RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 11:01:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Taking your statement as fact - every person coming to trial in the US from GITMO should be released immediately. Will the jury pool in NYC exclude anyone every hearing the USA had "terrorists" incarcerated at GITMO? Or are you using the jury influence for rationalizing only this latest attack?

It is going to be difficult isn't it? The fact is: ‘what to do with these people’ has taken this long for this very reason. In my view no they can't have a fair trial sadly although I as a jury member wouldn’t necessarily recognise some of them by face or name. Perhaps the only good that could have came from releasing them is to highlight the importance of doing things right in the first place. We all however know there isn't a chance in hell they will be released so this is just a show trial and if it were taking part in another country, we don't like, we'd name it as such.
quote:


Currently if the defense attorney wanted to employ a prejudicial jury pool he can quote every major news organization and a rather large group representing members of Congress labeling this "isolated extremist," as the President calls him, a terrorist with ties to Al Qaeda. I guess they can call in Obama for rebuttal, because to date as best as my reading has found - he's refused to acknowledge any Al Qaeda connection.

Proving or revealing Al Qaeda links is something that should come out at a trial because it goes to indicate the level of premeditation. The system isn't perfect look at any case of a famous person and you'll see the chances of a jury not having a preconceived notions are slim. There is a difference however in accepting the jury may have some preconceived notions and the state that is prosecuting a person actively participating in giving that jury preconceived notions beyond the time allotted within a trial to do so. The defence and the prosecution should get equal time, the prosecutor (state) shouldn’t be allowed to colour the trial beforehand.
quote:


"Political capital?" I quoted the President. On one hand he is very specific that this was an "isolated extremist"; while at the same time directing a; "national security team to keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country."; nowhere identified as Al Queda. The disconnect between the rhetoric and the actions taken go beyond any prejudicial jury selection or decision process. Whether "political capital" is gained or lost is immaterial to me. I leave that decision to those so moved by that agenda.

The language you used repeating the three day time scale is plain to me and I see it as political for that reason as it sounded like an accusation of failing. In truth the speech part about measures taken sounds as familiar as any leader has said in the past. Seems pretty obvious for anyone to say we must find out how explosives were smuggled onto a plane, that's a given. Why we have a list of people of interest but don't check that list at airports and subject those people to more scrutiny is more important for me to know personally.



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 11:22:26 AM)

quote:

Proving or revealing Al Qaeda links is something that should come out at a trial because it goes to indicate the level of premeditation.
That puts you on the side that represents this person as a "isolated extremist". Were he an 'enemy' of war what would be the process?

Allegedly, even under this Administration, we are at war with something called 'global terrorism'. What is a perpetrator of war called and when was a civilian trial part of processing a prisoner of war? What is today's politically correct reference to the individuals involved? Should it be different if one succeed and the other didn't?

This morning 8 US civilians were killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan. What will the President call this perpetrator; an "isolated extremist" criminal or an enemy? Maybe Obama will use the more neutral 'insurgent' reference. Not quite enemy, yet a tad stronger than 'isolated extremist'. Considering that in this case the individual died I guess the only thing to consider would be not to offend him in order to avoid a potential civil law suit brought by his family.

A suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest attacked an American base in eastern Afghanistan late Wednesday, U.S. military officials said.

There were conflicting reports about whether the bomber walked into the dining facility or the gym. CNN said the casualty toll ranged from five to nine people.

The U.S. death toll in Afghanistan is the highest it's been since the war began in 2001; 312 U.S. troops have died there this year.

Last year, 155 U.S. troops were killed.

Yup - "War is Heck!"



Sanity -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 11:31:58 AM)


quote:

Dick Cheney: Barack Obama 'trying to pretend'

Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.


“[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe,” Cheney said in a statement to POLITICO. “Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society.”


Cheney was joining a chorus of Republicans who have criticized Obama following the Christmas Day attack, in which a Nigerian suspect is accused of trying to blow up a loaded airliner with a bomb stitched into his underwear.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31054.html#ixzz0bCaw9Yai




LadyEllen -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 12:24:27 PM)

Sorry, but I just dont buy this as any evidence of Obama being soft on the issue but rather of his taking a sensible approach to not hype up the situation so as to scare citizens (and provide victory to the enemy) and not feed the fire of radical hatred by the use of the sort of loose talk that was common from Bush.

I would sincerely doubt that the language and tone used behind the scenes with regard to the utter failure of the systems (developed by the Bush regime we should note) that should have kept this man grounded at Amsterdam (preferably in Yemen or Nigeria), will be as calm and measured.

