-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
Great article! And here’s another one. . .
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/24/rep-blake-farenthold-the-12-failings-of-obama/
Be sure to hum “The Twelve Days of Christmas” while reading it . . .
Gitmo breaks International law. Do you believe in following law?
If you can not charger a person with a crime you can hold them forever?
Torture?
wasted spending? The cost was estimated at
800,00 annually per inmate…. 2011
2.7 million annually per inmate…. 2013
2.8 million annually per inmate…. 2014
The place is falling apart and the cost is rising,
We have prisons here empty that could hold anybody that can be actually charged. You saying they can hold them n Cuba but when they come here we would be incompetent?
Keeping radical Islamo-fascist terrorists under lock and key and interrogating them is wasted money? How much are tens of thousands of peaceful Muslims lives worth, Dewey? Who kills more Muslims than radical Muslims? How much are American citizens lives worth, eh?
Come on, Jack and Tina. This is the kind of comment you think should be tolerated here? This is what you think is a valuable contribution? Keep in mind this was said in response to someone saying Gitmo was a waste of money. This is what Pie thought was a rational, proportionate response to that disagreement, because he’s insane.
Can we agree saying you hope someone is brutally tortured and murdered by terrorists simply because you disagree with them politically is over the line? Can we agree it’s indicative of an unhinged, imbalanced mindset?
Editors note: One of our contributors crossed a line in comments. The offending portion of the comment has been deleted here as well as in the original. Reminder to our regulars: Please be responsible; Jack and I do not have time to read every word in your comments when we post them. We have placed our trust in you and threats, even when expressed as “wishes or hopes, do not represent our values or the ER Standards.
It’s unfortunate that we find ourselves, once again, in this place.
For the record, I do not agree with the statement: “Can we agree it’s indicative of an unhinged, imbalanced mindset?” Nor do I agree that what was written implies “insanity.”
To me, the comment was indicative of frustration at the thoughtless, delusional machinations of many on the left, including our president, who think we can make friends with people who will ACTUALLY do such things as described. It’s indicative of the frustration many of us feel when we realize we represent a bigger threat to you than do the murderous terrorists who threaten us all with a brutal death and with absolute tyranny.
It’s also unfortunate to me that you, Chris, often direct your attention toward tarnishing me with petty vitriolic statements in order to paint me as a liar, bigoted, or racist…but that’s where we find ourselves.
You can award yourself a gold star for being more controlled, Chris, but you deserve low marks for being just as (covertly) hateful in your intentions. That’s my HO. Another is that none of us is above the other in terms of crossing the line.
Got it, Tina. When a leftist speaks in anything less than a perfectly civil manner, it’s “hate,” but when a conservative does it its just “frustration,” totally understandable, and actually the fault of the left anyway.
Brilliant.
No Chris you do not “get it.”
Please direct yourself to what I actually wrote: “…for being just as (covertly) hateful.
“Just as”…not singularly…got it?
Another prediction for 2016 —
Chris will continue to whine to Tina like the spoiled little boy he is.
I refuse to apologize for my deleted sentiment, no matter how appropriate and just it is. Those who seek to enable and excuse radical Islam and seek to free terrorists should be the first to fall from that evil. That includes Chris and Dewey. Being as stupid as Chris and Dewey and Obama is as evil as radical Islam.
Obama’s PC policies is directly responsible for the deaths in San Bernardino Islamo-fascist terror attack. Releasing terrorists and closing Guantanamo is completely insane. There is no evidence that Guantanamo is used as a recruitment tool by Islamic radicals. That is a pin-headed left wing myth.
I wonder if Pie thinks John McCain should be tortured and killed by terrorists, since he also wants to close Guantanamo Bay.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/242290-obamas-last-hope-on-gitmo-john-mccain
I also wonder why Pie has so little faith in our justice system that he thinks indefinitely detaining suspected terrorists without any kind of due process or requirement of evidence is a good idea.
I wonder if wannabe negro burner Chris will ever ask a serious question or if he is capable of such.
“Due process” (whatever Chris thinks that is in his fantasy world) does not apply to foreign combatants seeking to destroy us. Chris seems to think that “due process” means releasing radicalized terrorists.
One might think that Obama would have learned from the mistakes of his predecessor, and to trust his advisers, but he has not. That makes him even more stupid than Bush regarding this issue.
That Chris thinks enemy terrorist combatants deserve a day in court is ludicrous.
