The new system would limit the use of hearsay, ban evidence gained from cruel treatment, give defendants more latitude to pick their own lawyers and provide more protection if they do not testify....Hearsay can be used if it's reliable, but of course, you see the difference.
Even with the additional rights Mr. Obama is proposing, defendants would still not enjoy the same protections as in civilian courts. Hearsay, for example, is generally not allowed in American courts. In Mr. Bush’s military commission system, it was allowed unless the defendant could prove it was unreliable. Mr. Obama’s plan would shift the burden, allowing its use only if the prosecution can prove its reliability.
१५ मे, २००९
Campaigning, Obama said Bush's military commissions were "an enormous failure" and promised to "reject the Military Commissions Act."
But — I've said it before, and I'll be saying it many more times — Obama is like Bush. He's keeping the commissions. Oh, yes, he's making a show of tossing in a little more process.... Must make it seem that he's not exactly like Bush...
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
No, Obama is not like George Bush. George Bush never said he would close Gitmo or abolish the military commissions. George Bush said what he was going to do and then he set out to do it. Barack Obama says whatever seems like the right thing to say at any given time, then does what he feels like doing.
You should have a tag: "Obama is like Bush but with more procedural protections."
Or a tag "Obama Hit With Cheney Mind Waves Again".
George Bush said what he was going to do and then he set out to do it.
Like when he said he was going to have a humble foreign policy that wasn't focused on nation-building? Oh, wait, he did refine that policy a bit, didn't he?
Reality is a bitch. Bush didn't set all that up just to have bad PR.
"Obama is like Bush but with more procedural protections."Although one must note the irony that those additional protections mean an additional 120 day delay in the trials, and thus longer detention.
"Obama is like Bush but with more procedural protections."Or perhaps, "Obama is no different than McCain would've been on the issue, except McCain was more honest." Obama is settling on the "moderate" positions that McCain articulated all along. If Obama had actually thought about the problem and formulated additional procedural protections, we wouldn't have the 120 day delay. But instead he refused to think about the issue or the contingency plan, backed into a decision, and now has to delay further.
His initial self-righteousness that he couldn't follow through on is hurting him.
Mr. Obama will ask for an additional 120-day delay...
Bush is trashing habeas corpus again... blah blah blah
(Pts.. this is Obama – Bush is no longer the president)
President Obama wants to get it right... blah blah blah
Like when he said he was going to have a humble foreign policy that wasn't focused on nation-building? .
And I believe he was on track with that right up to the point 19 Muslim terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11/2001.
It's always a bitch when life throws those curveballs at ya.
Of course Obama is like Bush, in that he is a serial liar and in that he serves the interests not of the people but of the oligarchy that runs this country. He is like Bush in that he is a mass murderer and war criminal, now that he has embraced Bush's wars as his own and continues them, and expands into Pakistan. He is like Bush in that he protects torturers from prosecution and prefers that no investigation proceed of torture we have committed.
He is not like Bush in that he is smarter, smoother, and better spoken. He seems less obviously an asshole and bully.
Anyone who was paying attention could have seen this coming; that's why I voted for Ralph Nader.
" that's why I voted for Ralph Nader"
That's just so goddamned precious.
@JAC -- we have rebuilt Iraq and Afghanistan. It ain't easy, and the ignorant left made it more difficult than it might have been, but by golly the US did it, and at Bush's instigation and on his watch.
"And I believe he was on track with (having a 'humble foreign policy') right up to the point 19 Muslim terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11/2001."
Which terrible crime he used as a pretext to fulfill the neo-cons' long-lived desire and intentions to wage a fabricated and illegal war against Iraq, thus worsening and expanding by orders of magnitude the violence, suffering, conflict, destruction, and destabilization of the Middle East...none of which had to happen or was justified legally or otherwise.
Bush is a greater criminal than bin Laden in that he aided and abetted bin Laden's goal of harming America, and also simply in terms of the sheer number of innocents he has killed, not to mention the many more he has imprisoned, tortured, maimed and rendered homeless, refugees in their own land.
Of course, Obama is now his accomplice.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"Like when he said he was going to have a humble foreign policy that wasn't focused on nation-building? .
