• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Fumbles

Mike

Well-known member
ANTI-TERROR OOPS
BARACK BUMBLES LEGAL QUESTIONS
By SCOTT W. JOHNSON
Abdel-Rahman: Continued jihad from jail
June 23, 2008 --

SPEAKING without a text in front of him, Barack Obama betrays a troubling lack of knowledge on important issues - such as the law and terrorism.

In his ABC interview last Monday, for example, Obama attacked the Bush approach on fighting terror. He claimed that, in the case of "the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated."

As an assistant US attorney, Andrew McCarthy prosecuted the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack. He calls Obama's statement "a remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism."

Writing for National Review Online, McCarthy notes: "While the government managed to prosecute many people responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, many also escaped prosecution because of the limits on civilian criminal prosecution.

"Some who contributed to the attack, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system's capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him - he fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been apprehended)."

Pointing to the later terrorist attacks on Americans and US assets, culminating in 9/11, McCarthy concludes that the law-enforcement approach to combating terrorism was futile.

But Obama's comments fall short on other grounds, too.

The convicted spiritual mentor of the 1993 WTC bombers is Omar Abdel-Rahman ("the blind sheik"). By Obama's logic, the blind sheik was "incapacitated" and therefore rendered harmless by his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, Abdel-Rahman continued to wage jihad from behind bars, issuing instructions to his followers in Egypt.

Attorney Lynne Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of conspiracy and providing and concealing material support of terrorism for her actions in smuggling messages from Abdel-Rahman to his followers in the terrorist group Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group).

The jihadist activities of Abdel-Rahman from behind bars, plus the collaboration of his attorney, illustrate the challenges President Bush sought to confront fairly with the arrangements for the detention and isolation of captured enemy combatants in Guantanamo.

Of course, the Supreme Court just upended those arrangements with its controversial ruling in the Boumediene case, which gave Gitmo detainees the right to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court.

Obama approves: He recently asserted that the "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."

He explained: "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 law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle."

Oops. At Nuremberg, an international military commission composed of representatives of the victorious Allies put the top surviving Nazi leaders on trial starting in late 1945.

Yet, in Boumediene, the Supreme Court disapproved of the system of military commissions that Congress had adopted for Gitmo (at the high court's previous urging). Thus, the Nuremberg defendants' "day in court" came before a kind of tribunal found constitutionally inadequate in the decision Obama was praising.

The Nazi war criminals had no access to US courts. The fair-trial provision of the charter governing the trial was relatively skimpy - and the provision on appeal rights was even shorter and sweeter: The defendants had no right to appeal. The procedures the court found deficient in Boumediene, by contrast, provided for appeal rights to the DC Circuit, the most prominent US bench below the Supreme Court.

In short, the procedural protections for Gitmo detainees under the statute before the Supreme Court in Boumediene exceed those accorded the Nuremberg defendants. Far exceed.

Obama's unfavorable comparison of the legal treatment at Gitmo with that at Nuremberg suggests either that he doesn't know what he's talking about - or that he feels free to exploit the ignorance of audiences that don't know the truth of the matter.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SHEESHE Mike- You'd think being the radical Muslim he is he'd have all the facts down pat on his buddies involvement in the WTC bombings, wouldn't you :???: :wink: :lol: :p

"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 law.

Nuremberg was partly under military tribunal and parts were held under Control Council Law No. 10- and the US and Britain purposely pushed to have them open to the public, televised and filmed to show just exactly those principles...Not like Gitmo- where the identity of those held was even secret (and family members didn't even know where some were for years)- let alone the fact of years without even a military hearing...

Interestingly- in the Gitmo hearings it has came out that the way things were done at Gitmo were opposed by the attorneys of every branch of the service-Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines- as being illegal and against International Law, US Law and Military Law...

It was only the neocon Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld puppet attorneys that finally authorized and approved the order for it- and even then its apparent that Rumsfeld/Cheney/? felt it was illegal because they added a handwritten phrase on the order "Immunity in Advance"--that as every attorney agrees to, is something nobody-not even King George- can do---give someone immunity to break the law....

Colin Powell:
Powell said the use of torture and denial of habeas corpus at the prison for suspected terrorists at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo has diminished America's standing in the world. "It [Guantanamo] is not seen as a place that is consistent with what America says justice will be."

Powell said the harshness of Guantanamo has also given "cover to a lot of really bad people around the world who say: 'Hey, don't lecture me, look at what you're doing.' "

Powell said that torture, including water-boarding, should stop at Guantanamo and that terrorism suspects should be given lawyers and afforded all the rights of the American criminal justice system.

Powell also said that the American war on terrorism has gone too far in deterring foreigners from entering the U.S., and rules governing entry to the U.S. must be relaxed.

Many well-qualified people from around the world are deciding not to study at American universities or work at medical clinics because of their fear of being hassled by U.S. authorities, he added.

"We will not be terrified into changing our way of life because of some guy [Osama bin Laden] hiding in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan."


Colin Powell slams Bush
might vote for Obama;
Former U.S. secretary of state says presidential voting decision will be based on passion and policies
Doug Ward, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, June 13, 2008

He was a four-star American general, the secretary of state during President George W. Bush's first term and remains a Republican.

But Colin Powell said Thursday in Vancouver that he is considering voting for Democrat Barack Obama in November -- and he took shots at the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and the holding of terrorism suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Powell told a crowd of about 1,000 people at the Vancouver Convention & Exhibition Centre that he hasn't decided whether to support Obama or Republican John McCain for the U.S. presidency.

Powell said that Obama's life story sums up the "American dream" and he described McCain as the "toughest man I've ever met."

