Political history being re wrote as we watch

[8537]

JRK,

Obama did not start the war in Libya. Please make a note of it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Shakles cannot provide the evidence that the U.S. had the authority to act on the behalf of the UN.

That means the Bush admin acted illegally.

shakles, that is why the senior Bushies don't travel overseas. For very good reason.

Your 'opinion' began by making these initial statements regarding President Bush:

The US had no legal or moral right to enforce the UN mandate.
To do so violated international law, making bush et all war criminals.

Clinton did not wrongfully invade Iraq.

Bush did and will be remembered as a war criminal for the rest of written history.

The president failed in all these tests of character. He plotted against international treaty obligations and reciprocities of law that condemned war crimes.

What?? Now you want to quietly tip toe your way back from your own previous statements? The very moment I begin to ask you to provide some "documentation" (just a little bit of proof) of these war crimes and United Nations violations of international law, you begin to hide. I want to be able to see for myself these accusations written against President George W. Bush for war crimes and violations against the UN, so I can judge for myself that you are correct. Is this too much to ask, for you to back up these above statements you previously made? Where are Bush's accusers among the UN if he broke international law?

 

[BlindBoo]

Neither JRK nor Shakles have even remotely presented a coherent and documented case that would persuaded the objective minded and educated person to conclude anything other than the Bushies et al conducted an illegal and unjust war in Iraq that has resulted in seriously damaging the American economy, its prestige throughout the world, thousands on thousands of dead and injured Americans, scores on scores of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis, and an Iraqi and Iranian alliance that bodes no good for US policy interests.mis

Bush's administration will go down in history as a criminal conspiracy that failed miserably on the stage of world history.

Do you have this specific United Nations article that you say President Bush has violated by going into Iraq? Where is the document of this UN violation charge brought down from the UNITED NATIONS, that addresses these violations and specifically accuses President George W. Bush of these and of war crimes? I never recalled seeing any evidence of "links" that supports your argument. I'm not talking about commentaries, blogs, someone's best response from a Q&A, views from someone representing another nation, only those documents (even those coming from Geneva that are) "supported" by statements of accusations coming from the United Nations. Let's see these facts you are presenting here.

There are no charges against the USA by the UN. The point is moot and everyone knows it, because we are a permanant member of the SC with veto power. No resolution condemning the invasion will ever come out of the UNSC.

The invasion violated the principle of the UN's charter.

The invasion violated the Joint resolution passed by Congress, because Iraq did not pose a continuing threat to the USA. (Recall Congress was not breifed by the CIA chief in Sept 2002 like the president was and told that there was strong evidence that Iraq did not have the WMD programs the WH was alleging). Nor was Iraq involved in the 9-11 attacks.

However, Congress is not likely to bring up any charges either. Considering their abject failure in this matter, they are a disgrace.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles cannot provide the evidence that the U.S. had the authority to act on the behalf of the UN.

That means the Bush admin acted illegally.

shakles, that is why the senior Bushies don't travel overseas. For very good reason.

Jake what does any of this mean? that the UN somehow has some authority to arrest GWB if he flies over seas?
Are you kidding me?
Dude there was over 50 nations involved in removing Saddam and killing Al Qaeda. does this mean all of these countries leaders are going to be arrested

Dude, you truly don't get that almost all of the senior Bushies don't travel to western Europe, for very good reasons. Why do you think Rumsfeld had to skip out of France so quickly a couple of years ago, or that he was told not to step into the State of Maine, for heavens sake.

What they did is actionable under international law. They can be arrested.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Obama administration attacked Libya without a constitutional declaration of war, without congressional authorization, without meaningful consultation with Congress -- and without a dollar being authorized from the House or Senate. It was a war started by a president who turned to the United Nations for its authority and ignored the authority of the US Congress.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...Ls3dRk&usg=AFQjCNGq8oM_uRud0ZR4M-OZy3HE3NCW6g

None of which has anything to do with the OP, thus is dismissed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles cannot provide the evidence that the U.S. had the authority to act on the behalf of the UN.

That means the Bush admin acted illegally.

shakles, that is why the senior Bushies don't travel overseas. For very good reason.

Your 'opinion' began by making these initial statements regarding President Bush:

The US had no legal or moral right to enforce the UN mandate.
To do so violated international law, making bush et all war criminals.

