Thread: Politics and religion.

  1. #2116
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    24,900
    I have to laugh.

    The prez came out and talked about an "international order" he wants to implement.


    Seriously,

    GB got HAMMERED for calling the Gulf War a crusade. This guy comes out and could possibly agitate the people who believe in all the talk about the "New World Order" that they think is on the horizon.

    Wow,
    What an unfortunate choice of words. I cannot believe that any of his speechwriters and staff approved that speech.

    And to do it at a military academy?

    Bowing an apologizing to heads of state is one thing, this?

    One of the things I fear I fear in life ? It's the 'guy that drives the bus' I always talk about.

  2. #2117
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Seward's Folly, AK
    Posts
    3,683
    Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review?

    (updated below - Update II)

    Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.

    Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."

    But last April, John Bates, the Bush-43-appointed, right-wing judge overseeing the case, rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that Boumediene applies to detainees picked up outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram. I reviewed that ruling here, in which Judge Bates explained that the Bagram detainees are "virtually identical to the detainees in Boumediene," and that the Constitutional issue was exactly the same: namely, "the concern that the President could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."

    But the Obama administration was undeterred by this loss. They quickly appealed Judge Bates' ruling. As the NYT put it about that appeal: "The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight." Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Bush/Obama position, holding that even detainees abducted outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram have no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a U.S. federal court, because Boumediene does not apply to prisons located within war zones (such as Afghanistan).

    So congratulations to the United States and Barack Obama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world and then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind. When the Boumediene decision was issued in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." But Obama hailed it as "a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," and he praised the Court for "rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus." Even worse, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:
    Link.
    I have a HUGE SIG!!!!



    My Dogs. Erp the Cat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

  3. #2118
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    24,900
    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05...ergy-gay-ri%2F

    I am speaking with Congress here.


    All the more reason to give up, get on your Air Force One and talk to the people of the Gulf Coast, wasting time with that knucklehead Baba Boxer lowers your credibility.


    LOLOLOLOL, Check out the way BO brushes his shoulder off after BB gets close.


    That was worth a million words right there.


    ----------


    Nice to hear he is going on vacation and passing up the trip to the cemetary.

    Ya have ta get the priorities straight.

    What a groundbreaking idea?

  4. #2119
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    24,900

  5. #2120
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    24,900
    My sweet lord,

    The current regime in the White House is battling the story about offering a Democratic politician an unpaid advisory position if the guy dropped out of an election.


    Now, How stupid do you have to be to double your workload for the same salary?

    Actually?

    THis is the solution to the unemployment problem.

    Offer the unemployed population, unpaid positions within the government.

    They will be off the relief roles, staying busy and more work will get done w/in the halls of Washington, D.C.


    Pure Genius.

    And while you are at it Mr. Prez? Make us buy our own office supplies!

  6. #2121
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    24,900

  7. #2122
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    24,900
    It's rainy and there's lightning outdoors.

    Let's stand the prez under a metal framed canopy.

  8. #2123
    perfectly safe.


    Faraday cage, anyone?
    The one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind wasn't king, he was stoned for seeing light.

  9. #2124
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Are Republican men happier ????




    Any more questions ???


    "I'm Back !!"

  10. #2125
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHARD View Post
    It's rainy and there's lightning outdoors.

    Let's stand the prez under a metal framed canopy.
    Can I open the door for him ???
    Please ????


    "I'm Back !!"

  11. #2126
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,888
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rofl!

  12. #2127
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    24,900
    I'd give Janine a Turn er two?

  13. #2128
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Waltham, MA, USA
    Posts
    37,137
    Quote Originally Posted by wombat2u2004 View Post
    Are Republican men happier ????




    Any more questions ???

    All purposely chosen unflattering pictures of the women on the Democratic side, gee, partisan, anyone? And none of the women on the Republican side chosen are anywhere near Helen Thomas' age ... they are all either younger and have flattering, smiling pictures.
    I've Been Frosted

  14. #2129
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHARD View Post
    I'd give Janine a Turn er two?
    I wouldn't mind a lash at Carrie.
    Nom nom nom.


    "I'm Back !!"

  15. #2130
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,169
    OMG Richard....the boss is here.
    We've been busted


    "I'm Back !!"

Similar Threads

  1. Illinois Politics
    By Puckstop31 in forum Dog House
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 11-05-2014, 06:30 PM
  2. My kind of politics!
    By RICHARD in forum Dog House
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 10:18 PM
  3. I hate politics!
    By Miranda_Rae in forum Dog House
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-03-2004, 11:31 PM
  4. Foreign Politics.
    By RICHARD in forum Dog House
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-15-2004, 01:28 PM
  5. politics (richard!)
    By leslie flenner in forum Dog House
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-27-2004, 03:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the Day.com