Pie, you don’t seem to understand the fundamental reason due process exists (but then, I wouldn’t expect someone who throws around the term “negro burner” to understand anything):
Until there is a day in court, we don’t actually know whether someone is an enemy terrorist combatant or not. It has nothing to do with what terrorists “deserve.” It has to do with not trusting the government to lock up people forever just because they say someone is a terrorist.
That conservatives, who claim to harbor distrust against the government, are generally more likely than liberals to put their trust in the government to do this never fails to amaze me. Is it because they can’t imagine it happening to them?
Innocent people have been detained and tortured under such policies. It’s not hard to find their names. The movie “Rendition,” based on a true story, sheds some light on the issue; researching the real case it was based on was even more shocking.
Very simply because the terror organizations they would return to are still at war with America and because it has been shown they do return to wage war against. It isn’t a matter of not trusting or having faith in our Justice system. It is a matter of using an appropriate justice system for those who wage war. Military tribunals are appropriate. Indefinite detention is a consequence of waging war.
Those detainees that were deemed to have been “scooped up” in the “fog of war” as innocents have already been released.
The questions for me are why you think terrorists are entitled to justice in American courts. They are not citizens or, if former Americans, they have betrayed their nation and by their actions denounced their citizenship, and they are out to destroy our justice system (and Constitution) to supplant it with sharia…they hate and are at war with our ideals and values. The only “due process” they are entitled to is humane treatment. They have received that and MORE!
Tina: “Those detainees that were deemed to have been “scooped up” in the “fog of war” as innocents have already been released.”
How do you know that? You don’t trust the Obama administration to do pretty much anything, so how can you trust them to lock people up without trial, just because they say they’re terrorists?
Without a fair trial (and yes, a military tribunal would count) there is no way for anyone to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty.
“How do you know that? ”
Because the Bush administration made a concerted effort to release or transfer those “scooped up,” more than 500 to be exact, according to Politifact.
“…how can you trust them to lock people up without trial, just because they say they’re terrorists?”
First of all it would be the Bush administration I trusted. Obama prefers to kill and resists taking prisoners.
“…there is no way for anyone to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty.”
If that’s true there is no need for trials at all!
You assume the government was incompetent, crass, and perhaps evil when they took these prisoners. Do you really think an effort was not made to determine who they were? Cross interrogation of prisoners is one investigative tool. I’m sure there are many others.
If it were not for the betrayal of radical left lawyers, during a time of war, many of these prisoners would already have received justice and a fair trial through military trials. delays were politically driven and absolutely unnecessary. Radical lefties are happy to keep the issue, don’t mind the delay, and operate under the mask of being on the side of “justice.” they really just wanted to slam the Bush administration. No one has been as critical of Obama in seven long years.
Tina: “Obama prefers to kill and resists taking prisoners.”
Certainly some new prisoners must have been sent to Guantanamo under Obama, no?
“If that’s true there is no need for trials at all!”
I’m not following you here. A trial has a jury, a judge, and evidence; it’s a process. Even a flawed trial is better than none at all.
“You assume the government was incompetent, crass, and perhaps evil when they took these prisoners.”
An assumption you make quite often when it comes to other government policies.
But I don’t actually need to assume; government incompetence in detaining (and torturing) prisoners has been documented:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
These instances happened under Bush, but I’m not naive enough to believe similar things couldn’t happen under Obama.
“Do you really think an effort was not made to determine who they were?”
Of course I’m sure an effort was made, but that’s not comforting when mistakes like those I linked to above have been made despite the effort. (And again, even this question betrays a very high level of trust in the government, at least when it comes to national security. You’re willing to place a very high level of trust in government if you think a particular policy increases safety from terrorism–even if that policy hasn’t actually been proven to do that.)
“If it were not for the betrayal of radical left lawyers, during a time of war, many of these prisoners would already have received justice and a fair trial through military trials. delays were politically driven and absolutely unnecessary.”
I’m not sure what you mean. Can you provide evidence of this?
“Radical lefties are happy to keep the issue, don’t mind the delay, and operate under the mask of being on the side of “justice.” they really just wanted to slam the Bush administration. No one has been as critical of Obama in seven long years.”
You’re certainly right about that last part. Obama has gotten let off the hook for doing many of the same things as Bush. As I’ve said before, painting Obama as “soft on terrorism” despite continuing policies such as indefinite detention and warrant less wiretapping is a narrative that suits both parties, so no wonder we see so little attention paid to these issues.
“Certainly some new prisoners must have been sent to Guantanamo under Obama, no? ”
I doubt it. Why would he do that when he ran on closing the facility? It would make him look the hypocrite, no?
Factcheck reports:
Where is the outrage?
