't do that, or if we do.

T




corysub -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 10:26:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What were you expecting from a news conference three days after the election?

He had just met with his economic team. Once. Were you thinking, "OK, that's solved, what's next?"

He did indicate where he's going broadly economically in the short run, showed us an impressive team, and went back to work.

Bringing peace to the world and curing all disease isn't on the agenda until Tuesday.

So Thursday or Friday at the latest, all that will be history.

[8|]




He just met with his economic team!!...Darn...I must have misunderstood Barack during the campaign.  I thought he knew about the economic situation in the U.S. and think he said McCain didn't...and that he knew what should be done with infrastructure BS....etc..  Maybe it's starting to dawn on this chap that he is over his head in the job...the "Peter Principle" times a thousand.  Lets hope he puts it all together before he has the responsibility for decision making.  Right or wrong... "right or left"...he is going to be our President and should he fail..we all fail...big time.




corysub -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 10:53:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Perhaps, then, you can provide the specific sections of the U.S. Code under which the detainees at Guantanamo may be lawfully charged, and which lawfully were applicable to the circumstances of their original capture and detention.

Set aside the legality (and propriety) of the detention itself.  If two non-US citizens sit in a foreign country, and gather weapons and explosives with the intent of doing harm on American soil, what crime is committed under U.S. law?

It is easy to say "terrorism" is wrong--whether it is a "crime" is an entirely different discussion, with a much more difficult answer to derive.


Obviously, you can't be serious and are trying to be funny.  Of course, you do realize that these people were the "enemy"...as much as the Japanese and Germans in WW2..or the VietCong in Indochina. Historically, prisoners of war have no rights in U.S. courts. But even so, they are released when the war ends. The War on Terror has no foreseeable end so I would agree that they should be interned for the duration, rather than be released as some have, and see them back in the battle killing Americans.  For a second I thought you were serious.

In his dissent to the Supreme Court decision regarding rights of Gitmo detainees, According to Justice Scalia, there is a difference between the extent of the Executive's power over citizens and non-citizens. In the case of citizens, ". . . A view of the Constitution that gives the Executive authority to use military force rather than the force of law against citizens on American soil flies in the face" of the American Constitution. In the case of non-citizens, "The Commander in Chief and his subordinates had every reason to expect that the internment of combatants at Guantanamo Bay would not have the consequence of bringing the cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs."
Isn't it amazing guys that we live in a country where people care more about "saving the terrorists" and "saving the spotted owl" than they do about "saving our democracy".  At least we can start with agreement that "terrorism is wrong"...gimme a break...

An  Obama administration makes it clear that the Court will continue its liberal bias, legislating away from the bench our freedoms during one of the most dangerous times in our history.

                                                       http://jihadwatch.org/archives/021371.php




stef -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 1:29:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

Right or wrong... "right or left"...he is going to be our President and should he fail..we all fail...big time.

I don't know if it just somehow managed to evade your notice or if you're just completely in denial, but we are already failing...big time.

~stef




celticlord2112 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 2:24:58 PM)

quote:

Obviously, you can't be serious and are trying to be funny. Of course, you do realize that these people were the "enemy"...as much as the Japanese and Germans in WW2..or the VietCong in Indochina. Historically, prisoners of war have no rights in U.S. courts. But even so, they are released when the war ends. The War on Terror has no foreseeable end so I would agree that they should be interned for the duration, rather than be released as some have, and see them back in the battle killing Americans. For a second I thought you were serious.

I am extremely serious, and you have summarized the legal dilemma nicely.

Terrorism is evil, and terrorists are evil. Yet until the terrorist ventures within US jurisidiction, he is not a criminal merely because he is a terrorist. The question I posed to Owner59 remains as yet unanswered....what specific statute within the U.S. Code might these detainees plausibly have violated?

In a courtroom, a "crime" is a specific concept, predicated on a specific violation of a specific law, committed by specific persons within the jurisidction of US law and US courts. Non US citizens living and acting abroad owe no allegiance to US law; the vast majority of Gitmo detainees are prisoners taken during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if these detainees are "unlawful combatants"--as could be argued under the WWII-era Quirin decision, what law have they broken? In Quirin the defendants were unarguably on US soil, engaged in activities against the United States and United States government; which of these detainees has engaged in an activity that is a violation of US law within US jurisidiction?

The fact that new courts and tribunals are being discussed in order to "process" these detainees indicates that, contrary to earlier presumptions, existing civilian courts and military tribunals do not provide a meaningful framework for trying these detainees.

While the Constitution grants Congress the power to create whatever courts it pleases inferior to the Supreme Court, the Constitution also limits the power of the Judiciary (which is the Supreme Court plus all inferior courts) to:
quote:

...all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


While the United States is easily a party to a controversy involving terrorists and terrorist conspiracies, such jurisdiction is inherently civil and not criminal. Civil proceedings are not what are being contemplated. While civil litigation can and does draw on an expansive body of case and common law, criminal proceedings are constrained by explicit statute--there is no crime unless it can be found in the letter of the law.

What U.S. statute can be violated in a foreign land (Iraq and Afghanistan) by non-US citizens? What crime can they possibly have committed within the scope of US law?




BlackPhx -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 3:40:19 PM)

CL I think what you are looking for is actually found under the Hague convention and The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Specifically: Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. However, nations that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason. Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it".), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them. (Article 2, of both Conventions: "[The High Contracting Parties] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to [a Power which is not a contracting party], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof". note: emphasis added).

Layman explanations may be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war with reference articles and bibliography for reference.

poenkitten





Termyn8or -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 3:47:42 PM)

Like I said, only if they are under US occupation. When we leave wherever they were captured, they should be freed.

T




celticlord2112 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 5:09:59 PM)

quote:

Specifically: Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution.

What civilian law have the detainees at Guantanamo violated?

If we're going to try them in civilian courts there absolutely must be a civilian law violation--aka, a "crime"--at issue.  What is it?




Owner59 -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 6:59:41 PM)

We`ll get back to ya.....




rexrgisformidoni -> RE: A bit disappointed (11/10/2008 8:15:35 PM)

Just execute them where found. Save the taxpayers a few bucks than having to keep them in dog kennels at gitmo. and who gives 2 shits about the international laws in the situation, they rammed 3 planes into buildings and caused another to crash. that makes any terrorist fuck a legitimate target, not worthy of a trial, just an immediate execution.
bullets are cheap.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125