quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo words from Obama, despite the ease you give them, are to be distinguished intently from his actions much more than any man who's held that office in recent history.

Funny how a few months changes everything.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Funny how a few months changes everything.

you're absolutely right. politics is funny

That much can be universally agreed upon.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i told you already.

Which was wrong. "The Supreme Court took care of that." Remember?

quote:

do you not make distinctions of intent between what is Constitutional, unconstitutional and a war crime?

Awww, so Bush had good intentions by having torture allowed on hundreds of prisoners...That's utterly ridiculous.

quote:

carefully re-read wikipedia and tell me what section in the MCA specifically the Boumendenine decision struck down. Summary of Sect. 7, Military Commissions Act : Amends federal criminal justice provisions to deny any court or judge jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of, or to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of, an alien detained outside the United States who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Makes the provisions of this section effective upon enactment, and applicable to all cases, without exception, pending on or after enactment which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

Quoting again from a law which was ruled unconstitutional? LOL. Does the constitution even matter to you? Do you want a king? Or a president?

quote:

he's continued, enforced and escalated everything you think Bush should be behind bars for. words from Obama, despite the ease you give them, are to be distinguished intently from his actions much more than any man who's held that office in recent history.

What exactly has he continued, enforced, and escalated which I think Bush should be behind bars for? Torture? Illegal wire taps? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? I'M DYING TO KNOW...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Which was wrong. "The Supreme Court took care of that." Remember?

no, the SCOTUS has only made it's decision on habeus rights. irresposibly i might add.

those memo's, legal opinions, cover much more than that.

quote:

Quoting again from a law which was ruled unconstitutional?

i'm quoting it b/c you said the SCOTUS' Hamdan decision was based on interogation techniques. it wasn't.

quote:

LOL. Does the constitution even matter to you? Do you want a king? Or a president?

my God you are dense. sect. 7 of the MCA (the entire MCA as a matter of fact) was written by Congress you fucking dipshit at the behest of the SCOTUS. Bush didn't write it. the Hamdan decision forced Congress to write it.

quote:

What exactly has he continued?

>LINK<

quote:

What exactly has he enforced?

>LINK<

quote:

What exactly has he escalated?

>LINK<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no, the SCOTUS has only made it's decision on habeus rights. irresposibly i might add. those memo's, legal opinions, cover much more than that.

Irresponsibly? LOL. As if the SCOTUS is supposed to be lock step with the president's interpretation of the constitution. NO, sorry, authoritarian presidents don't get to dictate to the SCOTUS. There is no way around it. The SCOTUS has struck down one memo after the other from your favorite legal counsel, Yoo.

quote:

i'm quoting it b/c you said the SCOTUS' Hamdan decision was based on interogation techniques. it wasn't.

Firstly, your quoting an unconstitutional bill. Doesn't help your case. Secondly, the Hamdan decision most certainly involves the torture because it states the court must be in line with the Military Code of Justice AND the Geneva Conventions. Sorry, but the SCOTUS is not on the side of torture.

quote:

my God you are dense. sect. 7 of the MCA (the entire MCA as a matter of fact) was written by Congress you fucking dipshit at the behest of the SCOTUS. Bush didn't write it. the Hamdan decision forced Congress to write it.

I'm dense? You'r the one quoting unconstitutional laws as if they are still relevant. Who gives a shit who wrote the MCA? It's fucking unconstitutional.

quote:

>LINK<

The article requested is no longer available.

quote:

>LINK<

WTF do you want me to read from this?

quote:

>LINK<

Yea, I know...I'v already made known I'm 100% against this. Did you forget who sent them there in the first place? Obama will learn, soon enough, that it is impossible to pacify Afghanistan. Should'v let the Russians tell him...

But in your false dichotemy world, I should join the Rushbaugh ranks just because of one or two things Obama is doing which I disagree with. I'm not going to agree 100% with the president...At least I don't disagree 100% with him...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Irresponsibly? LOL.

yes, irresposibly. there is a reason why Obama can't just release GITMO prisoners. you can read wikipedia, you can easily find out why.

the SCOTUS invented those habeus rights to give to unlawful enemy combatants. show me when in the history of the Republic we gave civilian due process to alien captures on the battlefield.