E



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 12:28:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
That puts you on the side that represents this person as a "isolated extremist". Were he an 'enemy' of war what would be the process?

Allegedly, even under this Administration, we are at war with something called 'global terrorism'. What is a perpetrator of war called and when was a civilian trial part of processing a prisoner of war? What is today's politically correct reference to the individuals involved? Should it be different if one succeed and the other didn't?

This morning 8 US civilians were killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan. What will the President call this perpetrator; an "isolated extremist" criminal or an enemy? Maybe Obama will use the more neutral 'insurgent' reference. Not quite enemy, yet a tad stronger than 'isolated extremist'. Considering that in this case the individual died I guess the only thing to consider would be not to offend him in order to avoid a potential civil law suit brought by his family.


Well governments and politicians like to confuse the issue by saying the rules of war are different but the reality is the rules of war were largely created to resolve issues between sovereign states that declare war on one another, so often don't really apply to the modern problems we face anyway. Al Qaeda isn't a state, it follows no rules thus it is a criminal organisation. The whole war on terror language (or we are at war language) in effect has been mostly used by your government and others to instil fear in people and so enable them to pass laws which effect the long standing civil rights we all used to have. Terrorism is a criminal act, no matter how terrorising it may feel (how many people affected or what hysteria whipped up by it) it is still a criminal act and there are sufficient strengths in our civilian courts to punish those that commit mass murder or attempt to.

If the US confirms it has invoked martial law within the US for all of its citizens and everybody entering the US then you can use a different process but last time I checked the US hadn't been declared a war zone without government representation.



Sanity -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 12:42:57 PM)


Would you say that these terrorists are at war with us? Do they tell themselves they're at war? Or do they tell themselves, do they believe themselves to be mere criminals.

They with the help of co-conspirators are willing to get on an airplane and blow themselves up in the process of killing hundreds of men women and children. Just a criminal act?

Really?



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 12:54:46 PM)

Yes a criminal act tinged with mental illness.

Also you have a poor view of war if you remember war being about killing innocents. The problem is we have been so long away from a real legitimate war that we don’t actually know what war is anymore or how you define it. To call what they do 'waging war' is almost an insult. When Hitler indiscriminately killed Jews it wasn’t war it was genocide. You can use the term 'genocide' if you like but please don’t use the word 'war' because it legitimises their fight when we use this language. They are not warriors or people fighting a holy war, they are deluded criminals looking to kill innocent people that have nothing to do with their fight.



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 12:55:01 PM)

quote:

the utter failure of the systems (developed by the Bush regime we should note) that should have kept this man grounded at Amsterdam (preferably in Yemen or Nigeria), will be as calm and measured.
How long will it take for this to be an unacceptable rationalized excuse?

If by proclamation on January 20th GITMO was set for closing why couldn't some attention be paid to, in your opinion, "a failure of the systems"? This is Bush's fault is the best thing to say about Obama's failure to think it was necessary to change it? Appreciating there hasn't been any success coming from this Administration can there be something else other than; "it is Bush's fault", for the failures?

Our enemy, or at least another "isolated extremist" killed 9 according to reports; also Bush's fault?

quote:

hype up the situation so as to scare citizens (and provide victory to the enemy) and not feed the fire of radical hatred
You saw the President's two speeches on the matter as calming?

I don't have the prejudicial nature required to believe that although the enemy comes from an Islamic background, are self proclaimed 'devout Muslims, having ties to Al Qaeda; to think that every Muslim, with a similar Islamic background is, supports, or sympathizes for the Al Qaeda cause. Hell, Richard Reid was a US citizen even after taking on the name Abdul Raheem; the common denominator between him and Mr. Abdulmutallab is their self proclaimed devout Islamic faith. That's not the fault of the religion of Islam, but it is a fact devoid of any reference by the President. Immaterial, or is the disconnect and appeasement rhetoric coming from the President the result of believing that most of his constituents can't make the same distinction?

Obama must have either a belief or fear of that being the case. His words do not make Obama appear "soft" it makes him appear delusional when he doesn't acknowledge what the majority of his own citizens consider the fundamental cause of the problem. Radical Islam organized as a group under the umbrella 'Al Qaeda' is proud of their accomplishments and will not change their mission statement or goal because Obama doesn't name them, or 'radical Islam' in his "calm and measured" response. It is just as likely to motivate them.



LadyEllen -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 12:57:22 PM)

Well done, you got it.