And I believe he was on track with that right up to the point 19 Muslim terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11/2001.
It's always a bitch when life throws those curveballs at ya."
Exactly! and further, what big event can Obama point to that will justify his 180?
And I believe he was on track with that right up to the point 19 Muslim terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11/2001..
And Iraq has a BUNCH of Muslims. See there!
It's not clear to me that Obama is like Bush on this issue. As in the case of the release of the interrogation photos, Obama is getting pushback from the military and (in this case) from politicians in the USA. He doesn't want to take on generals, and he doesn't want to piss off politicians of his own party. I think he would love to take the cases out of the hands of military commissions, but isn't willing to take the heat necessary to do so.
Bush respected the fairness of military tribunals and was willing to take heat to preserve them. Obama has no respect for "military justice" (which he might call an oxymoron) but doesn't care enough about the issue to use up political good will.
JAC: The additional "procedural protection" are cya and will have little impact.
Robert Bush...I understand your arguments. But do you understand the power of nuclear bombs? If you don't then you need to study them, and after that you can accuse American policies of being cruel and illegal. They better work somehow or you are toast.
"That's just so goddamned precious."
Well, you're free to see it that way. I see it as my exercising my right to vote for the candidate who best represents my views. If we're somehow being foolish or precious if we vote for a candidate other than one of the two officially sanctioned candidates who "has a chance to win," then we don't really have a representative republic--a "democracy," if you will--at all, do we? We have then only a twin to the former Soviet system, where elections were held but the outcome was foretold.
Our system has got turned around, or was turned around from the start: rather than our picking a candidate whose views we can accept, we should have candidates who represent the views we hold. The voters should be the leaders in the process and the candidates the followers, rather than the other way around.
If enough people begin to refuse to accept the SPAM and SPAM LITE that are our typical choices and start voting in greater numbers for alternative candidates, we might, over time, start to see some real change, rather than the ersatz change that we get.
At the very least, I can live with my vote. I wouldn't be able to stomach voting for a candidate I don't respect or whom I know will carry on the crimes of his predecessor simply because he's the least nauseating of the two "legitimate" choices on offer.
Yes, another of this administration's homeopathic remedies for the left, where it is 99.9% Bush, 0.09% water, and 0.01 % the essence of Obama.
I don't think these issues matter much to O. He used them when they helped him during the campaign, but now that he's in charge, his objective is only to make sure that they don't hurt him.
Even on the issues that do matter to him -- redistribution of wealth, nationalized health care, an ObamaBank financial system, the Obama car warranty program, etc. -- he's a wonder to behold. His statements a day or two ago, to the effect that the debt being run up is "unsustainable," was classic Obama-speak. It's as if there were a complete disconnect between the unsustainable debts he was talking about, and the policies and actions he has taken and proposes to take that generate them.
It's going to be a wild few years. On all of these policies, what he does and what he says are likely to stay out of sync.
On all of these policies, what he does and what he says are likely to stay out of sync.Nah. He'll just say "I've been very consistent on this point. . . ."
Like someone said of Clinton, Obama is a man of his most recent word.
And Iraq has a BUNCH of Muslims. See there!.
garage buddy, I know you long for the good old days. You know back when we conducted warfare at 30,000feet against small Balkan nations who had no WMDs and posed no threat to our national security. Or when we really wanted to flex our military muscle and take out a terrorist aspirin factory and some goatherders.
That was when we had a real President, one who had the balls to tell the world we don't need no stinkin UN resolution or Congressional authority to swing his military meatstick.
you betcha baby.
Though I'd agree that Obama's acting a lot like Bush (and more than I like for my taste), why is the right still so upset? It would seem that this is a good thing.
It's as if there were a complete disconnect between the unsustainable debts he was talking about, and the policies and actions he has taken and proposes to take that generate them. .
Well the disconnect are the supposed 65% of the dingbats who think he's doing a bang up job. It's like the hopelessly devoted wife who despite walking in on her husband and catching him banging the babysitter still coos with delight when he says 'its not what it looks like baby, I only have eyes for you.'
why is the right still so upset? It would seem that this is a good thing.Because the Republican president was dragged through them mud mercilessly for 4 years over this stuff.