As long as you smack ’em around on a ship at sea or overseas to get information without reading them their Miranda rights it’s A-okay with the ACLU lawyers.
It makes me sick the way the left politicizes war for power and votes on the spilled blood of our military. Loyalty to self and party comes before loyalty to America or any earlier commitment to support the war.
You say you’re not following my line of thinking. Let’s try again:
Your wrote: ““…there is no way for anyone to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty.”
And I replied: “If that’s true there is no need for trials at all!”
If there is “no way” to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty a trial would not matter. I’m pretty sure we had significant evidence to detain those men at Gitmo.
“An assumption you make quite often when it comes to other government policies.”
Unless a specific example is given I cannot comment except to say there’s a difference between an assumption and an opinion or a position.
“You’re willing to place a very high level of trust in government if you think a particular policy increases safety from terrorism–even if that policy hasn’t actually been proven to do that.”
I’m not sure to which policy you’re referring. The vague nature of this comment leaves me somewhat speechless, congrats.
Guessing I’d have to say, in an equally vague response, you don’t have proof that it didn’t “increase safety from terrorism,” except, perhaps, as one of several opinions.
In terms of policy my first requirement would be defense of the nation; it’s constitutionally mandated.
I looked for information explaining why Khalid El Masri was detained in the first place and found nothing. This indicates the information was withheld, possibly for security reasons. (If it was revealed, the media wasn’t interested in reporting it as far as I can tell.) The government must have had reason to believe El-Masri was dangerous. One day you may find out through FOIA requests.
A timeline shows that Bush ordered terror suspects to be tried in military tribunals in November of 2001. Soon after the yammering from radical left lawyers, activists, and left media began and court cases followed. Wikipedia:
The wheels of government/justice move slowly. The administrations hands were tied while matters were being settled. In October 2006 Congress passed the Military Commissions Act giving the President authority to try enemy combatants in military tribunals. By now the antiwar propaganda machine had convinced the public that the war was immoral and Bush and company monsters. The controversy over tribunals v US courts continued. The authority granted the president by Congress was eroded in the arena of public opinion.
In November 2006 Democrats took the Congress. In 2008 Obama was elected president and all of the controversy disappeared even though Obama promised to close Gitmo on day one. Seven years later the media remains relatively silent, doing their best to prop him up…
“As I’ve said before, painting Obama as “soft on terrorism” despite continuing policies such as indefinite detention and warrant less wiretapping is a narrative that suits both parties…”
Perhaps because war is not everyday life. War is about killing people and breaking things and requires a very different, much more intense, uglier, and unfair response. Wikipedia: “In total, the attacks claimed the lives of 2,996 people (including the 19 hijackers) and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage and $3 trillion in total costs. It was the deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively.”
When you are a defender and liberator, “justice” is doing what’s necessary to minimize death and destruction to our military and at home while defeating the enemy. Military tribunals would have kept sensitive information out of the press (security) while still offering a fair trial to detainees.
“…so no wonder we see so little attention paid to these issues.”
Oh but we did see a lot of attention to these and more, when it provided a pathway to destroy the GWB admininistration through negative press, propaganda entertainment, and activism. Obama has been given the soft glove treatment by all of those staunch “anti-war” types.
Tina, thanks for the information from Fact Check. I was surprised to learn that Obama has not sent any new detainees to Gitmo. That was very informative.
“Where is the outrage?
As long as you smack ’em around on a ship at sea or overseas to get information without reading them their Miranda rights it’s A-okay with the ACLU lawyers.”
I’m not sure why you got the sense from the Fact Check article that the ACLU lawyer was “a-okay” with that policy, since directly after the portion you quoted, he is quoted as saying this:
“We have some concerns about how those interrogations are carried out,” Anders said of interrogations aboard ships. “There has been very little disclosure about that.”
The ACLU has also spoken out strongly against Obama’s indefinite detention policies:
“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”
https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law
There are a lot of liberal organizations that are guilty of giving Obama a free pass on things they attacked Bush for doing; the ACLU isn’t one of them.
“You say you’re not following my line of thinking. Let’s try again:
Your wrote: ““…there is no way for anyone to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty.”
And I replied: “If that’s true there is no need for trials at all!”
If there is “no way” to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty a trial would not matter.”
OK, apparently I need to rephrase:
There is no way to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty without a fair trial.
I thought the bolded portion was pretty clearly implied by what I said, but I suppose I was wrong.
“I’m pretty sure we had significant evidence to detain those men at Gitmo.”
