Obama on Terrorist Rights: Joe Calls Out Mika on 'Moral Choices'

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.

It would be hard to overstate the significance of Barack Obama's blunder. As a certain junior senator from New York said during the primary season, while John McCain has obviously passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold, it's not clear Obama has. If there is one fundamental challenge facing the Dem candidate in this campaign, it is to prove that he has the values and the toughness necessary to protect our country against the terrorists who seek to destroy us.

Yet now—in an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper—Obama has proposed a read-them-their-Miranda-rights approach to dealing with the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  It's the policy equivalent of Dukakis-in-a-tank, and is likely, in this NewsBuster's opinion, to have an even more harmful impact on his campaign. The McCain camp has wasted no time in weighing in.  In a conference call yesterday, former CIA director James Woolsey said Obama's advocacy of giving terrorists access to U.S. courts was an "extremely dangerous and an extremely naive approach to terrorism." 

Discussion on Morning Joe today among, on the one hand, Barack fans Mika Brzezinski and WaPo's Jonathan Capehart, and on the other a Joe Scarborough preaching realpolitik, revealed just how vulnerable Obama is on the issue. I'd encourage readers to view the extended video clip here, but for present purposes will focus on one exchange:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

JOE SCARBOROUGH: You [Capehart] said "what do we have to be afraid of?" If we had captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003, and if instead of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we had instead booked him, fingerprinted him, and said "you have a right to retain an attorney, you have a right not to," I mean, and given him all the rights that Americans are afforded, this is a reality, it doesn't make it pretty, but we would not have learned all the things we learned about al Qaeda, we would not have learned all the things we learned about September 11th, we would not have learned he planned September 11th, we would not have learned about the al Qaeda terror network.  And a lot of Americans out there, Jonathan, may say, OK, Jonathan Capehart and Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough may be offended by that fact, but I'm safer today because he didn't have the same constitutional rights that I have.

Mika had to concede the point.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And that is the message that will sell politically.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right.

BRZEZINSKI: It is. I mean --

SCARBOROUGH: But Mika, you keep talking about "message," and Americans being deluded and Americans being fearful --

BRZEZINSKI: You're the one saying Americans don't care about how these people are treated at Guantanamo, and you maybe make a very good point.  

SCARBOROUGH: That's not a message, though.  That's not a political message, that is a reality to millions of Americans who say, who are saying "I don't care what they do to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—I want to be safe,  I want my children to be safe, I want my community to be safe."

BRZEZINSKI: There is an argument out there, though, that Jonathan makes, that the nation has lost its way in terms of its reputation --

SCARBOROUGH: Well, let's have Jonathan make that argument.

BRZEZINSKI: I'm just saying, it doesn't mean we are soft on terrorism, it means that we may want to go back to the times -- [Ed.–September 10th?]

SCARBOROUGH [jocularly]: But you know what Jonathan is really saying is?  Go ahead, Jonathan.

CAPEHART: No matter what, whether it's President McCain or President Obama, I am 100% confident that either man will protect this nation from terrorism and those that want to do us harm.

BRZEZINSKI: Exactly! And there's a choice here. And there are moral choices as well. Maybe some people don't care about them. That's fair, but --

SCARBOROUGH: Mika, you can't say people are immoral because --

BRZEZINSKI: I didn't say that.  I didn't say that!

SCARBOROUGH: You said there is a moral choice --

BRZEZINSKI: There are moral choices to make, and some might not care about them, that doesn't make them immoral, because of the sentiment that you bring up.

SCARBOROUGH: Okay, hold on a second, though.  You just say some people may not care about moral choices: parents make moral choices when they say I care more about my children's safety than I do about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's constitutional rights. So that doesn't make them immoral.

BRZEZINSKI: I didn't say they were.

Strictly speaking, Mika's right. In saying "there are moral choices as well. Maybe some people don't care about them," Brzezinski didn't accuse people of being immoral.  She cast them as amoral.  I'd urge Obama to adopt that line of argument: "you great, unwashed, amoral masses don't exist on my higher plane."  Go for it, Barack!

As for Capehart being "100% confident" that either McCain or Obama would keep us safe: had Jonathan been around in 1938, perhaps he would have said the same of Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill.

H/t reader Deb V.

Note: Joe has his finger on the national pulse.  The WaPo/ABC News poll released yesterday revealed that by a margin of 61/34%, Americans are opposed to granting GTMO detainees access to the U.S. civilian court system [see question #13].

