Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[hylandrdet]

I was flipping through my messages, when I noticed my first "red" rating since my return.

I fault myself; I forgot the reason why I'd left; there are too many people here who can't read between the lines.

Here's your link

BBC News - Obama rules out sending US troops to Yemen or Somalia

Now pay attention to two particular excerpts.

"President Barack Obama has said he has "no intention" of sending US troops to Yemen or Somalia to combat militant groups in those countries."

Note the bold. President Obama said he wouldn't send troops to directly combat Al Qaeda; he didn't say nothing about sending troops there to train and provide logistical support to the Yeminese Army. He didn't say anything about the use of drones attacks, either.

"Adm Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told CNN that the US was providing "some support" to Yemen's efforts to attack militants, but insisted Sanaa led the operations."


Note the bold again. Some support. Hmmm...

What do you think that's suppose to mean?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Uhhhh..there have been U.S. troops in Yemen for quite a while providing training to Yemenese military forces collaborating...ummmmm...eeerrrrrr.....combatting Al Qaeda.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

 

[hylandrdet]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

Here are the problems with your worst case scenario.

1. Nobody's going to get off; the evidence is too convincing.

2. Whatever information any of these detainees had, was already gathered up well before Obama had taken office. If they have anything else, after going though our "enhanced interrogation techniques", they're probably going to keep it to themselves for the rest of their lives.

The answer is no; President Obama is doing just fine; well, he's fighting this war a hell of a lot better than both Bushs combined.

 

[hylandrdet]

Uhhhh..there have been U.S. troops in Yemen for quite a while providing training to Yemenese military forces collaborating...ummmmm...eeerrrrrr.....combatting Al Qaeda.

Patek, you didn't learn from our "pirate" debate on MSNBC. I know a few things; I just don't tell untill its a done deal.

 

[CMike]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

I think it's to make his left wing base happy.

 

[sboyle24]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

It could be possible that putting the attempted terrorist through a fair trial is a way of reducing the hatred for America within the Extremist world. It's not a bad move. If the less humane individuals had gotten what they wanted out of the whole ordeal, he would have been tortured and hung.

Lets say an American soldier is captured. Which would anger you more?
1) Soldier is tortured, and imprisoned as a war criminal
2) He is given a fair trial, and imprisoned for terrorism.

See how their is diplomatic value in giving the man a fair trial? It is certainly an unorthodox method of diplomacy and a rather interesting attempt at said diplomacy. We'll have to see how it plays out in the end.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

Here are the problems with your worst case scenario.

1. Nobody's going to get off; the evidence is too convincing.

2. Whatever information any of these detainees had, was already gathered up well before Obama had taken office. If they have anything else, after going though our "enhanced interrogation techniques", they're probably going to keep it to themselves for the rest of their lives.

The answer is no; President Obama is doing just fine; well, he's fighting this war a hell of a lot better than both Bushs combined.

Baloney. OJ Simpson was acquitted when the evidence was so overwhelming that only the most stupid of the stupid would not have convicted him. Unfortunately, they put the most stupid of the stupid on that jury. And, if there is a similar jury or any kind of loophole or excuse to turn these guys loose, a judge who thinks like those who think terrorists should be treated as any ordinary citizen or who wants to thumb his nose at the Bush administration or any other similar motivation will turn him loose. Right here in the USA.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

It could be possible that putting the attempted terrorist through a fair trial is a way of reducing the hatred for America within the Extremist world. It's not a bad move. If the less humane individuals had gotten what they wanted out of the whole ordeal, he would have been tortured and hung.

Lets say an American soldier is captured. Which would anger you more?
1) Soldier is tortured, and imprisoned as a war criminal
2) He is given a fair trial, and imprisoned for terrorism.

See how their is diplomatic value in giving the man a fair trial? It is certainly an unorthodox method of diplomacy and a rather interesting attempt at said diplomacy. We'll have to see how it plays out in the end.

And here we have the argument that Al Qaida will be impressed if we show our more noble, compassionate, softer, and fair minded side. Unfortunately that isn't the way it is.\

We are dealing with people who are radicalized - taught early on and/or brainwashed to believe that the American way of life - our very freedoms, our fairness, our sense of justice, is criminal and anathema to Allah. The softer and more compassionate and fairminded we are, the more they despise us and see us as weak and vulnerable. And they will exploit that with every fiber of their being.

