Obama was O'k with a war crimes tribunal in 2006.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/context-of-obamas-2006-ksm-remarks

Mr. 300 wrote: Obama was O'k with a war crimes tribunal in 2006.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/context-of-obamas-2006-ksm-remarks

I have been told before that Obama's thoughts and opinions are totally different now. :dodgy:

ccrunner609 wrote: Obama probably asks himself "what would Bush do?" Then do the opposite.

ccrunner609 wrote: Obama has no idea what he is doing. Its all political with him. He probably asks himself "what would Bush do?" Then do the opposite.

This will lead to his fail in 2012

doubt it, unless you can dig someone out of left field for you guys who isn't a far right nutbag

I'd argue they have no rights under Geneva since they don't represent any country or wear the uniform of any country.

They are terrorists and should be treated as such.

Obama is definitely gone in 2012.

FYI I didn't say they don't have rights. I said they should not have the same rights as US citizens. Big difference.

Fab4Runner wrote: FYI I didn't say they don't have rights. I said they should not have the same rights as US citizens. Big difference.

Aren't those the rights we want to spread throughout the world? What does it hurt to grant those, who are possibly guilty of crimes against the United States, the same rights as American citizens? I think that would perfectly demonstrate how great this country is.

ccrunner609 wrote: ^^^I doubt its a 2 way street when you are dealing with these people. They dont belong to a country or established organization.

They belong to a radical religion. How will they give us rights when they are bound to nothing?

isn't that the point man? we want to be better than them

ccrunner609 wrote: We are better then them regardless what we do. Smothering them in kindess isnt the way to deal with these people.

Like I said before....they want us all dead. Giving them a public trial/forum isnt changing that.

I would say we aren't better than them regardless of what we do. We need to be better than them through our actions. Acting like them does not make us better than them.

I don't think they really care about killing a bunch of Americans. They have a political goal in mind and that is their disgusting method to achieve it.

ccrunner609 wrote: Sure they have an agenda.......I cannot believe you would say we arent better then them. Last time I checked people in this country dont go around blowing themselves up for 72 virgins.

We are better then them. Smarter then them. More compassionate then them ect...... they randomly blow up little kids and women.

Yeah they are equal.

Where did I say we aren't better than them? You were arguing we should act like them, which would not make us better. The US is better than those terrorists because we do things like granting them fair and impartial trials in our justice system.

Compassionate is one I'm not so sure about though. There are many within this country who would have had argued we shouldn't worry about civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there are others who have no problems with indefinitely detaining possibly innocent people at Gitmo with no chance for a fair trial. I wouldn't call that compassion.

ccrunner609 wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Where did I say we aren't better than them?

eersandbeers wrote:I would say we aren't better than them

Wow, do you actually read what you type?

Since you are selectively editing my quotes to make yourself appear correct then I said that.

Here was my actual statement: "I would say we aren't better than them regardless of what we do."

You said we are better than them "regardless of what we do." I said we are not better than them "regardless of what we do."

derek bomar wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: Obama has no idea what he is doing. Its all political with him. He probably asks himself "what would Bush do?" Then do the opposite.

This will lead to his fail in 2012

doubt it, unless you can dig someone out of left field for you guys who isn't a far right nutbag

Yeah...'cause the far left nutbag is really kicking ass and taking names.

eersandbeers wrote:Compassionate is one I'm not so sure about though. There are many within this country who would have had argued we shouldn't worry about civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there are others who have no problems with indefinitely detaining possibly innocent people at Gitmo with no chance for a fair trial. I wouldn't call that compassion.

Wouldn't that be President Obama being one of those? Standing in front of the original constitution, he bashed the Bush administration for prolonged detention, but then said that that is what he was going to do, too.



See. This is NOT a very smart move. At least, not from President Obama's point of view...or it shouldn't be.
The politics involved in this are wanting to nail the Bush administration to the wall. But, I guess they never thought that Obama's words can be used against him also. It WILL be a two way street, and if it isn't...well then, that's dirty politics, eh?

POWs were housed in the U.S. during WWII. In fact, most of them were put to work and shown the best of America; quite a few went back to Germany after the war, packed up their family, and moved here.

But you know something? No POW taken by the U.S. was given a trial by a military tribunal, civilian court, or traffic court. When the war was over, they were sent back and were free to go on with their lives.

So when the war on terrorism is over, we can release everyone. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to give them a trial....they're enemy combatants who were captured. When the war ends, so does our ability to detain them.

ccrunner609 wrote: eers dont argue that last post......you contradicted yourself plain as day

In no way did I contradict myself. You selectively edited my quote to fit your agenda to make your claim appear to be correct. I provided my whole statement which completely changed the meaning of the statement.

NNN wrote:
So when the war on terrorism is over, we can release everyone. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to give them a trial....they're enemy combatants who were captured. When the war ends, so does our ability to detain them.

When does the War on Terror end? Who will surrender for the other side?

Basically you are saying we should hold possibly innocent people for an indefinite period of time.

They are not guaranteed the right to a fair and speedy trial since they are not US citizens, but I would give them one anyway immediately before we hanged them. Actually hanging is too good for them. I believe we should use one of the heinous, torturous methodes employed in their country on them. Does anyone quarter people anymore?

eers,

Basically you are saying we should hold possibly innocent people for an indefinite period of time

President Obama is saying this as well. Just like Bush did.

you people are nuts - try them if we have evidence, kill them if convicted...if they dont have any evidence let them go...why is this a hard concept?

DB,

Nobody wants them to be tried here in the states by a civilian courts. That's the debate. People want them to be tried. Just by a military court instead.
Why is that a hard concept?

queencitybuckeye wrote:

As do we, which includes shooting them today should we so choose. Two can play the "Geneva Convention" game.

Please show me where under the Geneva Convention it states we can just shoot people even though they haven't faced a tribunal/trial or anything. This is not true. Now if they were tried and evidence proved they were guilty, I'd have no problem with whatever justice was given.

ccrunner609 wrote: eers dont argue that last post......you contradicted yourself plain as day

No, he didn't. He never said they were better than us, he said 'we are not any better'. You interpreted it as him saying we aren't better, but how I interpreted it and how he explained it is that we are no better, meaning he believes we are equals. Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying how I interpreted it and how I think he meant it.

derek bomar wrote: you people are nuts - try them if we have evidence, kill them if convicted...if they dont have any evidence let them go...why is this a hard concept?

I agree with this. There have been numerous reports of innoncent people getting "sold" as 'terrorists' by warlords and rivals to the U.S. military.

Sadly, since these men aren't being tried, they are being held indefinitely while being innocent. Now do I think all of them are innocent? No, but we need to start trying them so we can differentiate between the two groups (guilty and not guilty).

CenterBHSFan wrote: DB,

Nobody wants them to be tried here in the states by a civilian courts. That's the debate. People want them to be tried. Just by a military court instead.
Why is that a hard concept?

it doesnt matter where you try them if you have the evidence to put them away

I think people would argue over this no matter what. People just want to argue over this even though it doesn't matter where they are tried.

dwccrew wrote:


I agree with this. There have been numerous reports of innoncent people getting "sold" as 'terrorists' by warlords and rivals to the U.S. military.

Sadly, since these men aren't being tried, they are being held indefinitely while being innocent. Now do I think all of them are innocent? No, but we need to start trying them so we can differentiate between the two groups (guilty and not guilty).

Exactly. Why people don't understand this, and why they seem to ignore the fact, is beyond me. Evidence suggests that there are certainly innocent men who have been detained at Gitmo, but are innocent.

This needs to be remedied asap.

CenterBHSFan wrote:
President Obama is saying this as well. Just like Bush did.

And i disagree with both of them.