You really believe we should abandon our ideals of due process because you’re “pretty sure” there was evidence justifying indefinite detention? Is that supposed to be comforting?
Once again, this shows how much trust you’re willing to put into the government when it suits a purpose you feel strongly about.
“Guessing I’d have to say, in an equally vague response, you don’t have proof that it didn’t “increase safety from terrorism,” except, perhaps, as one of several opinions.”
I don’t need to prove that it didn’t increase safety. The default position is to follow the proconstitution and ensure due process. If the government wants to violate that, then as far as I’m concerned the burden is on them to prove the necessity of such an unconstitutional policy.
“I looked for information explaining why Khalid El Masri was detained in the first place and found nothing…The government must have had reason to believe El-Masri was dangerous.”
You could not have looked hard; it’s right there in the Wikipedia article I linked to, and the story has become very well known:
“He was detained by Macedonian border officials on December 31, 2003, because his name was identical (except for variations in Roman transliteration) to that of Khalid al-Masri, who was being sought as an alleged mentor to the al-Qaeda Hamburg cell, and because of suspicion that el-Masri’s German passport was a forgery.”
In other words, El-Masri was tortured (which included sodomizing him) because the CIA couldn’t tell apart two guys with the same name, and because they couldn’t tell a real passport from a forgery.
“I’m pretty sure we had significant evidence to detain those men at Gitmo.”
Again, you feeling “pretty sure” about illegally detaining people and torturing them doesn’t make me feel better, and it certainly doesn’t un-rape El-Masri. Goodness.
Thanks for the information about the ACLU and Obama’s detention policy. I somehow overlooked it.
“I thought the bolded portion was pretty clearly implied by what I said, but I suppose I was wrong.”
The reason the statement was unclear, in my opinion, was because it implied that military tribunals would not afford detainees a fair trial. This is simply not true.
“You really believe we should abandon our ideals of due process because you’re “pretty sure” there was evidence…”
Don’t put words in my mouth please! In context the statement implies confidence, not an “abandonment of ideals.” We were already set up to hold military trials when lefty lawyers started agitating to try them in US (open) courts, a security risk in times of war.
“The default position is to follow the proconstitution and ensure due process.”
Or put another way, treat unlawful enemy combatants according to civilian due process and criminality rather than due process as it applies in war.
“If the government wants to violate that, then as far as I’m concerned the burden is on them to prove the necessity of such an unconstitutional policy.”
Thoroughly read the article linked above and you will see that that is EXACTLY what the Bush administration did when confronted with an opposing view! I think you will find that Obama has been much less cooperative and much more willing to ignore and defy the laws, the congress and the Constitution.
“In other words, El-Masri was tortured (which included sodomizing him) because the CIA couldn’t tell apart two guys with the same name, and because they couldn’t tell a real passport from a forgery.”
Terrific giant leap there, Chris. You assume a perfect line of events to make CIA officials evil and guilty. That’s indicative of a child who expects and demands perfection.
War is anything but clear, simple, and direct.
It must feel quite lofty up there in superior-ville. When have you ever held a job that serious, difficult, and critical and performed with complete perfection?
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall…good luck, kid, this seems to be one of your challenges.
Tina: “The reason the statement was unclear, in my opinion, was because it implied that military tribunals would not afford detainees a fair trial. This is simply not true.”
This is what I said:
“Without a fair trial (and yes, a military tribunal would count) there is no way for anyone to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty.”
This is what you quoted me as saying:
“…there is no way for anyone to know whether those detained are innocent or guilty.”
So as you can see, my meaning was very clear from the beginning. The only way to get to your interpretation of what I said is if you only read the portion of my sentence that you quoted, and not the full sentence.
“In context the statement implies confidence,”
So you have confidence in Big Government to indefinitely detain people without trial. Good for you. I don’t have the same confidence, and the cases I’ve shown you prove that such confidence is mistaken.
“Or put another way, treat unlawful enemy combatants according to civilian due process and criminality rather than due process as it applies in war.”
Indefinite detention is not a normal aspect of war, and may in fact violate international law that the U.S. helped craft:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/24/us-prolonged-indefinite-detention-violates-international-law
Me: ““In other words, El-Masri was tortured (which included sodomizing him) because the CIA couldn’t tell apart two guys with the same name, and because they couldn’t tell a real passport from a forgery.”
Tina: “Terrific giant leap there, Chris.”
HOW is what I said at all a leap? It’s what happened! Literally, it is a factual account. There is no editorialization in what I said. Did you read the article? Were you unable to process it because it interferes with your “confidence” in the system?