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

Whatcha gunna do when they come for You?

MsSage

Well-known member
Basically, Obama proposes to imprison anyone a government bureaucrat determines is "dangerous" forever. No trial, no evidence, no habeas corpus. Just lock them up and keep them until they die. The power is not confined to foreigners nor is it limited to terrorists; the definition of "dangerous" is so vague and broad that it could certainly be applied to essentially anyone who ever visited this forum, anyone who has ever cursed a politician, anyone who expresses unpopular opinions of any kind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You apparently haven't read the authority GW grabbed after 9/11 :???: ....If he or Cheney designated you a terrorist (no matter if a US citizen or not) you could just disappear into prison forever- with no judicial review or law to justify it-- or no outside oversight...
If King George or Cheney said you were a terrorist- you were one- and noone could question it.....


It looks like Obama is trying to make what the country has been doing illegally- legal- with a law supporting it- and a system of oversight to make sure no one person ever again has King George type power.....

Also in other parts of the article it indicates he is setting up the military tribunals that were ordered by the Courts including SCOTUS- and that Bush never carried thru on...

The Rule of Law returning to D.C..... :)

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
OT you sound like an echo of Barracko....all he talks about is "the rule of law", yet he too does as he dam well pleases and nobody het has had theballs to call his hand on it.

Obama Extortion Shatters Rule Of Law

By Steve Stanek, 5/19/2009 10:05:11 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Until earlier this month, this was a nation of laws, not of men, a nation where justice was blind, meaning we are all equal under the law.
That changed when President Barack Obama’s extortionate threats against the "holdout" Chrysler lenders caused them to accept the government’s 29 cents on the dollar offer for the money Chrysler owes them.

Obama publicly vilified these lenders, who had every legal, contractual, and moral right to hold out for a better return on the money they gave Chrysler. Behind the scenes, administration officials allegedly threatened to destroy the lenders by "unleashing the White House press corps" on them, according to Tom Lauria, an attorney representing the lenders.

If true—and there is little reason to doubt it, given the president’s public conduct—the president or his agents should face criminal charges. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes extortion by the president.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
OT you sound like an echo of Barracko....all he talks about is "the rule of law", yet he too does as he dam well pleases and nobody het has had theballs to call his hand on it.

oldtimer is a stuck 45 rpm record, has no insite to current events. all he can do is bash Bush and the past president, he can't see that the current one is leading us down a path of destruction.
EH oldtimer?
BASH BUSH bash bash what a loser!!!!
 

fff

Well-known member
OT is exactly right. GW Bush put US citizens in jail with no rights, no appeals, no attorney, and you guys didn't say a thing, even supported him. Now that President Obama is in charge, suddenly it's a terrible abuse of power. You're all hypocrites. None of you can be taken seriously when you didn't object to Bush's spending, Bush's evesdropping, etc, yet now are bitching and moaning about Obama. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

MsSage

Well-known member
hmmm let me get this straight
Since Bush did it its OK now that obama is making it LEGAL?
Im sorry but it was WRONG and I was saying it was wrong then.
Dont you get it??????????

Oh NO BONKERS ALERT********

Dammmm old man stop gripping about BUSH and see what is getting ready to start happening NOW.
You said you were Sherriff hmm I am SURE you pissed off at least ONE politician are you ready to be held in the jail you once controled? Then sent God knows where and held untill you die?

GOOD GAWD ALMIGHTY no matter what you believe I dont want that to happen to you.....WAKE UP please before its too late.
Put down the hatred of Bush and pick BACK up the love and pride in AMERICA
 

fff

Well-known member
MsSage said:
hmmm let me get this straight
Since Bush did it its OK now that obama is making it LEGAL?
Im sorry but it was WRONG and I was saying it was wrong then.
Dont you get it??????????

Oh NO BONKERS ALERT********

Dammmm old man stop gripping about BUSH and see what is getting ready to start happening NOW.
You said you were Sherriff hmm I am SURE you p****d off at least ONE politician are you ready to be held in the jail you once controled? Then sent God knows where and held untill you die?

GOOD GAWD ALMIGHTY no matter what you believe I dont want that to happen to you.....WAKE UP please before its too late.
Put down the hatred of Bush and pick BACK up the love and pride in AMERICA

But it's all a lie.

In a story becoming more bizarre by the minute, ABCNews has now picked up on the Perella Weinberg scent with some news twists. According to ABC, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton claims that the allegations by Tom Lauria, global head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency at White & Case are "completely untrue". As Zero Hedge already disclosed, Perella Weinberg was previously a client of White & Case, however, the firm run by former head of M&A at Morgan Stanley Joe Perella (where incidentally Steve Rattner was head of the Communications group until 1989), decided to fire the law firm after developments unknown, and in a radio show, Tom Lauria had this to say about the White House's alleged strongarming tactics:

"One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight...That was Perella Weinberg."
The White House has now stepped in and claims that this story is patently false:

"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."
What is more strange is that now Perella Weinberg itself is claiming Lauria's story misrepresented the facts:

"A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.” The spokesperson would not elaborate."
What is strangest is that Lauria would stake his career and reputation on the line by stating on the record the facts previously disclosed. As such his downside is much bigger than that of Mr. Burton or of the PW's spokesperson, as they effectively side with the Obama's side of the story.

Granted there could be even more to this story than meets the eye, thanks to some keen observations by our friends at Finem Respice.

Ultimately, this will be a very interesting development, because without factual backing, Tom Lauria's career is now on the line, as he has taken on not just the administration but his very own, former client. The bottom line here is that someone is lying, and if any further facts emerge to substantiate White & Case's position, it could prove to be a massive PR blow to both the White House and the FDIC's advisor, Perella Weinberg.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3215778
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MsSage said:
hmmm let me get this straight
Since Bush did it its OK now that obama is making it LEGAL?
Im sorry but it was WRONG and I was saying it was wrong then.
Dont you get it??????????