By Obama and people like him.
Maybe if Senator Obama had taken a few minutes to find out why the Bush administration was doing what they were doing, he wouldn't have been so knee-jerk critical.
But then, he might not have won the election.
why is the right still so upset? It would seem that this is a good thing..
Is the right upset over this? I’m not. In fact I think it’s absolutely delicious to see the far left jumping up and down frothing at the mouth over this. I think the right is simply pointing out that the one they put their hopes and dreams in is complete fraud. I mean think about it; this tool was pretty much elevated to the White House as the anti-Bush, the one who would end the war and restore our supposed tarnished image throughout the world. And what does he do? Well in his first 100 days he has the military gun down a couple of teenage Somali sailors who were just trying to earn a few bucks, then he hasn’t done dick on drawing down the war in Iraq. Gitmo is still open and now he’s telling the ACLU that the lives of American troops are more important than scoring political points for the Death to America crowd. I mean if I were a mindless lefty like hdhouse or Alpha or Jeremyoldson, they’d probably have to put me in a straightjacket by now. Hell, it only took a hundred days and change for the Obamabots to figure out what conservatives were telling them two years ago about the guy.
garage buddy, I know you long for the good old days..
I long for some common sense. But really, a 77 day war with no causalities versus Iraq? Hmmm. Clinton and Wes Clark apparently knew how to fight wars.
"give defendants more latitude to pick their own lawyers "
Lynne Stewart could not be reached for comment.
I do worry about the limitations being placed on the admission of hearsay evidence.
The problem is that hearsay is necessary in the context of illegal combatants captured half way around the world, often in the heat of battle. It isn't like we have in most cases here, where you can subpoena your witnesses, who most likely live near by, and they have to show up in court. In the case of the detainees/illegal combatants, the accusers may be anywhere in the world, and may even be dead by now. After all, many of the accusers were soldiers, marines, etc., fighting in a war. And even if they are alive, they may be anywhere in the world, or may even have been discharged. And then, there are the foreign accusers. Would we have to bring them half way around the world too, so that the illegal combatants can confront their accusers?
At least the Obama Administration hasn't totally thrown out the baby with the bath water. Instead of banning hearsay, the burden has just shifted to the prosecution to prove it reliable.
It almost sounds like they are going to impose a slightly more vigorous Rule 807 (the residual exception), where the burden won't be quite as high as under the FRE, but similar. This is the sort of thing that a bunch of lawyers, like those running the current Administration, would like.
Obama is so much like Bush, Pelosi can't tell Bush is no longer president.
"" that's why I voted for Ralph Nader"
That's just so goddamned precious."
Pogo, stand down. Anyone who is even contemplating voting for Nader, the Stassen of our and our children's time, is to be encouraged. A little reflection will convince you that when I suggest your penance for this harshness is to give $50 to Nader's next campaign, you'll do it.
But really, a 77 day war with no causalities versus Iraq?
One of the things that make liberals better than the rest of us is they know Serbs don't count.
Althouse,
When you catch your breath after savagely flogging that straw man, could you answer a simple question? Who ever said that Obama would be different in every respect from Bush? Certainly not Obama. The right-wingnuts who make up your adoring flock might have made that idiotic claim to scare people in voting for Bush. But it didn’t work. Anyway, I guess you should be sticking it to your base for claiming Obama would be such a radical. Oh yeah, you can’t do that: your site meter is more important than your integrity in the always-on-blog life of Annie Althouse.
Jurist Dentist wrote:
"...that idiotic claim to scare people in voting for Bush."
Bush was not a candidate against Obama. On the idiotic claim scale, you're in there for this thread.
Juris: "Who ever said that Obama would be different in every respect from Bush? Certainly not Obama. The right-wingnuts who make up your adoring flock might have made that idiotic claim to scare people in voting for Bush. But it didn’t work."
Here's a newsflash, JD: Bush wasn't on the ballot.
Do try to keep up.
Simon Kenton,
Quite right.
But isn't donating money to a socialist an inherent contradiction that causes all existence to cease?
"But isn't donating money to a socialist an inherent contradiction that causes all existence to cease?"