Clinton did not wrongfully invade Iraq.

Bush did and will be remembered as a war criminal for the rest of written history.

The president failed in all these tests of character. He plotted against international treaty obligations and reciprocities of law that condemned war crimes.

What?? Now you want to quietly tip toe your way back from your own previous statements? The very moment I begin to ask you to provide some "documentation" (just a little bit of proof) of these war crimes and United Nations violations of international law, you begin to hide. I want to be able to see for myself these accusations written against President George W. Bush for war crimes and violations against the UN, so I can judge for myself that you are correct. Is this too much to ask, for you to back up these above statements you previously made? Where are Bush's accusers among the UN if he broke international law?

All of your complaints have been clearly and repeatedly answered. The USA did not have international authority to commit aggressive war against Iraq in the name of the United Nations. Check with The Hague' website for further information. Also, ask yourself why the President and his senior principals do not travel to western Europe like a bunch of jet setters as do the members of previous administrations.

You are very, very uninformed and partisan in this matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither JRK nor Shakles have even remotely presented a coherent and documented case that would persuaded the objective minded and educated person to conclude anything other than the Bushies et al conducted an illegal and unjust war in Iraq that has resulted in seriously damaging the American economy, its prestige throughout the world, thousands on thousands of dead and injured Americans, scores on scores of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis, and an Iraqi and Iranian alliance that bodes no good for US policy interests.mis

Bush's administration will go down in history as a criminal conspiracy that failed miserably on the stage of world history.

Do you have this specific United Nations article that you say President Bush has violated by going into Iraq? Where is the document of this UN violation charge brought down from the UNITED NATIONS, that addresses these violations and specifically accuses President George W. Bush of these and of war crimes? I never recalled seeing any evidence of "links" that supports your argument. I'm not talking about commentaries, blogs, someone's best response from a Q&A, views from someone representing another nation, only those documents (even those coming from Geneva that are) "supported" by statements of accusations coming from the United Nations. Let's see these facts you are presenting here.

There are no charges against the USA by the UN. The point is moot and everyone knows it, because we are a permanant member of the SC with veto power. No resolution condemning the invasion will ever come out of the UNSC.

The invasion violated the principle of the UN's charter.

The invasion violated the Joint resolution passed by Congress, because Iraq did not pose a continuing threat to the USA. (Recall Congress was not breifed by the CIA chief in Sept 2002 like the president was and told that there was strong evidence that Iraq did not have the WMD programs the WH was alleging). Nor was Iraq involved in the 9-11 attacks.

However, Congress is not likely to bring up any charges either. Considering their abject failure in this matter, they are a disgrace.

The Hague of course has the authority and ability to issue such charges.

 

[BlindBoo]

No myths here just backed up "journalistic" facts over a cop-out using someone's Q&A site.



From your sources:




Clinton failed, in that the Clinton's counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives, the same as the Obama Administration, continue to look at terrorists as "criminals" rather than a matter of 'National Security'. Terrorists should be seen as more enemy combatants than "criminals". To use a plane as a bomb to attack a Pentagon Military Defense Building is equivalent to an act of war, not the work of mere criminals . . . BIG difference! The articles also don't give President Clinton a pass from the "responsibility" to defend the United States from further possible terrorist acts.

Thank you for providing the rebutal yourself.

"President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem, not just a law enforcement issue.."


How many al Queda terrorist have been killed while President Obama has been in office? If he truly see's it as a law enforcement issue shouldn't he have had those folks arrested by their home countries and the extradited here?

Boo people here and home have issues with you because you make this stuff up as you go. Obama is playing Nobel peace prize winning leader and in reality is far more the killer than W ever was
Difference is Obama is going after people who cannot fight back and have no threat to this country
W worked congress and kept the american people informed for 18 months prior to invading Iraq.
With Obama, Egypt and Syria he just took what again he had no business taking, the US military and used them for reasons he has yet to tell the tax payer as to why and as to what is expected after

Egypt is not going like he thought I would guess or it would be all over the press. Now you got people running Libya that there style of justice was shown yesterday

Wow. You think al Queda terrorist are not a threat to our country?

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, men, women and Children, were killed and maimed during the invasion and occuation. They truly couldn't fight back. Unlike the terrorist that have been killed this year.