Bush complied with the Hamdan decision. Congress complied with Hamdan and in the end the SCOTUS still hasn't come up with a homogenous solution to the problem in the wake of Boumedendine

quote:

As if the SCOTUS is supposed to be lock step with the president's interpretation of the constitution. NO, sorry, authoritarian presidents don't get to dictate to the SCOTUS. There is no way around it. The SCOTUS has struck down one memo after the other from your favorite legal counsel, Yoo.

no one is saying the SCOTUS should be in lockstep. ultimately SCOTUS should point the way and the other two branches have bent over backwards to comply.

quote:

Firstly, your quoting an unconstitutional bill. Doesn't help your case. Secondly, the Hamdan decision most certainly involves the torture because it states the court must be in line with the Military Code of Justice AND the Geneva Conventions. Sorry, but the SCOTUS is not on the side of torture.

again, i really don't know how to explain this to you in simpler terms but but the SCOTUS' Hamdan decision referenced Geneva and the UCMJ for their clauses referencing military tribunals and apprpriate juridiction. those found in sect 7 of the 2006 MCA (which again, Congress wrote) were judged inadequate.

i'm only refering to the unconstitutional clause in the 2006 MCA to tell you you are wrong in thinking Hamdan decision had something to do with interrogation.

quote:

The article requested is no longer available.

dude?

oh well this one is even better.

quote:

During the interview, Mr. Obama also left open the option for American operatives to capture terrorism suspects abroad even without the cooperation of a country where they were found. “There could be situations — and I emphasize ‘could be’ because we haven’t made a determination yet — where, let’s say that we have a well-known Al Qaeda operative that doesn’t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don’t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,” he said. “I think we still have to think about how do we deal with that kind of scenario,” he added. The president went on to say that “we don’t torture” and that “we ultimately provide anybody that we’re detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus to answer to charges.” Aides later said Mr. Obama did not mean to suggest that everybody held by American forces would be granted habeas corpus or the right to challenge their detention. In a court filing last month, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration position that 600 prisoners in a cavernous prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan have no right to seek their release in court. Instead, aides said Mr. Obama’s comment referred only to a Supreme Court decision last year finding that prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention. >LINK<

if the NYT is is right about this, what do you think Obama is thinking? you tell me, i have no idea.

quote:

WTF do you want me to read from this?

he's protecting, according to you, a war criminal. why do you think that is?

quote:

I'm not going to agree 100% with the president...At least I don't disagree 100% with him...

given the info i just gave you i obviously don't disagree with him 100%

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes, irresposibly. there is a reason why Obama can't just release GITMO prisoners. you can read wikipedia, you can easily find out why.

If they are innocent, then they should be released. How do we find out if they'r innocent...Something called...due process...

quote:

the SCOTUS invented those habeus rights to give to unlawful enemy combatants. show me when in the history of the Republic we gave civilian due process to alien captures on the battlefield.

Alien captures on the battlefield? LOL. Most of the gitmo detainees were shepherds and peasants captured at some checkpoint and handed over to the Americans for money.

quote:

Bush complied with the Hamdan decision. Congress complied with Hamdan and in the end the SCOTUS still hasn't come up with a homogenous solution to the problem in the wake of Boumedendine

Of course he complied, AFTER, it was given. It's a sad state we live in when the President bends the constitution to increase his own powers.

quote:

no one is saying the SCOTUS should be in lockstep. ultimately SCOTUS should point the way and the other two branches have bent over backwards to comply.

It's sad that the SCOTUS has to rule time and again against the ridiculous memos by the Bush Justice Department. No wonder they capitulated in mass resignation. It was a corrupt, politicized, piece of shit, a "yes" department to the president.

quote:

again, i really don't know how to explain this to you in simpler terms but but the SCOTUS' Hamdan decision referenced Geneva and the UCMJ for their clauses referencing military tribunals and apprpriate juridiction. those found in sect 7 of the 2006 MCA (which again, Congress wrote) were judged inadequate. i'm only refering to the unconstitutional clause in the 2006 MCA to tell you you are wrong in thinking Hamdan decision had something to do with interrogation.

Not directly, but without due process within international law, you can only imagine what goes on in its absence.

quote:

dude? oh well this one is even better.

Again, it's my belief that any American military presence in Afghanistan is utterly and ridiculously imperialistic. As if military power is going to subdue the Afghan people? LOL. Ask the Russians. It's not even about whether we can win or not. The real question is, should we even be there, and that answer is a resounding no.

quote:

if the NYT is is right about this, what do you think Obama is thinking? you tell me, i have no idea.

I dunno what he's thinking. But I disagree with his decision.

quote:

he's protecting, according to you, a war criminal. why do you think that is?

Can you quote the specific excerpt?

quote:

given the info i just gave you i obviously don't disagree with him 100%

You disagree with him to the degree you agreed with Bush.

___________________