Skipped a middle step. You give money to a socialist, so they can obtain the power to take money. Then existence ceases.
He also held up the WWII commissions as an example of how to do it right.
He is either totally ignorant or a total demagogue.
It is kinda mean for Ann to rub the lefties nose in it. I am happy to see our new prez can learn on the job and change course when reality slaps him in the face. I do like to see some squirming as obama did get some nice political mileage out of rapping the very same policies he is preserving now. A bit of humility is in order at least.
David said...
"I think he would love to take the cases out of the hands of military commissions, but isn't willing to take the heat necessary to do so."
That or he finally seriously thought about it (now that it is his problem) and came to the same conclusion as Bush. Criminal trials just wouldn't work.
MB – Obama’s getting dragged through the same mud as Bush, buy the same folks with this, from what I can tell. And yeah, maybe he wouldn’t have won, but my small point was - in the governing there’s some overlap with Bush – if you’re on the right, you’re still getting some of the good stuff.
Bruce Hayden said...
"The problem is that hearsay is necessary in the context of illegal combatants captured half way around the world, often in the heat of battle....."
Simple solution:
Is this a picture of you from when you were captured in battle?
Yes?
No uniform; death.
Next case....
Clinton and Wes Clark apparently knew how to fight wars.Let's not forget their glorious triumph in Somalia.
"Bin Ladin said in his ABC interview that he and his followers had been preparing in Somalia for another long struggle, like that against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but 'the United States rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace.'"
http://demos.vivisimo.com/search?input-form=simple&v:sources=911&v:project=911&query=somalia&x=0&y=0
And who can forget that classic Clinton hit "Let's let half a million Rwandans get hacked to death, even though we could have stopped it with a single combat brigade, or a few thousand dollars worth of radio jamming, but hey, at least I apologized later, so we're cool, right?" Good times.
Democratic presidents seem very good at symbolism and photo ops, war fighting, not so much.
Heh. Where is Jane Hamsher and her deep red face when we really need it?
Prof.Althouse, I have a suggestion - could you and Hamsher get together on another bloggingheads tv webisode to discuss the issues of torture, detainee policy, interrogation policy etc under the Obama admin and compare it with Bush ?
It would be precious just to watch Hamsher squirm. :-)
The irony is that the Professor's bet with Hamshire was so easily won. The loser could not see that a complement was being given to Obama by the Professor's predicting him to be as wise a decision maker as Bush. Real enemies do focus the mind more than a set of imaginary "Bush is Dumb and Cheney is Evil" scapegoat enemies who are not fighting you back.
"But really, a 77 day war with no causalities versus Iraq?"
I don't tend to view GM as harshly as some, and I also rarely point out misspellings since they're easy enough for all of us to commit. But the misspelling here (while not intentional nor Freudian) is amusing.
Obama is a doofus but then again he always has been. His talking points have always been ignorant of history, and he showed it when attacking Bush's denial of habeus corpus rights to detainees and he referenced the Nurember trials with the following:
that principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that’s the essence of who we are. I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of lawHow profoundly ignorant about history can you be. Detainees weren't given habeus corpus rights as we define them and they never were in civilian courts. They were tried under military commissions or tribunals. Detainees were not allowed to challenge their detentions in US courts. And in fact their day in court occured before a tribunal that Obama would find unconstitutional under Boumediene. And yet he references Nuremberg as if we have to get back to that as some standard. And he's supposedly a constitutional scholar? Clearing he is talking from his buttocks.
Bush's military commisions actually afforded more protections than did the Nuremberg trials and provided more rights to the accused than Nuremberg. And at the end of Nuremberg those put to death were hung. They were intially going to be shot via firing squad, but hung because they thought firing squads were too good for the nazis and they weren't deserving of that.
Obama referencing Nuremberg only shows his historical illiteracy. And now going with military comissions after demagoging Bush only shows his moral cowardice.
I guess Althouse must believe that the Nuremberg Trials which were MILITARY COMMISSIONS from which the defendants had no right to appeal and much fewer procedural rights, were a TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE and that the current president should overturn those verdicts and declare the high ranking nazi defendants not guilty because of those 'glaring due process violations.'
