Obama on the Supreme Court...
By Skycop150 Posted in The Courts — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The statement below is Obama’s concerning the recent Supreme Court decision on Gitmo and habeas corpus. (BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH)
It pretty much speaks for itself and shows how much this guy is out of touch, with everything!
Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.
According to him:
- No terrorist convictions since 9/11 (which is clearly false*) means we are not safe.
- No more attacks here since 9/11 apparently doesn't indicate anything.
His measure of our safety seems to be that it goes up or down as the number of lawyers trying to get terrorists set free goes up or down.
* Is he stupid or a liar or what? How about Zacarias Moussaoui? Maybe he doesn't count because he was arrested just before 9/11. How about Richard Reid? Maybe he doesn't count because he boarded the plane in France. Heck, I'd include Lynne Stewart, but Obama would never classify an attorney as a terrorist for helping terrorists.
The only logical answer is that Obama doesn't classify jihadis as terrorists. He probably follows the Code Pink/International ANSWER sort of thinking that the only terrorists in the world are Bush, Cheney, Rice, maybe Gates, and some ex-staffers like Rumsfeld and maybe Powell. Once President Obama turns all of them over to a war crimes tribunal at The Hague he'll claim to have rid the world of terrorism.
Every time Obama speaks it makes me feel more sick to my stomach that he has at least a 50-50 chance of getting elected.
~~
Obama's guiding principle: "I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks."
These would probably be better posted on open threads than individiual blog entries, so that blogs with more research/etc don't get pushed off the main page. Just one of these wouldn't be so bad, but four in a row....
That said, I haven't seen a front page open thread in awhile.
--------------------------------------
GOPMcCain for President, 2008