E



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 1:12:44 PM)

quote:

Terrorism is a criminal act, no matter how terrorising it may feel (how many people affected or what hysteria whipped up by it) it is still a criminal act and there are sufficient strengths in our civilian courts to punish those that commit mass murder or attempt to.


I don't see much hysteria exhibited or being whipped up. I see reaction to this latest example of leadership coming from this Administration. I appreciate your comments and would like it if you would consider reconciling your position through hypothetical question or two.

The bomber killed, at last report, 9 in Afghanistan. The perpetrator, who didn't identify as being from any "sovereign state". He is part of the "criminal organization" - Al Qaeda; and is seen running away after planting a bomb that killed 9 instead of being his own delivery system. Should he be chased, caught Mirandized and arrested like a 'Cops' episode, or shot? Would the person shooting him/her have to face an 'Internal Affairs' investigation for justifiable force in the case of the perpetration not having the ability to carry a bomb and a handgun? Since we aren't at 'war' or if saying so is a misuse of language; do we have troops deployed in Afghanistan or police?

Do you think this Administration has a consensus answer for that question?



popeye1250 -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 1:35:14 PM)

I'd be more comfortable if he'd said something like; "And to al qeada I wish you a long, painfull, lonely, lingering death" or something similar.
Looks like we'll be having another "trial!"



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 1:51:47 PM)

During the 90's we didn't consider ourselves to be at war with Serbia but it didn't stop us from having an effective fighting force within a war zone. If we have a mandate to be there and administer justice or create security then that should be done as per the rules of engagement that we often hear about. In negotiating those rules of engagement with the Afghan government we should not agree something that makes it impossible for our people to make such snap decisions or puts them at risk in terms of hesitating to a threat. They should be clear and concise which allows every event to be seen in black and white.

When such action is undertaken there should always be an investigation; not to proportion blame but to give people answers and allow people to learn from it. Perhaps also the person shot had family and as a family member you’d want to know as much as possible. I see what you are asking but I don't see it as an issue because within an area of high threat such as a warzone your are justified in using extreme measures to counter a threat. The army isn't the police and they shouldn't ever be asked to act as such, whenever they have been (for example in UN peacekeeping actions without a clear remit) it has ended in disaster.

In the specific example you give where a person is running away from an incident you have to ask yourself what evidence is there he is the bomber and not just scared of the explosion. If it is clear he planted the bomb (if so why was he allowed to) then he could be shot if presenting a threat and I don't realistically think any investigation into such an incident would cast the person who fired the shot in a bad light. The reality is the situation is a bit unrealistic because not many bombers are caught red handed, they always have the element of surprise. I'll also add I don't think the military would aim to kill such a person as then nothing more could be learnt from such a person but obviously it depends on the threat he still poses to them. If he is detained for questioning it should be done correctly. Obviously if you have the ability and time to detain someone then you have time to do that in a set way.

I doubt any administration has a consensus on any issue, they may agree at the time but later have to find ways to set themselves apart from individuals associated with disastrous policy. They stand united until people start asking awkward questions, this is my experience anyway.



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 2:13:36 PM)

Thank you for your contributions and your well made points. I appreciate your perspective, and look forward to more debate and conversation.

Would have sent this as I normally would directly through CMail - but clicking on your name resulted in 'no profile found'; so I hope you don't mind a quick personal note posted here instead.



tazzygirl -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 2:31:25 PM)

Could have sworn i saw something in the news recently about Gitmo still closing.



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 2:51:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Could have sworn i saw something in the news recently about Gitmo still closing.


Eventually, from the December 23rd NY Times...
Mr. Obama has acknowledged that he would miss the Jan. 22 deadline for closing the prison that he set shortly after taking office.

Rebuffed this month by skeptical lawmakers when it sought finances to buy a prison in rural Illinois, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with the money to replace the Guantnamo Bay prison.

As a result, officials now believe that they are unlikely to close the prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer its population of terrorism suspects until 2011 at the earliest - a far slower timeline for achieving one of President Obama's signature national security policies than they had previously hinted.

I guess like a lot of things, the situation was worse than he thought when he signed the executive order. Not the least problem being finding a place to keep them in the US. It appears Obama has to deal with a NIMBY situation.

Also recent events can also affect the "2011 at the earliest" It seems that two of the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) planners behind this attack were released from Guantanamo Bay during the Bush administration. That calls into question the competence of Bush administration officials but also the wisdom of closing Guantanamo Bay. How many other enemies of America and the West are going to be released back to the battlefield? As Mike Goldfarb asks: "Is the Obama administration seriously still considering sending some 90 Yemeni detainees now being held at Gitmo back to their country of origin, where al Qaeda are apparently running around with impunity?"
I highlighted the "during the Bush administration" reference for you. You think he should release them all and take advantage of the built in - 'BUSH DID IT!' leadership example?