@JAC: "Like when [Bush] said he was going to have a humble foreign policy that wasn't focused on nation-building?"
John, I'll give you the emotional lattitude of youth, but even you must have a vague recollection of a minor event almost eight years ago that precipitated that little change? There has been no remotely similar stimulus for Pres. Obama's aparent change in policy preference. The main difference I see in circumstance is that then he was a candidate looking for votes and now he doesn't need those votes (for the time being).
"Bin Ladin said in his ABC interview that he and his followers had been preparing in Somalia for another long struggle, like that against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but 'the United States rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace.'"
Hey, I'm just glad I got out of there while still under American command, before it became the liberals wet-dream of a UN led force. Although an American led force wouldn't have wasted 8 hours to muster a TRAP mission for those blackhawks.
In similar news re the incompetence of Those that will get the rest of us killed with their political agenda: At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn't push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn't co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good. "No letter could change the policy," she said on May 14 at a news conference. "It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part."
See? "Torture is bad"... unless your Party doesn't have the Oval Office and a majority in Congress. Then its "not so" bad. At least not "bad" enough for to risk you political career over.
I keep telling you: the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cia-director-fires-back-at-pelosi-2009-05-15.html
I long for some common sense. But really, a 77 day war with no causalities versus Iraq? Hmmm. Clinton and Wes Clark apparently knew how to fight wars..
I see. So its not actually going to war with a country with no UN resolutions, Congressional authority or causes belli and poses zero threat to the country that bothers you, its all about competence right? Invade or bomb anyone we want as long as none of our guys are hurt, all the casulaties are on their side and we get it done in under 90 days?
Did I miss anything?
Who ever said that Obama would be different in every respect from Bush? Certainly not Obama..
If you honestly believe that then you certainly were not paying one bit of attention to his campaign.
Hoosier Daddy said...
Like when he said he was going to have a humble foreign policy that wasn't focused on nation-building? .
And I believe he was on track with that right up to the point 19 Muslim terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11/2001.
It's always a bitch when life throws those curveballs at ya.He was still on track when he went into Afghanistan backed by tremendous citizen and international support and led America while we kicked ass.
But then things went badly out of kilter.
Bush was seduced by the Neocons who wished to make American security subservient to Israel, in taking out a long string of enemies of Israel using 9/11 as pretext. (First Iraq! Then Lebanon! Then Syria! Then Iran! Then Saudi Arabia! Then Sudan and Somalia! Faster, faster, please!!)
He also went into a semi-deranged crusade that Muslim nations and others (Georgia, Uzbeckistan and the other 'Stans) could be reshaped and reformed with the unlimited treasure and "high tech soldiers" the US had into flourishing secular democracries that would embrace freedom-loving. And would instantly abandon any animosity towards America, Jihad, totalitarianism...Bush was badly served by the New Wilsonianism of the Neocons and drivel books like right-winger Israeli Anatoly Sharansky's "The Case For Democracy".
And while all that was going on, he was following the Neocon demand to alienate "Old Europe" and antagonize Russia at every opportunity...and ignore Pakistan, which is in the good hands of our friend Musharaff. And ignore the ME Peace Process, Hez, and ongoing Zionist defiance about grabbing more land for more Settlement colonies.
No, Bush had about 6 months of doing things right after 9/11 before he went all Messianic and went off the tracks.
Wow Cedarford, those neocons sound like wizards. They must wield some mighty zionistic engergy and cabalistic rituals that gets whole govts to bend to the will of THE JEWS and the zionist entity.
The neocons are just that mighty!
and hey cedarford, if you are so adamant about muslim countries not realistically reforming and becoming democratic, why is zionism such a curse word for you, and why demand Israel to cave into the will of the international community or america for that matter? Aren't you asking Israel to do that which you say is unrealistic for others to do? And if democratic reforms are so impossible to realize and Bush was a fool to even attempt then why is the entire UN and all of the Arab states demanding some form of social justice from THE JEWS? They certainly don't grant it to their neighbors, or their citizens. And you're ok with that. It's just the zionists apparently who need to change their erring ways.Those damn zionist bastards!
Alarming take on Obama from a forensic handwriting analyst: http://grapho1.blogspot.com/
Also cedardford, I'm pretty sure the neocons also were for going into Afghanistan and similarly were hoping to set up a democratic (or thereabouts) state in Afghanistan, and Obama is in fact escalating there and in Pakistan as we speak (he must be a neocon zionist!!!!). Considering you sound like you support our venture in Afghanistan, doesn't that mean you were in fact suporting the carrying out the zionists will?
And what is it about neocons that they want to promote animosity with old europe? You don't think some of those decisions were determined by, i don't know, old europes animosity to the US? Does it always have to be about zionists and neocons with you?
Cedarford also wrote:
Bush was seduced by the Neocons who wished to make American security subservient to Israel, in taking out a long string of enemies of Israel using 9/11 as pretext. (First Iraq! Then Lebanon! Then Syria! Then Iran! Then Saudi Arabia! Then Sudan and Somalia! Faster, faster, please!!) Except we didn't invade Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia pr Somalia. So I guess he didn't listen to the neocons enough. But seriously, the only reason we'd ever have any of these countries on our radar is because of neocon intentions? Iran has been on our radar for 30 years, most of those states have been on lists of terrorists states for decades. And we don't have to be in thrall to THE JEWS to have a foreign policy that treats them as our adversaries. Considering they are terrorist states who hate America we'd feel that way even if there were no neocons. How far back does the hand of neocon stretch?
jr565 said...
Wow Cedarford, those neocons sound like wizards. They must wield some mighty zionistic engergy and cabalistic rituals that gets whole govts to bend to the will of THE JEWS and the zionist entity.
The neocons are just that mighty!Not any more. They occupy a tainted slot now - down on about the same level as NAMBLA, the John Birchers, Code Pink.
Ann,
I was convinced that you were wholly deluded when you decided that Obama was going to be more of a pragmatist than most people (especially his own backers) expected. I very grudgingly concede that you may have been somewhat right. I underestimated his willingness to lie.
Yes, Obam's decision is not one borne from any ethical struggle, its simply a matter of "remaining politically viable for the future".
Apologies to Ann, but I would not trust her judgement in these matters. She was, after all, one of the "constitional experts" that signed the "does not rise to the level" petition for Clinton - and fell for the old trick of switching out the summary page.
"He is not like Bush in that he is smarter, smoother, and better spoken. He seems less obviously an asshole and bully." Robert Cook
Really? What evidence can you produce (other than "as we all know") that Obama is smarter than Bush? Do you have access to any of his grades or writings or whatever from college?
"Smoother". Sure. That is good precisely why? After all, the very best con-men are "smooth".
"Better spoken." Really? Have you actually watch Obumble stumble through reading his teleprompter? Have you paid attention as he attempts to ad lib answers to questions he is not totally prepared for? And why does he hold press conferences at which he knows the questions prior to calling on the 'reporters'? Pretty odd behavior for such a "well-spoken" President.
Finally, I'm absolutely he's less obviously an asshole and a bully to you precisely because he is not (yet) being a bully and and asshole to you or those you care about. To the rest of us he is *very* obvious. I give you the bullyish dumping of bankruptcy laws to help his UAW support.
Sheesh.
Has anyone ever looked at a map of the world, with a certain attention on Afghanistan?
How on earth would we be operating there if not for our bases in Iraq?
Note, I am not saying that Saddam didn't deserve it. But those who say that Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan, or a diversion for the Joooooooooooooooooos, tell me...
How else were we going to, and how else are we going to, fight in Afghanistan except through the bases established in Iraq?
. . . Obama is like Bush. He's keeping the commissions..
.
Shoe.
.
.
Other foot.
Ummm...
We're not supporting the Afghanistan campaign out of "Bases in Iraq."
As you may recall, we invaded Afghanistan well before we invaded Iraq.
We also don't have flyover rights in Iran.
Obama will keep his word when it's to his advantage. He'll break his word when it's to his advantage. Nothing he says has any meaning. To predict his behavior, just figure out what benefits him politically. He has no standards. He has no principles. His only concern is Barrack Obama. Nothing else. Absolutely nothing else.
George Bush was, at best, a mediocre President. Although I voted for him twice ( and considering the alternative, I don't regret those votes in the slightest ), I'd rate him as below average. He was the best of a bad set of choices. His eight years were nothing worth being nostalgic about. But Obama is making even Bush look good. The last eight mediocre years are rapidly becoming the good old days.
2 shockers in about as many days. First the refusal to release the terror photos and now this.
Extreme individuals need to be brought to justice by any means necessary. The freedom which is afforded to all law-abiding citizens is a product of doing what might not be popular but what is right for the U.S. and its interests. If the ACLU attorneys always had their way we would live in anarchy. A nation of people with their own individually-decreed laws.
Congrats Mr. President. You went 2 for 2 this week :)
Ryan
Dave said:
"He is not like Bush in that he is smarter, smoother, and better spoken. He seems less obviously an asshole and bully." Robert Cook
Really? What evidence can you produce (other than "as we all know") that Obama is smarter than Bush? Do you have access to any of his grades or writings or whatever from college?
"Smoother". Sure. That is good precisely why? After all, the very best con-men are "smooth".
"Better spoken." Really? Have you actually watch Obumble stumble through reading his teleprompter? Have you paid attention as he attempts to ad lib answers to questions he is not totally prepared for? And why does he hold press conferences at which he knows the questions prior to calling on the 'reporters'? Pretty odd behavior for such a "well-spoken" President.
Finally, I'm absolutely he's less obviously an asshole and a bully to you precisely because he is not (yet) being a bully and and asshole to you or those you care about. To the rest of us he is *very* obvious. I give you the bullyish dumping of bankruptcy laws to help his UAW support.
Sheesh.
10:21 PM"
As for Obama's being smarter than Bush, he was a member and later President of the Yale Law Review. Only those with sterling marks even get on to the Law Review at any law school; you can be sure Harvard is not exception to that. Moreover, Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude.
I suggest you try to be a more careful reader. I don't suggest that Obama's being smarter is necessarily "better;" I just state it as one way in which he is "not like" Bush. Given that Obama is as deceptive as Bush, and as willing to commit mass murder, I'd say if anything this speaks worse of Obama. Presumably, he should know better, where if we can give Bush any sort of benefit of the doubt at all, it's only in granting the possibility that he was so stupid--or simply disinterested--to really know what he was doing. (I don't say this is so, merely that we can consider it as a possible slight mitigation of Bush's calamitous policies.)
"Smoother," as well, does not imply "better." Again, merely another point of differentiation, and inconsequential at that.
I don't equate Obama with the great speakers of history, but he is, without question, better spoken than Bush, who demonstrated a difficulty with spoken language that one might infer, if observed in any man in the street, revealed cognitive disabilities.
"Less obviously an asshole and bully" again does not mean "better, and I don't even mean he's not an asshole or bully. Merely that he's less obviously so.
By the way, when I refer to Bush's obvious nature as a bully, I do not refer specifically to his policies, but to his innate character and personality. In every respect of his personal manner, Bush reveals his sneering disdain for everyone around him. How anyone can view Bush for any length of time and not see in him the stereotypical high school or college frat boy bully, making the lives of others around him miserable, is a mystery to me. He radiates unlikability and hostility.
And of course his behavior mirrors his surface: as a child he blew up live bullfrogs by sticking firecrackers up their asses, and as an adult he blew up men, women and children with flying bombs.
In any case, I was equating Obama and Bush; their apparent differences are insignificant, while their similarities are substantial. The one is a continuation of the other.
Again, try to read more carefully.
Excuse me, Obama was "a member and later President of the Harvard Law Review."
The issue about the reliability of hearsay evidence before the tribunals is really interesting. The post says that the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the "reliability" of hearsay before it can be used against a criminal defendant. This is not much different from the rule that used to prevail in the federal criminal courts; the rule used to be that hearsay could be used as long as it had "indicia of reliablity." The US Supreme Court did not change that rule until only a few years ago in the Crawford case, when it held that testimonial heasay was NOT admissible, no matter how reliable, under the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment. So, the tribunal heasay rule was the same rule present in the civilian federal criminal courts until only a few years ago.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा