Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,358
- 1,830
Somebody explain to me what letting Seals cap a few rag-heads has to do with foreign policy?
In the absence of a foreign policy, killing foreign nationals becomes foreign policy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Somebody explain to me what letting Seals cap a few rag-heads has to do with foreign policy?
Somebody explain to me what letting Seals cap a few rag-heads has to do with foreign policy?
The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?
The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?
Just curious....
The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?
The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?
Just curious....
Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.
The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?
The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?
Just curious....
Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.
American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.
You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.
But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT
The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?
The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?
Just curious....
Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.
American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.
You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.
But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT
The current and former vice presidents -- Joe Biden and Dick Cheney -- battled it out on separate Sunday morning talk shows on Feb. 14, 2010, debating the Obama administration's policies on bringing accused terrorists to justice.
At times, their debate seemed more like a philosophical argument: Should terrorists be treated like vanquished military opponents or common criminals? If you believe the former, you would support trying the accused in front of military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. If you believe the latter, you would favor trying them in U.S. courts.
Biden offered a full-throated defense of Obama administration plans to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in U.S. courts, even though the administration supports commissions for some cases.
One of Biden's arguments was that U.S. courts work better and result in tougher sentences.
"Let me put this in perspective," Biden said on Face the Nation. "There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They're all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day."
We're looking into Biden's assertion that more than 300 people have been tried in federal courts and will post our findings soon.
Here, we are examining Biden's assertion that three people were tried and convicted by the last administration in military commissions, and that two of three have been released.
After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden's numbers.
PolitiFact | Two of three convicted in military commissions have been released
Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.
American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.
You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.
But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT
So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.
The current and former vice presidents -- Joe Biden and Dick Cheney -- battled it out on separate Sunday morning talk shows on Feb. 14, 2010, debating the Obama administration's policies on bringing accused terrorists to justice.
At times, their debate seemed more like a philosophical argument: Should terrorists be treated like vanquished military opponents or common criminals? If you believe the former, you would support trying the accused in front of military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. If you believe the latter, you would favor trying them in U.S. courts.
Biden offered a full-throated defense of Obama administration plans to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in U.S. courts, even though the administration supports commissions for some cases.
One of Biden's arguments was that U.S. courts work better and result in tougher sentences.
"Let me put this in perspective," Biden said on Face the Nation. "There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They're all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day."
We're looking into Biden's assertion that more than 300 people have been tried in federal courts and will post our findings soon.
Here, we are examining Biden's assertion that three people were tried and convicted by the last administration in military commissions, and that two of three have been released.
After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden's numbers.
PolitiFact | Two of three convicted in military commissions have been released
The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?
The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?
Just curious....
Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.
Well that didn't work, perhaps they will accuse him of being overly aggressive next?
Just another example of CONZ inability to empathize with ANYONE or ANYTHING.
They apparently could not put themselves into Obama's shoes and predict that his response could not only refute the charge, but make those who leveled it appear to be petty and small about so grave a matter.
On the street, this sort of rebuke is known as a "bitchslap"
He talks like he pulled the trigger himself.
A bragging limp-wristed pencil-neck Harvard grad wouldn't know the first thing about combat.
Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.
American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.
You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.
But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT
So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.
The current and former vice presidents -- Joe Biden and Dick Cheney -- battled it out on separate Sunday morning talk shows on Feb. 14, 2010, debating the Obama administration's policies on bringing accused terrorists to justice.
At times, their debate seemed more like a philosophical argument: Should terrorists be treated like vanquished military opponents or common criminals? If you believe the former, you would support trying the accused in front of military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. If you believe the latter, you would favor trying them in U.S. courts.
Biden offered a full-throated defense of Obama administration plans to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in U.S. courts, even though the administration supports commissions for some cases.
One of Biden's arguments was that U.S. courts work better and result in tougher sentences.
"Let me put this in perspective," Biden said on Face the Nation. "There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They're all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day."
We're looking into Biden's assertion that more than 300 people have been tried in federal courts and will post our findings soon.
Here, we are examining Biden's assertion that three people were tried and convicted by the last administration in military commissions, and that two of three have been released.
After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden's numbers.
PolitiFact | Two of three convicted in military commissions have been released
Wow, Obama builds a strawman and beats it up publically. What a hero he is, that strawman didn't have a chance.
Strawman? Yeah, right. The Republican candidates who accused Obama of appeasement stepped in it all on their own.
