Obama -- Osama's Man in D.C.
More than one person has said Obama is a smart guy. But there's a growing amount of evidence to the contrary. In his determination to argue that muslim terrorists should receive the same treatment as domestic criminals, he uses the example of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center to build his position.
He tells listeners that the muslim terrorists who detonated a truck bomb in a parking lot below the World Trade Center were captured, prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. Based on this example he thinks civilian criminal justice is the best way to go.
Two points. First, civilian crime is often committed for financial gain. But sometimes it is driven by passion. However, it is not driven by political/religious ideology. Second civilian criminal justice is aimed at rehabilitation of the malefactors, even if they are sentenced to life in prison.
How can the US apply civilian criminal justice standards to muslim terrorists who die in the commission of their terrorist crimes? Obama seems oblivious to the fact that the 19 September 11 hijackers died with their victims.
Whom do we prosecute? Incarcerate? Rehabilitate? In general, the goal of military action is to KILL the opponents. Capture and rehabilitation is not the goal. Meanwhile, with the exception of Osama bin Laden, most of the al Qaeda leaders have been killed. A few have been captured.
The muslim terrorists are not Americans, which means there is no reason to treat them as criminally minded citizens. By fighting against US military personnel, they have declared themselves enemies of the state, which means they warrant military treatment that reflects their status as enemy combatants. Thus, if they do not die in combat and they are captured, it is appropriate to prosecute them in a military tribunal.
But Obama wants them to benefit from the more lenient goals of civilian criminal prosecution, which includes the possibility of paroling seemingly rehabilitated convicts. Is anyone willing to consider parole for Osama bin Laden? Apparently Barack Hussein Obama is.
Obama: Bin Laden still free because of GOP tactics
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he'll take no lectures from Republicans on who will keep America safer. GOP rival John McCain's campaign criticized Obama Tuesday for speaking approvingly of the successful prosecution of terrorists.
A McCain aide said, "Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set" and does not understand the dangers posed by U.S. adversaries.
Obama told reporters that the Republicans have no "standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9-11."
He said they "helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11." He said Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because of their failed strategies.
In a conference call with reporters, McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann said Tuesday: "Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set. ... He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face." Former CIA director James Woolsey said Obama has "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism ... and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States."
The Obama campaign quickly responded with its own conference call in which Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official in Republican and Democratic administrations, argued the McCain campaign was emulating Karl Rove, President Bush's former political adviser.
At issue were Obama's comments Monday in an interview with ABC News. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti- terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.
Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks—for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center—we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...
"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said.
Obama agreed with the Supreme Court ruling last week that detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts. McCain derided the ruling as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
Kerry, who as the 2004 Democratic nominee faced Republican claims that he was soft on terror, accused McCain of "defending a policy that is indefensible" by siding with Bush's policies—particularly with respect to the Iraq war.
"The U.S. is less safe, less respected and less able to lead in the world, and that is the record John McCain has chosen to embrace," Kerry said.
He tells listeners that the muslim terrorists who detonated a truck bomb in a parking lot below the World Trade Center were captured, prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. Based on this example he thinks civilian criminal justice is the best way to go.
Two points. First, civilian crime is often committed for financial gain. But sometimes it is driven by passion. However, it is not driven by political/religious ideology. Second civilian criminal justice is aimed at rehabilitation of the malefactors, even if they are sentenced to life in prison.
How can the US apply civilian criminal justice standards to muslim terrorists who die in the commission of their terrorist crimes? Obama seems oblivious to the fact that the 19 September 11 hijackers died with their victims.
Whom do we prosecute? Incarcerate? Rehabilitate? In general, the goal of military action is to KILL the opponents. Capture and rehabilitation is not the goal. Meanwhile, with the exception of Osama bin Laden, most of the al Qaeda leaders have been killed. A few have been captured.
The muslim terrorists are not Americans, which means there is no reason to treat them as criminally minded citizens. By fighting against US military personnel, they have declared themselves enemies of the state, which means they warrant military treatment that reflects their status as enemy combatants. Thus, if they do not die in combat and they are captured, it is appropriate to prosecute them in a military tribunal.
But Obama wants them to benefit from the more lenient goals of civilian criminal prosecution, which includes the possibility of paroling seemingly rehabilitated convicts. Is anyone willing to consider parole for Osama bin Laden? Apparently Barack Hussein Obama is.
Obama: Bin Laden still free because of GOP tactics
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he'll take no lectures from Republicans on who will keep America safer. GOP rival John McCain's campaign criticized Obama Tuesday for speaking approvingly of the successful prosecution of terrorists.
A McCain aide said, "Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set" and does not understand the dangers posed by U.S. adversaries.
Obama told reporters that the Republicans have no "standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9-11."
He said they "helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11." He said Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because of their failed strategies.
In a conference call with reporters, McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann said Tuesday: "Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set. ... He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face." Former CIA director James Woolsey said Obama has "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism ... and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States."