He's already done so with Yemenis Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mari, Farouq Ali Ahmed, Ayman Saeed Abdullah Batarfi, Muhammaed Yasir Ahmed Taher, Fayad Yahya Ahmed al Rami and Riyad Atiq Ali Abdu al Haf; perhaps they are booking flights as we speak.

Seems like there are a lot of "isolated extremists" up for consideration within the Administraton's 'Terrorist'; Whoops sorry - 'Isolated Extremist Catch & Release Program".



tazzygirl -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 3:05:13 PM)

I never said they should all be released. I merely asked a question. Projecting alot of assumptions today, arent you?



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 3:15:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I never said they should all be released. I merely asked a question. Projecting alot of assumptions today, arent you?

No more than usual. I asked a question what did you assume? Why shouldn't they be released? Where in the US could they expect to get a fair trial?

Since we're revisiting old news - why is one aspect of the Constitution being considered to make them eligible for a trial by jury (of their peers?); when, unless it has been done after the fact, their Constitutional right to Miranda wasn't given prior to their 'arrest'?

The selective use of the Constitution isn't assumed, it's a consequence of the policy being considered. However, since similar selectivity is a critical part of the new Health Care Bill, exempting a State (Nebraska) from paying their State's share of Medicare expense and instead putting that burden on all other States; maybe selectivity of Constitutional law is the cornerstone of what this Administration hopes to accomplish.

What do you think?



domiguy -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 3:27:17 PM)

we live in a free society. I'm not going to get in a twist over some 18 year old fuck wad.  Yeah he was on some list.  Probably should have been placed on some other list or two as well.

At Ohare in the next few months we are getting "the new" full body image scanners that will be able to show the security officers which nut of mine is a tad bit light in the sack.

We live in a free society...I say to you fucking terrorists, "Is this all you got?...You send an eighteen year old boy to do a manly terrorists job.?" 

As an American I am offended. We deserve a much more compelling, adamant and noteworthy of an opponent. 

These mamby pamby terrorists that they have been sending our way of late are really starting to piss me off.




tazzygirl -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 3:30:45 PM)

I think, first, we should stay on topic, which was terrorists, with a lead in to Gitmo. Now, lets be real here, we are talking about a piece or paper drafted to create our form of government how many years ago? Who would have thought then that this could happen. Hell, there werent even thinking of flying then, beyond strapping on a pair of wings.

I, like everyone else, saw the pictures and read the actions concerning Gitmo. Yes, i disagreed with what happened. I do not disagree with the detainment. Say what you wish, its in the best interests of national security, further evidenced by the one's who were realsed by Bush and are currently attacking once again.

Thats what i think

smiles



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Those who will not be named" At least by President Obama (12/30/2009 3:50:11 PM)

quote:

I think, first, we should stay on topic, which was terrorists, with a lead in to Gitmo.


If I did that - I would have ignored you completely since the topic was the President's response to the attack on December 25th. You brought up the closing of GITMO, but I won't apologize for having the courtesy of not ignoring the question; that just the way I am.

quote:

lets be real here, we are talking about a piece or paper drafted to create our form of government how many years ago? Who would have thought then that this could happen. Hell, there weren't even thinking of flying then, beyond strapping on a pair of wings.
That "piece of paper" wasn't drafted to create our form of government it was created to document the laws FOR the government formed. Until recently, States didn't get any form of 'special dispensation' granted to them if their Senator would vote yes for a Bill - that is completely new territory.

On your other point - Miranda Rights went into effect as a result of a Supreme Court decision made in 1966, people WERE flying then - they even had TV!

quote:

I, like everyone else, saw the pictures and read the actions concerning Gitmo.
I didn't assume I actually tried to find some "pictures" and documentation of "actions" concerning Gitmo. The worst I could find was the accusation of prisoners that the quality of food and the Koran being placed in the lavatory. There were no pictures of 'Water-boarding' but I don't think that anyone is representing it didn't happen. Perhaps you were thinking of the 'Abu Ghraib' pictures?

quote:

Say what you wish, its in the best interests of national security, further evidenced by the one's who were released by Bush and are currently attacking once again.
What is in the "best interests of national security"; keeping GITMO open and the prisoners incarcerated or following the Bush example releasing more who can provide other "isolated examples" of however you want to refer to what happened on the airliner going into Detroit?



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375