RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone"

RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (Full Version)

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

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 9:49:14 AM)
Here is a detailed discussion about how a domestic "terrorist group" can be identified. Or not. Bottom line: they are whatever any government agency decides is a terrorist group. June 29, 2010 Does the US Have Any Domestic Terrorist Groups? Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 10:18:57 AM)
http://www.european-freedom-initiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=245:islamic-extremist-planned-to-bomb-florida-sites-with-wmd&catid=16:world-news-america&Itemid=15

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 11:02:18 AM)
Thanks for the link, tazzy. Interesting. Does it pertain to the discussion, in some way? Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 11:11:49 AM)
Yes. Though I know you dont see it. Would this be someone who would have special treatment under terrorism laws because he became a naturalized citisen and, therefore, could use that to defend against "treatments" related to his terrorism? How many would quickly go that route?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 11:16:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Yes. Though I know you dont see it. Would this be someone who would have special treatment under terrorism laws because he became a naturalized citisen and, therefore, could use that to defend against "treatments" related to his terrorism? How many would quickly go that route? He's an American citizen. He is entitled to his Constitutional rights. Isn't the test of the rule of law, and whether or not we really have rights, in instances in which it is difficult to honor them? You know, kinda, "I detest what you say, but would die to ensure you had the right to say it." and all that jazz? Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 11:32:49 AM)
Does that change the fact that he is being tried for terrorism in a federal court? Why arent all terrorists allowed a federal trial as opposed to a military one? Should citizenship change the venue? Or is our justice system supposed to be blind justice and impartiality?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 12:34:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Does that change the fact that he is being tried for terrorism in a federal court? No problem with him being tried for terrorism in a federal court. That's the way it's suppose to work. He's a citizen, after all. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Why arent all terrorists allowed a federal trial as opposed to a military one? Because only American citizens are guaranteed due process under our Constitution. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Should citizenship change the venue? Yes. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Or is our justice system supposed to be blind justice and impartiality? Our Constitutional protections are guaranteed for American citizens. While it's good to be "fair and impartial" for all people, the form of that can be different without destroying our rights. In other words, US due process is mandatory for citizens, and optional for non-citizens. Whether that is "good" or "bad" or "moral" or "immoral" or "fair" or "unfair" isn't the issue. The issue is that that famous "slippery slope" has slide into territory that should anger and frighten any American citizen who believes in the our Constitutional form of government and the Bill of Rights. Firm

MrRodgers -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 12:44:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If two wrongs make a right (as you seem to be claiming) thats okay, because its better than Obamas spiritual advisor of twenty some odd years preaching "*GOD DAMN* AMERICA*" [;)] quote:* ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Far better than saying ... "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money" Obama campaign warns of 'extremist' Republicans You are entitled to your opinion... dont make it look like its the opinion of others, Sanity. Static Bad Audio Interrupt Obama's Iowa Webcast Now, why dont you give credit for that headline where credit is due? http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=static+bad+audio The left doesnt need to worry themselves to death over FOX NEWS' popularity so much as long as Matt Drudge is around Dont worry sanity, we arent. [;)] Tell you what, this is not the country, the America I served in the military. This is not the country I want to pay taxes to keep billionaires...billionaires, to keep farmers from farming and increase stockholder dividends or make up for something called 'capitals gains' whatever that is. [sic] If the Bushes had come along before, I might have left for points outside this country back then. As it is, I am considering a tropical paradise for my retirement to pleasure and if another repub pres is ever elected...I am gone for sure.

tazzygirl -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 1:06:41 PM)
quote: In other words, US due process is mandatory for citizens, and optional for non-citizens. Whether that is "good" or "bad" or "moral" or "immoral" or "fair" or "unfair" isn't the issue. The issue is that that famous "slippery slope" has slide into territory that should anger and frighten any American citizen who believes in the our Constitutional form of government and the Bill of Rights. Problem with that is that neither of those were written with the knowledge of bombs and terrorists groups like Al Queda. I believe they should all go through the federal system. Why is the military taking so long? I dont pretend to know all the ins and outs, which is why I am asking. People complain about Guantanamo... rightfully so. Why is this all taking so long? Is it because they can?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 2:20:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: In other words, US due process is mandatory for citizens, and optional for non-citizens. Whether that is "good" or "bad" or "moral" or "immoral" or "fair" or "unfair" isn't the issue. The issue is that that famous "slippery slope" has slide into territory that should anger and frighten any American citizen who believes in the our Constitutional form of government and the Bill of Rights. Problem with that is that neither of those were written with the knowledge of bombs and terrorists groups like Al Queda. shrugs There were indeed bombs and terrorist groups like Al Queda "back in the day", they were just called other things. The methods may have changed, due to changes in technology, but the type of people, and the ability and desire to kill innocent people has been going on since Cain and Able. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I believe they should all go through the federal system. Why is the military taking so long? I dont pretend to know all the ins and outs, which is why I am asking. Why is the military taking so long? Ask the CINC. "Believing that they should all go through the Federal system" seems to be the problem, because it was what the current CINC promised, if he got elected. Which he did. And then found out that doing the idealistic thing isn't always the most prudent or political smart thing to do. Since he discovered that little conundrum, it appears that he has chosen a path of "do as little as possible" rather than making the hard decisions and taking the flack. That's my take, anyway. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl People complain about Guantanamo... rightfully so. Why is this all taking so long? Is it because they can? See my above comments. As an aside, the CINC got caught in the "idealistic" versus "reality" clutch over the closing of Gitmo as well. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 2:24:29 PM)
My bet is he knew the nebulosa IV conunudrum prior to launch. It isn't inspiring campaign soundbiting. You know, like Romney is guarenteeing jobs (yeah, I wonder how many pages that bill is, or someone with a chicken in every pot....)