President Bush and the compliant media fed the American sheeple a steady stream of propaganda that not only claimed Iraq was actively producing WMD but also was somehow behind the 9-11 attacks and you call that informing the American people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People here on the thread and elsewhere are aware of JRK's disinformation action plan to misinform Americans of the Bush administration's actionable missions. and they are taking note.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Poor Shackie....since you can't be bothered with Fackcheck.orgs Q&A style in debunking the myths you brought up about President Clinton

No myths here just backed up "journalistic" facts over a cop-out using someone's Q&A site.



From your sources:

Although the 1995 National Intelligence Estimate had warned of a new type of terrorism, many officials continued to think of terrorists as agents of states (Saudi Hezbollah acting for Iran against Khobar Towers) or as domestic crim- inals (Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City).

President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem, not just a law enforcement issue.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch4.pdf

Clinton failed, in that the Clinton's counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives, the same as the Obama Administration, continue to look at terrorists as "criminals" rather than a matter of 'National Security'. Terrorists should be seen as more enemy combatants than "criminals". To use a plane as a bomb to attack a Pentagon Military Defense Building is equivalent to an act of war, not the work of mere criminals . . . BIG difference! The articles also don't give President Clinton a pass from the "responsibility" to defend the United States from further possible terrorist acts.

Thank you for providing the rebutal yourself.

"President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem, not just a law enforcement issue.."


How many al Queda terrorist have been killed while President Obama has been in office? If he truly see's it as a law enforcement issue shouldn't he have had those folks arrested by their home countries and the extradited here?

Thank you for closing my argument by saying Clinton only treated Terrorism through "legal means" as every documentation surrounding President Clinton (you provided) looks very clear to support that view.

Here is the simple question: Has Obama ever retracted from pursuing terrorists as "criminals" and has stated that terrorists shall be called "enemy combatants"? Are Terrorists still viewed and treated, in the eyes of Eric Holder as criminals, by these articles below?

Good News: Miranda Rights Being Read to Terrorists
by Stephan Tawney on June 10, 2009

Question: Does the Obama Administration view high-value terrorists picked up on foreign battlefields as regular criminals or enemy combatants at war with the United States? Because if it’s the latter, why are we reading these guys Miranda Rights?
For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Good News: Miranda Rights Being Read to Terrorists | The American Pundit

Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: May 9, 2010
In a television interview this week, Holder said only that he wanted to work with Congress on legislation to provide investigators with "necessary flexibility." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was equally general in his comments, and the administration hasn't offered a detailed proposal. Still, Holder said the administration's interest in legislation was "big news." It's also bad news that will embolden members of Congress who object not only to reading terrorist suspects their rights but also to the practice of trying terrorists, including U.S. citizens, in civilian courts.
Attorney General Backs Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects - NYTimes.com

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Shakles cannot provide the evidence that the U.S. had the authority to act on the behalf of the UN.

That means the Bush admin acted illegally.

shakles, that is why the senior Bushies don't travel overseas. For very good reason.

Your 'opinion' began by making these initial statements regarding President Bush:

The president failed in all these tests of character. He plotted against international treaty obligations and reciprocities of law that condemned war crimes.

What?? Now you want to quietly tip toe your way back from your own previous statements? The very moment I begin to ask you to provide some "documentation" (just a little bit of proof) of these war crimes and United Nations violations of international law, you begin to hide. I want to be able to see for myself these accusations written against President George W. Bush for war crimes and violations against the UN, so I can judge for myself that you are correct. Is this too much to ask, for you to back up these above statements you previously made? Where are Bush's accusers among the UN if he broke international law?

All of your complaints have been clearly and repeatedly answered. The USA did not have international authority to commit aggressive war against Iraq in the name of the United Nations. Check with The Hague' website for further information. Also, ask yourself why the President and his senior principals do not travel to western Europe like a bunch of jet setters as do the members of previous administrations.

You are very, very uninformed and partisan in this matter.

All I asked was for ONE simple link stemming from the United Nations saying President Bush has violated international law. It has become quite obvious from your responses, no such document from the UN exists, else a simple "link" of accusation from the UN would be no problem for you. I don't care for your ask yourself left wing blog opinions, only that you provide me with actual "written document facts".

It's very simple, everyone on this thread can follow this: Either you can provide these links to written document facts coming from the United Nations, or you can't.