So you believe all the Gitmo detainees and any of the alledged Al Quaeda trained Muslim radicals that were caught on the battlefield should be set free :???:

Do you want them in Texas :???: - Maybe you can teach them how to milk a cow :???:
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MsSage said:
hmmm let me get this straight
Since Bush did it its OK now that obama is making it LEGAL?
Im sorry but it was WRONG and I was saying it was wrong then.
Dont you get it??????????

So you believe all the Gitmo detainees and any of the alledged Al Quaeda trained Muslim radicals that were caught on the battlefield should be set free :???:

Do you want them in Texas :???: - Maybe you can teach them how to milk a cow :???:
Keep them there DONT CLOSE GITMO
Dont you see the sloope we are getting ready to start slipping down?
It is NOT just terrorist wanting to kill us but anyone who is considered dangrous by any politician. hmmm gun owners....vets.....defenders of the Constitution..anyone who disagrees with obama
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MsSage said:
Oldtimer said:
MsSage said:
hmmm let me get this straight
Since Bush did it its OK now that obama is making it LEGAL?
Im sorry but it was WRONG and I was saying it was wrong then.
Dont you get it??????????

So you believe all the Gitmo detainees and any of the alledged Al Quaeda trained Muslim radicals that were caught on the battlefield should be set free :???:

Do you want them in Texas :???: - Maybe you can teach them how to milk a cow :???:
Keep them there DONT CLOSE GITMO
Dont you see the sloope we are getting ready to start slipping down?
It is NOT just terrorist wanting to kill us but anyone who is considered dangrous by any politician. hmmm gun owners....vets.....defenders of the Constitution..anyone who disagrees with obama

No its you that don't see...That authority has been being used by the past Administration for 7 years--if Bush or Cheney said lock you up-- you were locked up....With no oversight- no Judicial review -no Habeas Corpus....
And the SCOTUS has said that was illegal under our Constitution- and that everyone detained has the right to a review by a court or military tribunal...
But Bush refused to even properly set up the tribunals...

Now Obama is also saying these type of detentions are illegal as they were carried out --and that no one man or one branch of government should have that power- and is working on setting up rules to keep it from happening again....And to give the policy/practice some transparency/oversight by the Judicial and Legislative branches...

After watching Bush throw out years of rule of law- and rip apart the Constitution- and especially the Constitutional balance of the our 3 branch system----last fall I saw only 3 candidates for President I could support that showed they recognized rule of law and the Constitution...These were Paul, Obama, and Bob Barr- none of which I totally agreed with--but supported over the other ding dongs who were in Goosestep with GW- and showed no signs of returning our country to being a country of laws...

And so far in my view- Obama is taking major strides at bringing back the rule of law.....

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, tells Fox News that the Guantanamo Bay prison facility that houses terrorist detainees in Cuba should be closed because of the questionable way prisoners were captured.


"It should be closed because we don't need it,” Paul, a former presidential candidate, told The Glenn Beck Show’s substitute host Andrew Napolitano.


“It was unnecessary, the way these prisoners were captured was very questionable, Paul said. They haven't had really due process. So, the real thugs that need to be tried, they ought to be tried."
----------------------

Paul said the key to closing the facility is first to show why the detainees are there, and then prove that they've done something wrong in some legitimate recognized court of law.


“I think that's the key to it. And so far, they don't have an answer, because they're not allowing them to be tried in a legitimate court of law.”

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
~Louis D. Brandeis

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
~Louis D. Brandeis
 

MsSage

Well-known member
OK fine
since it has been done before its ok to keep on doing it.............

Is that the way you raised your kids?
Nevermind your so full of hate and want someone to pay no matter who as long as you get your ounce of flesh your happy. :roll:
Nice talking to you have a good day
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MsSage said:
OK fine
since it has been done before its ok to keep on doing it.............

Is that the way you raised your kids?
Nevermind your so full of hate and want someone to pay no matter who as long as you get your ounce of flesh your happy. :roll:
Nice talking to you have a good day

:roll: :roll:

SAGE- reread the article..... We are NOT going to keep doing it... Thats what Obama is saying....It will be set up so anyone detained has access to a review--by a court or tribunal...And that detention will be set up under guidelines and oversight provided by the Judicial and Legislative branchs of our government....No longer under just one mans say...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MsSage said:
OK fine
since it has been done before its ok to keep on doing it.............

Is that the way you raised your kids?
Nevermind your so full of hate and want someone to pay no matter who as long as you get your ounce of flesh your happy. :roll:
Nice talking to you have a good day

:roll: :roll:

SAGE- reread the article..... We are NOT going to keep doing it... Thats what Obama is saying....It will be set up so anyone detained has access to a review--by a court or tribunal...And that detention will be set up under guidelines and oversight provided by the Judicial and Legislative branchs of our government....No longer under just one mans say...

Aren't you the guy that admits to being fooled by Bush initially also?
 

Richard Doolittle

Well-known member
fff said:
OT is exactly right. GW Bush put US citizens in jail with no rights, no appeals, no attorney, and you guys didn't say a thing, even supported him. Now that President Obama is in charge, suddenly it's a terrible abuse of power. You're all hypocrites. None of you can be taken seriously when you didn't object to Bush's spending, Bush's evesdropping, etc, yet now are bitching and moaning about Obama. :lol: :lol: :lol:

How many US Citizens were locked up in this manner by the Bush Administration??
 
Top