Powell said he told both candidates recently that he has not decided which one will have his coveted endorsement.

The African-American former general said his decision won't be based on the race or military experience of the candidates, but on their passion and policies.

The former secretary of state discussed the controversy that drew a small but loud protest outside the convention centre -- Powell's use of flawed intelligence during his 2003 presentation at the United Nations to sell the world on the invasion of Iraq.

Powell told the audience that he wouldn't have agreed with the decision to go to war had he known that the data about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction was exaggerated.

Powell said that every word of what he called his "infamous" presentation about WMD had been vetted by the intelligence community -- "and I had no reason to disbelieve it."

The former secretary of state has previously described his prewar UN speech as a "blot" on his record.

Powell went on to say that the Bush administration fell into "disarray" over how to govern Iraq after it overthrew Hussein.

"If we had handled the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad differently then we wouldn't be where we are today," said Powell.

He said the new president should "draw down" the number of American troops in Iraq and hand more responsibility to Iraqi forces.

Powell said the use of torture and denial of habeas corpus at the prison for suspected terrorists at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo has diminished America's standing in the world. "It [Guantanamo] is not seen as a place that is consistent with what America says justice will be."

Powell said the harshness of Guantanamo has also given "cover to a lot of really bad people around the world who say: 'Hey, don't lecture me, look at what you're doing.' "

Powell said that torture, including water-boarding, should stop at Guantanamo and that terrorism suspects should be given lawyers and afforded all the rights of the American criminal justice system.

Powell also said that the American war on terrorism has gone too far in deterring foreigners from entering the U.S., and rules governing entry to the U.S. must be relaxed.

Many well-qualified people from around the world are deciding not to study at American universities or work at medical clinics because of their fear of being hassled by U.S. authorities, he added.

"We will not be terrified into changing our way of life because of some guy [Osama bin Laden] hiding in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=91beb024-7b54-450b-b4f8-bbbf224599cd
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
The Constitution says one thing, Obama and Powell say another. Not hard for me to figure this one out.

Interestingly- in the Gitmo hearings it has came out that the way things were done at Gitmo were opposed by the attorneys of every branch of the service-Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines- as being illegal and against International Law, US Law and Military Law...

All the military's attorneys that work with it daily were wrong too :???:

Even the Joint Chiefs Admiral that was doing a complete review of the Gitmo dealings (and detainee treatment around the world) was very distressed by the policy- and thought it was illegal and should be countermanded...But her review was halted half way thru by orders from the DOD/Rumsfeld- which she testified was very unordinary and had never happened before...

Reeks to high heaven!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
The Constitution says one thing, Obama and Powell say another. Not hard for me to figure this one out.

Interestingly- in the Gitmo hearings it has came out that the way things were done at Gitmo were opposed by the attorneys of every branch of the service-Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines- as being illegal and against International Law, US Law and Military Law...

All the military's attorneys that work with it daily were wrong too :???:

Even the Joint Chiefs Admiral that was doing a complete review of the Gitmo dealings (and detainee treatment around the world) was very distressed by the policy- and thought it was illegal and should be countermanded...But her review was halted half way thru by orders from the DOD/Rumsfeld- which she testified was very unordinary and had never happened before...

Reeks to high heaven!!!!!!

I don't support what they were/are doing at Gitmo, but giving them access to our courts is not right either.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
The Constitution says one thing, Obama and Powell say another. Not hard for me to figure this one out.

Interestingly- in the Gitmo hearings it has came out that the way things were done at Gitmo were opposed by the attorneys of every branch of the service-Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines- as being illegal and against International Law, US Law and Military Law...

All the military's attorneys that work with it daily were wrong too :???:

Even the Joint Chiefs Admiral that was doing a complete review of the Gitmo dealings (and detainee treatment around the world) was very distressed by the policy- and thought it was illegal and should be countermanded...But her review was halted half way thru by orders from the DOD/Rumsfeld- which she testified was very unordinary and had never happened before...

Reeks to high heaven!!!!!!

I don't support what they were/are doing at Gitmo, but giving them access to our courts is not right either.

I agree- it should be handled thru a military tribunal- but GW's stalling and refusal to listen to the courts earlier orders for "timely" hearings and representation- footdragging as normal- and the fact that once the tribunals were set up- they made a mock of military tribunals by setting up Kangaroo Courts (several military attorney officers and tribunal judges said that it was made clear to them that if they didn't rule the way they were told to- their careers were down the drain :( ) got us this ruling that is now law of the land until changed by Congress...

We wouldn't have this if it had not been for the arrogance of King George and his belief he can ignore any law or section of the Constitution he wants to....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
We're getting off course now. The thread started with Mike pointing out how Obama can't tell the differences between the Nuremberg trials and Habeus Corpus. He's not only showing inexperience, but ignorance - neither presidential qualifiers.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
the US and Britain purposely pushed to have them open to the public, televised and filmed to show just exactly those principles...Not like Gitmo- where the identity of those held was even secret (and family members didn't even know where some were for years)- let alone the fact of years without even a military hearing...

Big difference is the Nazi trials were after the war was won and the Nazi's were no longer a threat. Today we are still engaged in a war with the terrorist. I am all for as many trials as you Libs want as soon as Radical Muslims surrender and give up the fight. Until then I am for keeping their leaders and fellow terrorist under strong lock and key. We can have this conversation once they quit!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mike said:
"Some who contributed to the attack, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system's capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him - he fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been apprehended)."

Don't tell fff, she still thinks Clinton got them bad men and punished them. Even though one of the big players went on to do more evil until Bush caught him.
 
Top