 

[CMike]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

It could be possible that putting the attempted terrorist through a fair trial is a way of reducing the hatred for America within the Extremist world. It's not a bad move. If the less humane individuals had gotten what they wanted out of the whole ordeal, he would have been tortured and hung.

Lets say an American soldier is captured. Which would anger you more?
1) Soldier is tortured, and imprisoned as a war criminal
2) He is given a fair trial, and imprisoned for terrorism.

See how their is diplomatic value in giving the man a fair trial? It is certainly an unorthodox method of diplomacy and a rather interesting attempt at said diplomacy. We'll have to see how it plays out in the end.

The difference is that the goal of american soldiers is not to target civilians like it is Al Qaida terrorists.

Also the information that Al Qaida terrorists is vital to stop further terrorist attacks. We don't want them to remain silent, we need their information NOW to save american civilian lives.

Additionally, Al Qaida terrorists can not know the sources and methods that led to their arrests, because those sources and methods will be compromised to stop further terrorists and terrorist attacks.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

It could be possible that putting the attempted terrorist through a fair trial is a way of reducing the hatred for America within the Extremist world. It's not a bad move. If the less humane individuals had gotten what they wanted out of the whole ordeal, he would have been tortured and hung.

Lets say an American soldier is captured. Which would anger you more?
1) Soldier is tortured, and imprisoned as a war criminal
2) He is given a fair trial, and imprisoned for terrorism.

See how their is diplomatic value in giving the man a fair trial? It is certainly an unorthodox method of diplomacy and a rather interesting attempt at said diplomacy. We'll have to see how it plays out in the end.

The difference is that the goal of american soldiers is not to target civilians like it is Al Qaida terrorists.

Also the information that Al Qaida terrorists is vital to stop further terrorist attacks. We don't want them to remain silent, we need their information NOW to save american civilian lives.

Additionally, Al Qaida terrorists can not know the sources and methods that led to their arrests, because those sources and methods will be compromised to stop further terrorists and terrorist attacks.

And that is maybe the number one argument for not putting these thugs on trial here in the USA. Our system requires that we telegraph what we know and how we got the information and our sources and our methodology, all of which benefits the terrorists waiting in the wings to make their move. Not to mention the huge targets we pin on the backs of any jurors or judges who convict a terrorist.

 

[CMike]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

Here are the problems with your worst case scenario.

1. Nobody's going to get off; the evidence is too convincing.

2. Whatever information any of these detainees had, was already gathered up well before Obama had taken office. If they have anything else, after going though our "enhanced interrogation techniques", they're probably going to keep it to themselves for the rest of their lives.

The answer is no; President Obama is doing just fine; well, he's fighting this war a hell of a lot better than both Bushs combined.

Since Pres. Bush protected america from terrorist attacks for 7 years, and Obama has had 3 in first year, it seems that the facts are against you.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Uhhhh..there have been U.S. troops in Yemen for quite a while providing training to Yemenese military forces collaborating with...ummmmm...eeerrrrrr.....combatting Al Qaeda.

Patek, you didn't learn from our "pirate" debate on MSNBC. I know a few things; I just don't tell untill its a done deal.

Like I said...first...you don't know jack shit about what's going on in Yemen and secondly see bold writing above.

 

[Rozman]

Wow I thought you were going to say he realizes that there is a jobs problem in the country,or should I say a lack of jobs problem in this country....Well the guy still has a few years left on his contract maybe at some point the talking heads at the all Obama all the time propaganda machine network MSNBC will finally get around to telling the President it's the economy/jobs stupid.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

Here are the problems with your worst case scenario.

1. Nobody's going to get off; the evidence is too convincing.

2. Whatever information any of these detainees had, was already gathered up well before Obama had taken office. If they have anything else, after going though our "enhanced interrogation techniques", they're probably going to keep it to themselves for the rest of their lives.

The answer is no; President Obama is doing just fine; well, he's fighting this war a hell of a lot better than both Bushs combined.

Since Pres. Bush protected america from terrorist attacks for 7 years, and Obama has had 3 in first year, it seems that the facts are against you.

I won't blame Obama--at least not yet--for the more recent terrorist attacks. But if he continues to defer to the Muslim community and refuses to take initiatives necessary to protect us from radical Muslim extremists determined to destroy us as much as they possibly can, then yes, I will blame him for that.

Whatever you might think about George W. Bush and whatever his failings as President, he did his job well when it came to defending the people from enemies outside and and inside the country. Was he successful in ferreting out every terrorist? No. Did he guarantee that there would be no attempts on his watch? No. But he did it as well as anybody could be expected to do it. And I do believe that the terrorist world respected him and his commitment to thwart them in the worst that they intended to do to us. Without his policies in place, I am 100% certain we would have had many more deadly attacks.

If President Obama continues on his current tactic in dealing with terrorists, I think that he will lose respect of the terrorists who will then see us as an easier mark and will be encouraged to step up their plots to commit mayhem. And the easier we make it for them to do so, the more likely they are to succeed. So far, President Obama has not fully acquiesced to the love them so they'll love us mentality of the squishy-minded radical left. And I will give him props for the areas in which he has held firm.

 

[sboyle24]

I have been pondering why the President would expend so much political capital in his obviously almost universally unpopular decision to bring the Guatanamo terrorists to the USA and also why he is allowing Miranda rights and civil courts to apply to enemy combatents in an unprecedented fashion?

Once a person is in the USA civilian court system, much of intelligence collection is shut down, the defendent is assigned counsel and is empowered to know all evidence against him at every step of the way while he has everythign to gain and nothing to lose by not telling anybody anything. Consequently he has an excellent chance of having a sentence reduced, commuted, the death penalty thrown out, or the case dismissed on technicalities if he just stalls and holds out long enough. Also his confederates are empowered because they become privy to know what evidence the government has and what it knows about the enemy.

Is it possible that the President WANTS these guys to get off so he doesn't anger Muslims?

Here are the problems with your worst case scenario.

1. Nobody's going to get off; the evidence is too convincing.

2. Whatever information any of these detainees had, was already gathered up well before Obama had taken office. If they have anything else, after going though our "enhanced interrogation techniques", they're probably going to keep it to themselves for the rest of their lives.

The answer is no; President Obama is doing just fine; well, he's fighting this war a hell of a lot better than both Bushs combined.

Since Pres. Bush protected america from terrorist attacks for 7 years, and Obama has had 3 in first year, it seems that the facts are against you.

If you could kindly explain how policies have changed on the matter, and explain what Obama's supposed errors had to do with the errors that occurred. It was not under his control. You republicans always like a good scapegoat though! (i.e. Iraq, Iran, Yemen, etc.)

 

[CMike]

Here are the problems with your worst case scenario.

1. Nobody's going to get off; the evidence is too convincing.

2. Whatever information any of these detainees had, was already gathered up well before Obama had taken office. If they have anything else, after going though our "enhanced interrogation techniques", they're probably going to keep it to themselves for the rest of their lives.

The answer is no; President Obama is doing just fine; well, he's fighting this war a hell of a lot better than both Bushs combined.

Since Pres. Bush protected america from terrorist attacks for 7 years, and Obama has had 3 in first year, it seems that the facts are against you.

If you could kindly explain how policies have changed on the matter, and explain what Obama's supposed errors had to do with the errors that occurred. It was not under his control. You republicans always like a good scapegoat though! (i.e. Iraq, Iran, Yemen, etc.)

Not under his control? Obama has had complete control over the resources to stop terrorist attacks. He chose to squander it.

Obama has made it clear that the CIA has to place nice nice with the terrorists. That instead of getting information from terrorists using any method possible, terrorists now are entitled to lawyers, who the first thing they tell their clients to shut up.

In fact, if CIA operatives are too "rough" with terrorists, Obama will prosecute them.

The underwear bomber should have been under surveillance and picked up in Yemen, along with his terrorist buddies. Then coercive methods should have been used to get information to damage Al Qaida even more. After that military tribunals should have tried them and sentenced them to prison.

Instead, despite his father turning him in, nothing was done. They even knew what flight this terrorist was on, and still did nothing.

What Pres. Bush did was create and maintain an aggresive spearhead against terrorist attacks, Obama has taken that away.

 

[CMike]

Also Obama's new policy for Afghanistan of limiting night raids of terrorists so as not to upset anyone is really really stupid too.

 

[sboyle24]

I can see you have a "fuck everyone else I'm american bitch" attitude for diplomacy. Thank god your not intelligent enough to get into government.

 

[CMike]

I can see you have a "fuck everyone else I'm american bitch" attitude for diplomacy. Thank god your not intelligent enough to get into government.

More like protect america from terrorists first attitude, and care how sweet we look about it pretty down the list.