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

HA HA HA... keep talking

HA HA HA... keep talking Mika. If you put your foot in any deeper, you'll have your whole leg in your mouth.

We shouldn't try to shut the liberals up, we should encourage them to speak their minds. If they tell us what they really think, we'll never have to worry about liberals ever again.

GITMO alread has the moral high ground...

enjoying American rights comes at a very high price - becoming a US citizen...

for our government to violate that would be an immoral violation towards our current citizens...

this is the same problem with immigration...

we are breaking our contract and faith with current Americans...

but amoral libs, not caring about that, have no problems on that score...

but if morality (which libs don't really care about) can possibly become an effective tool for partisan political gain - then what the hell! throw it against the wall and see if it sticks:)!

we can afford to waste all kinds of air time teaching morality to our un-churched and public "school" impaired citizens...

Mika....it's all been said before

There really isn't much more negativity that can be attributed to the incompetence of Mika.  If MSNBC thinks that it's necessary to have a "foil" for Scarborough, it should at least get someone who speaks with some semblence of intelligence.  This woman is an overbearing, overspeaking, twittering fool, who would be an embarrasement to any network show whether it be MSNBC, Fox or CNN.  Oh well, there a good reason why MSNBC is a distant third.  Keep up the great work, Joe, Willie and, oh yes Mika!

What Mika is trying so hard NOT to say...

Is that the issue is a moral one, meaning there is a correct choice and an incorrect choice. Mika doesn't want to admit that there are black and white issues and that there are opinions which are correct and moral and opinions which are incorrect and immoral.

The GITMO residents were all captured in foreign countries by the military as part of an armed conflict. They are POWs, enemy combatants, whatever. They have rights under the Geneva Conventions but they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS A US CITIZEN anymore than Japenese or German troops captured in WW2 had any access to the US courts.

To give these individuals the same rights as US citizens is completely wrong, misguided, naiive, and immoral. These are people who have dclared war on the US and in fact, all of Western society.

 

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

What Mika is saying

The libs want us to give them rights, but what

rights do they give to our journalists and

military?     They chop off their heads or kill

them ASAP, no trial, no lawyer, no nothing.

Get real Mika, and Supreme Court liberal

judges.

Which brings up the issue

Which brings up the issue of Justifiable repraisal which is allowed by the Geneva Accords but to this point to enacted by the current administration.

Briefly, if your enemy is violating the accords in an egregious manner (Executing prisoners summarily etc) you can claim a justifiable repraisal in an effort to get your enemy to adhere more closely to the Geneva Accords.  In this case you could summarily execute a AQ prisoner for every one of our captives such as SGT Maupin who was killed.

As my training has taught me in the past the sole decision authority to cause this sort of Repriasal to occur resides in the Presidents hands, but as of yet has not been allowed (Can you imagine the press HOWLING?  Even at the mere mention?)

McCain needs to prey on this weakness!

I have posted this in NB before, and I will reiterate it now.

I have close personal friends who have done tours of duty in Guantanamo Bay.  These terrorists were arrested on battlefields trying to kill Americans, and let there be no doubt in your mind that these terrorists want to be released so that they may continue to do so.  By giving them OUR rights as Americans, you give the terrorists and the ACLU the access needed to the judicial system that will allow these killers to be freed.  Remember the names of the five SCOTUS Judges who made this decision.  The blood of every death caused by one of the terrorists that they have enabled to be free will be on their hands.

Noli habere bovis, vir!

As you'll note from the

As you'll note from the article and the video [which contains clips of McCain advisors ripping Obama], McCain has indeed recognized the fundamental significance of Obama's mistake.  I see this shaping up as a key moment in the campaign.  Amazing that it's come so early.

I can only hope

this is the case Mark, but I fear the media will bury this as they do all of his poor ideas and gaffes. The libs are making huge strides in destroying this country, the failed media leading the parade.

  I hear you, but being

 

I hear you, but being so early the MSM will make sure we forget about it by friday

 

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
 -Gerald Ford

"BRZEZINSKI: There is an

"BRZEZINSKI: There is an argument out there, though, that Jonathan makes, that the nation has lost its way in terms of its reputation -- "

That pretty much nails it. We should all be concerned about our "world reputation" as if we were in High School.

We're lucky that Obambi has a shot at the White House. It would be a refreshing "change" to have The world leader openly embracing thugs/terrorists/communists with silky words and muffin baskets.

President Obama: Richard,

President Obama: Richard, how would they feel in Belgium about us being tough on terrorists?

Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke: They wouldn't like it in Brussels, sir.  Wouldn't like it at all.

President Obama: OK, forget that, then.

@Killgrave:

Our Founding Fathers thought world reputation mattered - that's why you will find the stated purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to write down our goals and grievances to honor "...a Decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind..."

Perhaps you think we won the American Revolution, WWI and WWII, the Cold War and Gulf War I on our own.  Perhaps you think the myriad problems we face today can be resolved on our own without help, assistance, or advice from others.  If you still believe there is a "Global War on Terror" do you honestly suggest we can win it by ourselves? 

 

Okay, I'll clarify. By

Okay, I'll clarify.

By "reputation" I mean an obsession with being "liked". The Obambi movement is predicated with the notion that if we are soft, warm, and fuzzy enough (with the offering of amble muffin baskets and lots of hugs), then this will improve our global standing.

Why bother trying to

Why bother trying to clarify? It's a hopeless case.

What was our reputation when we ran away from Mogadishu, or when we let Saddam Hussein violate the cease-fire agreement without consequence, while BJ's getting serviced by 22 year old interns?

Where was Mika and the Left talking about our reputation then? Nowhere! The friggin hypocrites!

it's liberal moral

it's liberal moral ambiguity that's damaging our reputation world wide

and so far US conservatives have managed to plug many of the immoral left-wing holes that keep popping out - gay marriage this week is a another big hole

but the immoral water is still rising

World Reputation

World Reputation matters?

Please prove that the founders gave a hoot what the peoples of Great Britain, France, Germany, or Spain THOUGHT of anything.

Perhaps you think we won the American Revolution, WWI and WWII, the Cold War and Gulf War I on our own. 

What does that matter?  Please be concise.

Perhaps you think the myriad problems we face today can be resolved on our own without help, assistance, or advice from others. 

Gee, I seem to recall seeing other nations involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq.   Let me think... Yep, saw plenty of allied troops in Iraq both the first and second times I was in Iraq.

So your point is?

If you still believe there is a "Global War on Terror" do you honestly suggest we can win it by ourselves?

We are not the problem in fighting the GWOT.  Lack of spine (Liberalism) in other nations is.  Example:  NATO agreed to contribute thousands of more combat troops to the Kandahar area to assist the Canadians currently fighting hard there.  But when push came to shove, most did not show, and those who did were kept in Northern Afghanistan out of harms way.

So who showed up?  A USMC MEU.

Do you really think that Barack O will do better in getting international support?  NO WAY!!!!!!!!

World Reputation matters?

World Reputation matters? Yes it does.

Please prove that the founders gave a hoot what the peoples of Great Britain, France, Germany, or Spain THOUGHT of anything. - Please see our Declaration of Independence (op. cit.)

Perhaps you think we won the American Revolution, WWI and WWII, the Cold War and Gulf War I on our own. 

What does that matter?  Please be concise.

- No matter how great or powerful we think we are, we can not successfully operate in this world alone.  We need friends and allies.  Our reputation in this world matters.

 

Perhaps you think the myriad problems we face today can be resolved on our own without help, assistance, or advice from others. 

Gee, I seem to recall seeing other nations involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq.   Let me think... Yep, saw plenty of allied troops in Iraq both the first and second times I was in Iraq. - You confirm my point.

So your point is? - You just made it - please read what you wrote.

 

If you still believe there is a "Global War on Terror" do you honestly suggest we can win it by ourselves?

We are not the problem in fighting the GWOT.  Lack of spine (Liberalism) in other nations is.  Example:  NATO agreed to contribute thousands of more combat troops to the Kandahar area to assist the Canadians currently fighting hard there.  But when push came to shove, most did not show, and those who did were kept in Northern Afghanistan out of harms way. - We can not win the GWOT (if there is such a thing).  There isn't a military solution to every problem (as Gen. Petraeus said about Iraq).  It takes a diplomatic, economic, military and political strategy (with the information war overlay made famous by the Australian gentleman - David Killallan {?}).  It requires a disintermediation strategy, as well - which the name GWOT opposes.

So who showed up?  A USMC MEU.

Do you really think that Barack O will do better in getting international support?  NO WAY!!!!!!!! - Clearly he will.  He will do it much better than Sen. McCain could or President Bush has.

 

"Clearly he will. He will

"Clearly he will. He will do it much better than Sen. McCain could or President Bush has."

Um, do you work for the campaign? