Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[Liability]

I don't need your quick hints. They fail miserably.

If you can't admit that there are such things as "war crimes" then you're on crack. Military leaders don't get to just do whatever the fuck they want because they want to.

Every part of our government - including the military - falls within a structure of laws. No, judges don't make military decisions...but they can review them. Ever heard of My Lai?

I love how you pepper your posts with words like "cogent" to inflate your own opinion of yourself. It's enthralling.

No. I leave the abuse of recreational chemicals to you libbies.

Anyway, you are coming around. Slowly.

Yes, there are instances and areas of SOME overlap.

A war crime is both a military issue AND a legal issue. Congratulations on proving a point I had never disputed.

Now if ONLY you could get to the point where YOU had enough integrity to acknowledge that a purely military decision -- such as the choice of where to land a massive invasion force -- is in no way a "legal matter," we can dispense with your ridiculous original contention.

By the way, I approve of your inflated vocabulary. The very thing you pretend to criticize me for doing, you do. I enjoy you hypocrites. You're fun.

 

[HUGGY]

I didn't know that! Bush used to be a liberal!??? He did his fair share of illegal drugs. I know..off topic.

Allow me to cut through the crap and splain it to ta all.

I think the real reason that most of Obamas detractors are never satisfied is more of a personal nature. Better stated it is thier wives and girlfriends and in the cases of many thier secret homo boyfiends that never get satisfied.

The rumor that Black men have larger than normal penises is the foundation for the resentment. Many of these fuckwits were left standing at the alter when Clinton didn't have to produce his dick for them to gayze at. It was a huge(in thier fantasies) dissappointment for them. Especially for Jessie Helms. Certain NeoGOPers are here from Hanitty's board. These are the most frustrated closet queens of all. I imagime breaking it of with Sean broke thier hearts.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xuugq7fito[/ame]

 

[taichiliberal]

Liability tries to cloak himself in language of logic (your premise is faulty, therefore the rest is...blah blah), but simply mouthing the words don't make the post true.

Everything...EVERYTHING is a legal issue...and has a legal answer or legal remedy...or at least the law has a definition or slot for it, if only to be shelved.

We live in a country of laws...so that thought and responsibility mean something. We don't put WAR first...and the values of WAR don't come first. That's not to say that there aren't justifiable wars...there are. But at the legally appropriate time.

You can't just say...this is about war...rules don't apply. It's tempting to think that way...but it's childish. "We do whatever we need to do to win! To protect people!" Uhm no we dont. The founding fathers didn't say "we do whatever we need to in order to punish criminals!" Instead they set up rights and courts and laws.

We do what the law says...and if the law is unclear...we know where to go to get clarification.

Thing is, since this ENTIRE foray into Iraq was NOT an official Congressional declaration of war, nor did it follow the agreed to requirements by the UN and Congress, the whole nonsense is operating on a false premise. Also, since Ghailani was apprehended in Pakistan ( I believe) as a result of an FBI/local operation, he wasn't technically an "enemy combatant on the field" that warranted years of internment in Gitmo's limbo.

Legal recourse resulted in Ghailani's conviction....and that just drives the neocon punditry and parrots to distraction.

 

[Liability]

Liability tries to cloak himself in language of logic (your premise is faulty, therefore the rest is...blah blah), but simply mouthing the words don't make the post true.

Everything...EVERYTHING is a legal issue...and has a legal answer or legal remedy...or at least the law has a definition or slot for it, if only to be shelved.

We live in a country of laws...so that thought and responsibility mean something. We don't put WAR first...and the values of WAR don't come first. That's not to say that there aren't justifiable wars...there are. But at the legally appropriate time.

You can't just say...this is about war...rules don't apply. It's tempting to think that way...but it's childish. "We do whatever we need to do to win! To protect people!" Uhm no we dont. The founding fathers didn't say "we do whatever we need to in order to punish criminals!" Instead they set up rights and courts and laws.

We do what the law says...and if the law is unclear...we know where to go to get clarification.

Thing is, since this ENTIRE foray into Iraq was NOT an official Congressional declaration of war, nor did it follow the agreed to requirements by the UN and Congress, the whole nonsense is operating on a false premise. Also, since Ghailani was apprehended in Pakistan ( I believe) as a result of an FBI/local operation, he wasn't technically an "enemy combatant on the field" that warranted years of internment in Gitmo's limbo.

Legal recourse resulted in Ghailani's conviction....and that just drives the neocon punditry and parrots to distraction.

^

Of course the allged "foray" into Iraq was predicated on the Congressional declaration of war.

Idiots like the always dishonest tackylib don't understand the meaning of that term.

But since Congress (the body invested by the Constitution with the responsibility of deciding when the use of our military forces would be authorized) did -- in a famous Joint Resolution signed by President Bush -- authorize the use of our military might, there, Congress did declare war.

Dishonest fucksticks like tackylib are incapable of telling the truth or admitting it.

 

[beowolfe]

So, we have a SAFE trial with a conviction....a hell of a lot more than Bush did for 8 years with all his Constitution/Bill of Rights bending actions. More to come, I'm sure

.


Since when do we bring the enemy captured on the battlefield to the U.S. and give them Constitutional rights? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been executed by now if not for you stupid libs. The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, you libs are such backwards idiots...Unreal!!

Justice for KSM!!

Maybe your guy shouldn't have brought them to US territory.....and yes, GITMO is US territory. The constitution may not apply to our enemies, but it applies to any and everything the government does............and that includes the military, whether or not it is actively engaged in a war.

 

[Liability]

So, we have a SAFE trial with a conviction....a hell of a lot more than Bush did for 8 years with all his Constitution/Bill of Rights bending actions. More to come, I'm sure

.


Since when do we bring the enemy captured on the battlefield to the U.S. and give them Constitutional rights? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been executed by now if not for you stupid libs. The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, you libs are such backwards idiots...Unreal!!

Justice for KSM!!

Maybe your guy shouldn't have brought them to US territory.....and yes, GITMO is US territory. The constitution may not apply to our enemies, but it applies to any and everything the government does............and that includes the military, whether or not it is actively engaged in a war.

The SCOTUS has said that we exercise "exclusive jurisdiction and control." But that's kind of a de facto thing and it is simply true that all we do is lease the dump -- exercising jurisdiction is truly not the same as having jurisdiction. Too bad the SCOTUS has trouble with such basic concepts.