 

[BlindBoo]

No myths here just backed up "journalistic" facts over a cop-out using someone's Q&A site.



From your sources:




Clinton failed, in that the Clinton's counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives, the same as the Obama Administration, continue to look at terrorists as "criminals" rather than a matter of 'National Security'. Terrorists should be seen as more enemy combatants than "criminals". To use a plane as a bomb to attack a Pentagon Military Defense Building is equivalent to an act of war, not the work of mere criminals . . . BIG difference! The articles also don't give President Clinton a pass from the "responsibility" to defend the United States from further possible terrorist acts.

Thank you for providing the rebutal yourself.

"President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem, not just a law enforcement issue.."


How many al Queda terrorist have been killed while President Obama has been in office? If he truly see's it as a law enforcement issue shouldn't he have had those folks arrested by their home countries and the extradited here?

Thank you for closing my argument by saying Clinton only treated Terrorism through "legal means" as every documentation surrounding President Clinton (you provided) looks very clear to support that view.

Here is the simple question: Has Obama ever retracted from pursuing terrorists as "criminals" and has stated that terrorists shall be called "enemy combatants"? Are Terrorists still viewed and treated, in the eyes of Eric Holder as criminals, by these articles below?

Good News: Miranda Rights Being Read to Terrorists
by Stephan Tawney on June 10, 2009

Question: Does the Obama Administration view high-value terrorists picked up on foreign battlefields as regular criminals or enemy combatants at war with the United States? Because if it’s the latter, why are we reading these guys Miranda Rights?
For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Good News: Miranda Rights Being Read to Terrorists | The American Pundit

Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: May 9, 2010
In a television interview this week, Holder said only that he wanted to work with Congress on legislation to provide investigators with "necessary flexibility." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was equally general in his comments, and the administration hasn't offered a detailed proposal. Still, Holder said the administration's interest in legislation was "big news." It's also bad news that will embolden members of Congress who object not only to reading terrorist suspects their rights but also to the practice of trying terrorists, including U.S. citizens, in civilian courts.
Attorney General Backs Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects - NYTimes.com

"Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem..."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your 'opinion' began by making these initial statements regarding President Bush:
What?? Now you want to quietly tip toe your way back from your own previous statements? The very moment I begin to ask you to provide some "documentation" (just a little bit of proof) of these war crimes and United Nations violations of international law, you begin to hide. I want to be able to see for myself these accusations written against President George W. Bush for war crimes and violations against the UN, so I can judge for myself that you are correct. Is this too much to ask, for you to back up these above statements you previously made? Where are Bush's accusers among the UN if he broke international law?

All of your complaints have been clearly and repeatedly answered. The USA did not have international authority to commit aggressive war against Iraq in the name of the United Nations. Check with The Hague' website for further information. Also, ask yourself why the President and his senior principals do not travel to western Europe like a bunch of jet setters as do the members of previous administrations.

You are very, very uninformed and partisan in this matter.

All I asked was for ONE simple link stemming from the United Nations saying President Bush has violated international law. It has become quite obvious from your responses, no such document from the UN exists, else a simple "link" of accusation from the UN would be no problem for you. I don't care for your ask yourself left wing blog opinions, only that you provide me with actual "written document facts".
It's very simple, everyone on this thread can follow this: Either you can provide these links to written document facts coming from the United Nations, or you can't.

You don't set the goal posts, podjo. The UN did not give the USA the resolution it wanted, so the USA invaded in an offensive, aggressive war anyway. That is a violation of international law.

You don't like it? You don't matter. And you know that the Bushies don't travel overseas because they won't becoming back.

 

[JRK]

Your 'opinion' began by making these initial statements regarding President Bush:







What?? Now you want to quietly tip toe your way back from your own previous statements? The very moment I begin to ask you to provide some "documentation" (just a little bit of proof) of these war crimes and United Nations violations of international law, you begin to hide. I want to be able to see for myself these accusations written against President George W. Bush for war crimes and violations against the UN, so I can judge for myself that you are correct. Is this too much to ask, for you to back up these above statements you previously made? Where are Bush's accusers among the UN if he broke international law?

All of your complaints have been clearly and repeatedly answered. The USA did not have international authority to commit aggressive war against Iraq in the name of the United Nations. Check with The Hague' website for further information. Also, ask yourself why the President and his senior principals do not travel to western Europe like a bunch of jet setters as do the members of previous administrations.

You are very, very uninformed and partisan in this matter.

All I asked was for ONE simple link stemming from the United Nations saying President Bush has violated international law. It has become quite obvious from your responses, no such document from the UN exists, else a simple "link" of accusation from the UN would be no problem for you. I don't care for your ask yourself left wing blog opinions, only that you provide me with actual "written document facts".

It's very simple, everyone on this thread can follow this: Either you can provide these links to written document facts coming from the United Nations, or you can't.

You can forget that. Jake and Boo have no understanding of what information is and how it is used to clear up the truth

 

[JakeStarkey]

Such a link means nothing. The fact that it never supported Bush says much. Once a senior bushie is taken as a war criminal, s/he will be shipped to The Hague, where the charges will be drawn, the tribunal will be held, and if convicted, the con will never hold his or her family again. Righteously so.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You don't set the goal posts, podjo. The UN did not give the USA the resolution it wanted, so the USA invaded in an offensive, aggressive war anyway. That is a violation of international law.

You don't like it? You don't matter. And you know that the Bushies don't travel overseas because they won't becoming back.

Hating Bush because he fought muslium terrorist extremists does not PROVE your argument. You continue to only provide "opinion" without the basis of fact to back it up. If facts weren't so illusive for you, you would have been able to find some to defend your arguement. All you have given me is the same old "opinion" that I hear from the left through blogs or commentaries, as all unsupported statements are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't set the goal posts, podjo. The UN did not give the USA the resolution it wanted, so the USA invaded in an offensive, aggressive war anyway. That is a violation of international law.

You don't like it? You don't matter. And you know that the Bushies don't travel overseas because they won't becoming back.

Hating Bush because he fought muslium terrorist extremists does not PROVE your argument. You continue to only provide "opinion" without the basis of fact to back it up. If facts weren't so illusive for you, you would have been able to find some to defend your arguement. All you have given me is the same old "opinion" that I hear from the left through blogs or commentaries, as all unsupported statements are.

I deny what you do, hate.

My fact are clear, and the Bushies don't travel.

End of story.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Thank you for providing the rebutal yourself.

"President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem, not just a law enforcement issue.."


How many al Queda terrorist have been killed while President Obama has been in office? If he truly see's it as a law enforcement issue shouldn't he have had those folks arrested by their home countries and the extradited here?

Thank you for closing my argument by saying Clinton only treated Terrorism through "legal means" as every documentation surrounding President Clinton (you provided) looks very clear to support that view.

Here is the simple question: Has Obama ever retracted from pursuing terrorists as "criminals" and has stated that terrorists shall be called "enemy combatants"? Are Terrorists still viewed and treated, in the eyes of Eric Holder as criminals, by these articles below?

Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: May 9, 2010
In a television interview this week, Holder said only that he wanted to work with Congress on legislation to provide investigators with "necessary flexibility." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was equally general in his comments, and the administration hasn't offered a detailed proposal. Still, Holder said the administration's interest in legislation was "big news." It's also bad news that will embolden members of Congress who object not only to reading terrorist suspects their rights but also to the practice of trying terrorists, including U.S. citizens, in civilian courts.
Attorney General Backs Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects - NYTimes.com

"Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem..."

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for closing my argument by saying Clinton only treated Terrorism through "legal means" as every documentation surrounding President Clinton (you provided) looks very clear to support that view.

Here is the simple question: Has Obama ever retracted from pursuing terrorists as "criminals" and has stated that terrorists shall be called "enemy combatants"? Are Terrorists still viewed and treated, in the eyes of Eric Holder as criminals, by these articles below?

"Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem..."

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

Your false case means nothing. Clinton did a far better job at protecting the homeland while preserving civil liberties than Bush. You are merely a neo-con whose time is over for good.

 

[JRK]

Thank you for closing my argument by saying Clinton only treated Terrorism through "legal means" as every documentation surrounding President Clinton (you provided) looks very clear to support that view.

Here is the simple question: Has Obama ever retracted from pursuing terrorists as "criminals" and has stated that terrorists shall be called "enemy combatants"? Are Terrorists still viewed and treated, in the eyes of Eric Holder as criminals, by these articles below?

"Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem..."

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

Nor has it ever been used in the time of war on those who you are at war with