The Obama campaign quickly responded with its own conference call in which Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official in Republican and Democratic administrations, argued the McCain campaign was emulating Karl Rove, President Bush's former political adviser.
At issue were Obama's comments Monday in an interview with ABC News. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti- terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.
Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks—for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center—we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...
"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said.
Obama agreed with the Supreme Court ruling last week that detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts. McCain derided the ruling as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
Kerry, who as the 2004 Democratic nominee faced Republican claims that he was soft on terror, accused McCain of "defending a policy that is indefensible" by siding with Bush's policies—particularly with respect to the Iraq war.
"The U.S. is less safe, less respected and less able to lead in the world, and that is the record John McCain has chosen to embrace," Kerry said.
posted by no_slappz at 6:31 PM
5 Comments:
My bad, I shouldn't have made this claim without supporting facts...
"the statistically innocent-never-charged-detainees in Guantanamo"
Here's all the info you need!
jay, you wrote:
"Yall wonder why people say FUCK AMERICA?"
Have you ever heard anyone say "Fuck America"? If you have, I'll bet a dollar the speaker was an American. The rest of the world desperately wants to be on good terms with the US. Every country in the world wants either to sell its goods and services here or get help in some form from the US.
Who says "Fuck America"? here's your answer: Idiots who have no idea what they're talking about.
You said:
"That's because America is a fucking lying ass hypocritical bitch that only cares about profit."
Your statement is so naive it's tough to respond. IN short, you need a basic education in Economics -- real economics. Get a college textbook on Economics and read it. The subject is easy to understand when it is explained by Nobel Prize winners such as Milton Friedman.
If you understood anything about Economics, you would realize the sound-bite statements made by angry and ignorant people are meaningless.
As for the Geneva Convention and torture, well, "torture" is yet another term that is seriously misunderstood.
I don't know what springs into your mind when "torture" is mentioned. But the people who claim the US "tortures" detainees claim that sleep deprivation, loud music, being forced to maintain "stress positions", heat, cold, snarling dogs, threats of death and other similar non-violent actions are "torture."
Meanwhile, water-boarding is no fun. Do you know how it's done? You are forced to lie on a tilted board with your head lower than your legs. A soaking wet towel is placed over your face, covering your nose and mouth. You very quickly believe you are about to drown -- it's scary. It works.
I gather you prefer the islamic practice of creating a video of beheading a non-military, non-muslim American. The Daniel Pearl decapitation is a stunner.
Meanwhile, it seems that you believe the word of muslim terrorists who claim they were tortured over the word of the US government.
While there were obviously some abuses at Abu Ghraib, the abuses occurred because a small number of soldiers violated military law. But you seem to think the entire US military is a corrupt organization that thrives on abusing hapless captives.
Anyway, so far, your views and attitudes suggest you would be a great friend to muslim terrorists.
You asked:
"What did we do after WW2 to the countries that tortured prisoners?"
Nothing. We did nothing to the countries.
However, many former Nazis entered the US and lied about their role in the military of Nazi Germany. Many of those people are not welcome here. Anyone who is found to have been involved in the Holocaust is unwanted here. When we find them here, we deport them. Is that bad? Deportation? They don't go to jail.
In any case, Japan committed many atrocities against Koreans and Chinese people. Then there was the Bataan Death March, which killed thousands of Americans. What did we do to Japan after WWII? We converted the country into a capitalistic democracy and now Japan is one of our greatest allies.
By the way, we maintain a huge military presence in Japan.
You need to learn some history and a lot of Economics.
go look at my newest post on the USD at www.waymorethanmusic.com.
as for the CIA drug trafficking you deny happened, William Casey's sworn testimony of cocaine used to fund war in Latin America.
Now if you're gonna deny the truth, then don't respond.
And just in case you decide to educate yourself instead of letting the textbooks and mainstream media educate you... visit Daniel Estulin for more documents that will peel the foreskin off your eyes.
jay,
The CIA has ALWAYS partnered with various criminals. That's the nature of the spy business.
The fact that the CIA was tied to people who were smuggling cocaine is relatively meaningless. Nothing in any of the allegations made by anyone regarding the episodes you are recalling suggests the CIA was deriving profits from drug smuggling.
William Casey's statement is also meaningless. You have no idea if he wrote the statement or if he even knew what he signed. He died of brain cancer shortly after the date on that document.
If you have ever known anyone with brain disease, especially someone with an advanced problem, you would know that their minds are often unreliable.
My grandmother would have made the same statements as Casey. She made many wild claims near the end.
By the way, the statement contains a number of mis-spellings that a person of his intellect would never have made. Hence, it's validity is in question.
Anyway, all the stories about funding the Contras with cocaine money are old stories, most of them told by people who had lots of reasons to lie. Hence, it's impossible to know where the facts end and the fiction begins. But I am sure you believe every word provided by people who lack the barest shred of credibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home