All about Obama!

[jeff]

Well, I'm all confused here. I thought the "done thing" was that an American President is supposed to puke on high-ranking Japanese officials. What's going on here with Obama abandoning precedent and tradition?

[Bayou Bum]

Obama meets with President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea and must have insulted him because he didn't bow like he did the Emperor in Japan! The hypocrisy of the liberals is astounding!

[Philistine]

Obama meets with President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea and must have insulted him because he didn't bow like he did the Emperor in Japan! The hypocrisy of the liberals is astounding!

Perhaps he read this thread, and your posts convinced him of the error of his ways?

--Philistine

[jessicasimpson]

Oh My God! I just saw a pic of Obama, and he was wearing a BLUE Tie! That Bastard! Why does he endanger the American people with this flagrant display of weakness?!? Every one knows a blue tie will give the terrorists an opportunity to strike, and turn our Republic into a Communist/Fascist Islamic State.
I hope BB/Slim/Chase starts a new thread before it is to late

[Bayou Bum]

Obama's inexperience appointment of liberal extremist to cabinet positions has consequences. Attorney General Eric Holder is a joke as evidenced by his decision to try the terrorists in civilian court in NY. The following dialogue reported by NPR says it all. I am positing it here because I doubt it will be reported on any network other than FoxNews.


SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

HOLDER: Well, I think --

GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.

GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?

HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.

GRAHAM: Where would you try him?

HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]

GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --

GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.

[jessicasimpson]

Obama's inexperience appointment of liberal extremist to cabinet positions has consequences. Attorney General Eric Holder is a joke as evidenced by his decision to try the terrorists in civilian court in NY. The following dialogue reported by NPR says it all. I am positing it here because I doubt it will be reported on any network other than FoxNews.

Well I heard this on ABC News this morning. I also heard that the Bush Admin tried to try these terrorists by a military tribunal 2 or 3 times, and every time the supreme court shot them down.(Not sure how they could, but that is what I heard reported) So if you can't hold them forever, and you can't give them a military trial, what is your suggestion? I hope you would not suggest you send them back to their respective countries to be tryed there.

[Philistine]

{snip}
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

Umm.... which "battlefield" was it that KSM was captured on?
--Philistine

[lindajdunn]

Umm.... which "battlefield" was it that KSM was captured on?
--Philistine

I thought he was captured on US soil.

IMHO, this is the heart of the issue. Terrorism has no borders and if you declare a war on terror, you are effectively declaring anyone caught in what you declare to be the war on terror is effectively a POW. Do thise mean that Tiller's killer should be tried in a military tribunal since he is, after all, a domestic terrorist? Or does it have to be a declared war on terror? And is the war on terror officially declared?

I see a slippery slope here and I don't want to go down it. Caught in the US; tried in the US, imho.

[Philistine]

I thought he was captured on US soil.

In Rawalpindi, Pakistan, actually. Pakistan's 4th largest city, and headquarters of the Pakistan Armed Forces. Not generally considered to be a "battlefield."

I'm not a big fan of military tribunals--especially in high-profile cases--and I'm a bit dubious as to what the real downsides are (other than security issues, much more difficult and expensive in a civilian courthouse than a military base). It's not like we're short on experience of how to try these cases in civilian court: 1st WTC attack, embassy bombers, Cole attackers, Moussaoui, Lindh, Padilla, Reid, etc.

--Philistine

[Slim]

Obama's inexperience appointment of liberal extremist to cabinet positions has consequences. Attorney General Eric Holder is a joke as evidenced by his decision to try the terrorists in civilian court in NY. The following dialogue reported by NPR says it all. I am positing it here because I doubt it will be reported on any network other than FoxNews.


SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

HOLDER: Well, I think --

GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.

GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?

HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.

GRAHAM: Where would you try him?

HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]

GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --

GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.

Amateur hour. Except it may last 4 years.

[Bayou Bum]

To be fair. There were some good lines delivered in Obama's speech while receiving the bogus Peace at any Price Prize.

"I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I."

and:

"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."

I have to give credit to Obama for some well said comments.

[fencerchica]

It was a well-argued and intellectually rigorous speech. Here is a link to a full transcript, in case anyone else is interested: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/...ipt/index.html

[Inquartata]

I had to change the channel before his speech, unfortunately. The fulsome, oily praise from the fellow introducing him was too much for me. I had left my waders at home.

[Bayou Bum]

It was a well-argued and intellectually rigorous speech. Here is a link to a full transcript, in case anyone else is interested: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/...ipt/index.html

I wouldn't go that far. You make it sound like the Sermon on the Mount. There was a lot I disagree with, but I felt it only fair to point out two paragraphs that I agree with. I was far from bowing on the floor in praise of his holy words.

[I_luv_saber]

Wow. That was an amazing 180.

[jeff]

yeah, he could only 'play nice' for so long.

However, in breaking news:

Obama Gives Hanukkah Wishes in Hebrew; Birthers Now Claim He Was Born in Israel Birth Certificate Reads ‘Baruch Shmobama'

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - President Barack Obama's decision to wish Jews around the world a happy Hanukkah in Hebrew has added more fuel to the movement of the so-called Birthers, who now claim that Mr. Obama was born in Israel.

Orly Taitz, a leading Birther spokesperson, told CNN today that she had in her possession a birth certificate for Mr. Obama that was issued in Tel Aviv.

"If you look at the birth certificate, you will see the name he was born with, Baruch Shmobama," she said.

In other news, the President announced that he would clinch a second Nobel Peace Prize by invading Iran.

Announcing the invasion in a televised address, the President told the nation, "Now comes the hard part: writing my acceptance speech."

Mr. Obama said that if his quest for a second Nobel is successful, he would bomb North Korea.

"I have just one word for you," he said. "Three-peat."
Elsewhere, singing sensation Susan Boyle stunned the world by revealing that she had a steamy affair with Tiger Woods.

[Bayou Bum]

Wow. That was an amazing 180.

Not really. I said Obama had some good remarks, which I still agree with. But I refrained from pointing out some of his errors. His speech was far from perfect. For example, he called for international standards for the use of force but also said a country has the unilateral right to defend herself.

But then, I am glad that he has decided to adopt the Bush Doctrine.

[telkanuru]

A unilateral right to defend yourself doesn't actually mean invading random countries because your daddy didn't do it right the first time.

[Slim]

A unilateral right to defend yourself doesn't actually mean invading random countries because your daddy didn't do it right the first time.

Random? Please.

And its surprising to see you were actually for Bush Senior to have continued and taken Baghdad. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "doing it right". If so, please explain.

[Phaeton]

A unilateral right to defend yourself doesn't actually mean invading random countries because your daddy didn't do it right the first time.

Example:

Israelis sending in operatives to stop Ketusha rocket fire? OK!

Israelis using white phosphorus on civilian areas? NOT ok.
Israelis bombing locations that they KNEW were UN buildings? NOT ok.