tazzygirl -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 5:03:12 PM)
Would civilian courts be faster?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 5:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Would civilian courts be faster? No. Quite the opposite, in fact. Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 6:17:55 PM)
Now thats confusing because there havent been any federal cases brought forward in the military courts... or would we even know?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 7:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Now thats confusing because there havent been any federal cases brought forward in the military courts... or would we even know? I'm talking about the use of military tribunals to determine guilt or innocence and punishment, if appropriate. That would be much shorter. The other way is to simply charge them with offenses against the US Code, and let the normal federal trial process sort it out. Those prosecutions could drag on for years, with appeals. Some accused would likely go free due to the unique way that they were captured, and some because the US would be unwilling to release classified information. Firm

Owner59 -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/9/2012 11:32:47 PM)
Republicans call it an "unpresidented power grab"........."Arrogance of power.......Abuse of power....." http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-january-5-2012-craig-shirley What is it they`re referring to? It ain`t about indefinite detention.[:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/10/2012 7:08:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Republicans call it an "unpresidented power grab"........."Arrogance of power.......Abuse of power....." http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-january-5-2012-craig-shirley What is it they`re referring to? It ain`t about indefinite detention.[:D] O, I'm not really interested in watching a full episode of the show to figure out what you are talking about, but let me take a stab at guessing: it's about Republicans complaining about "Obama's power grab" while comparing and contrasting it to what they said when Bush was in office? If so, then not really the same issue that tazzy and I are discussing (it is a good topic for a thread, though). We are discussing how to process and prosecute terrorists: both ones who have US citizenship, and ones who don't. My position is that we have now gone too far, and are violating citizen rights (or at least have the color of current law to do so). This is based on the non-judicial authority that the current admin has exercised to assassinate American citizens, and now with the ability to indefinitely detain any American citizen without due process by a simple declaration that they are a "terrorist". If those two things doesn't bother someone on the left side of the political equation, then they reveal themselves as nothing more than partisan politicos, without any firm foundation in their stated beliefs about "justice", "human rights" and the US Constitution. Firm

Owner59 -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/10/2012 7:15:30 AM)
Still......all this ranting and the only thing your leadership see`s as wrong is President Obama appointing someone to head an agency, congress itself created.Oh the humanity,the outrage......[8\|] Maybe using the word "leadership" is being to generous?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/10/2012 7:24:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Still......all this ranting and the only thing your leadership see`s as wrong is President Obama appointing someone to head an agency, congress itself created.Oh the humanity,the outrage......[8\|] Maybe using the word "leadership" is being to generous? I don't think anyone has started a thread on that particular incident, but my belief is that his appointments are just outside that "gray area" between Presidential power and Congressional power. Just outside, because it does cross the line. Along with several other things that Obama has done, I do think it shows someone who really isn't all that concerned or cares about the rule of law or the balance of power, but rather more about the exercise of power. Which is not a healthy thing, generally, for our nation. It also opens the door for the "next guy" (whoever he might be) to push "just a little more" in that direction. That is a direction that I think is pretty dangerous to be moving. Firm

Musicmystery -> RE: Still More of Obamas "New Tone" (1/10/2012 7:46:11 AM)
quote: Along with several other things . . . I do think it shows someone who really isn't all that concerned or cares about the rule of law or the balance of power, but rather more about the exercise of power. Which is not a healthy thing, generally, for our nation. It also opens the door for the "next guy" (whoever he might be) to push "just a little more" in that direction. That is a direction that I think is pretty dangerous to be moving. Exactly what I said about Cheney/Bush for 8 years. Where were you? Cheney, nostalgic for his Nixon White House years, wanted to strengthen the presidency. Bush loved to shoot from the hip, without constraint. They were successful, in large part due to a rubber stamp Congress for 6 years. And yes, it's dangerous. Who knows who the next next guy is. The same is true of the Patriot Act and the Supreme Court corporations = individuals fiasco.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875