So let me see if I've got this straight...President Obama's greatest foreign policiy achievement is killing Osama bin Laden? Remind me how we got the intel on where Osama was hiding? Wasn't that through the enhanced interrigation techniques that Barack Obama was against? So using something W. instigated and he opposed, Obama takes credit for "getting" Osama? Gotta love it...
Of course when your economic record is as bad as Obama's is you're going to claim successes anywhere you can...even on something as questionable as being the guy who "got" Bin Laden.
American Citizen rights are for American Citizens. They are not for our enemies who are hell bent on eliminating our rights.
You may be correct with what you say, but I tend to believe the stats you saw are a bit skewed.
But either way....offering an enemy captured on the battlefield the same rights you would have when fighting a jay walking ticket is APPEASEMENT
So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.
The current and former vice presidents -- Joe Biden and Dick Cheney -- battled it out on separate Sunday morning talk shows on Feb. 14, 2010, debating the Obama administration's policies on bringing accused terrorists to justice.
At times, their debate seemed more like a philosophical argument: Should terrorists be treated like vanquished military opponents or common criminals? If you believe the former, you would support trying the accused in front of military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. If you believe the latter, you would favor trying them in U.S. courts.
Biden offered a full-throated defense of Obama administration plans to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in U.S. courts, even though the administration supports commissions for some cases.
One of Biden's arguments was that U.S. courts work better and result in tougher sentences.
"Let me put this in perspective," Biden said on Face the Nation. "There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now. There have been over 300 tried in federal courts by the last administration and by us. They're all in jail now. None of them are out seeing the light of day."
We're looking into Biden's assertion that more than 300 people have been tried in federal courts and will post our findings soon.
Here, we are examining Biden's assertion that three people were tried and convicted by the last administration in military commissions, and that two of three have been released.
After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden's numbers.
PolitiFact | Two of three convicted in military commissions have been released
All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.
So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.
All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.
Oh shut up already. Your hyperbolic nonsense is ridiculous. I believe in the rule of law, not convicting based upon emotion.
The military kills enemies of the state and that is proof that Obama does not have an attitude of appeasement?
The what do you call him wanting to afford those enemies that survive a military attack the same rights that you and I have as American Citizens?
Just curious....
Civilian courts have a proven track record for convicting terrorists. Military courts do not.
Is that why OJ is still working on his golf swing?
So you'd rather see terrorists go free because of flimsy military trials than be convicted in civilian courts, which have a proven track record? This is America. We're supposed to uphold the rule of law and give all accused a fair and speedy trial - not treat one group one way and another group another way.
All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.
Oh shut up already. Your hyperbolic nonsense is ridiculous. I believe in the rule of law, not convicting based upon emotion.
Republican presidential candidates who criticized Obama's foreign policy credentials got a healthy taste of what they'll face if they want to continue down that road.
Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that," the president said during a news conference
All they need is 12 of you on a jury and terrorists will not only go free, but will probably also enjoy the bounties of a fruitful civil suit.
Oh shut up already. Your hyperbolic nonsense is ridiculous. I believe in the rule of law, not convicting based upon emotion.
Ouch. Hit a nerve did we?
Then you must be appalled we didn't capture Osama and bring him back here to face a jury, right?
Strawman? Yeah, right. The Republican candidates who accused Obama of appeasement stepped in it all on their own.
So let me see if I've got this straight...President Obama's greatest foreign policiy achievement is killing Osama bin Laden? Remind me how we got the intel on where Osama was hiding? Wasn't that through the enhanced interrigation techniques that Barack Obama was against? So using something W. instigated and he opposed, Obama takes credit for "getting" Osama? Gotta love it...
Of course when your economic record is as bad as Obama's is you're going to claim successes anywhere you can...even on something as questionable as being the guy who "got" Bin Laden.
Uh, no.
Bush's TORTURE techniques did NOT lead to Osama Bin Laden. At least not right away.
Most experts said that had we done the OPPOSITE, treating prisoners with respect and plying them with friendship....which has PROVEN to WORK, we would have gotten him sooner rather than later.
Ever hear of shooting yourself in the foot? That's what Bush did with TORTURE.
And you are too stupid to figure that out? Or does Occham's razor and history suggest that Bush was brilliant and Obama a fool?
I believe in trial via a bullet between the eyes.
That's one thing Obama did I agree with. Even though he doesn't do the killing himself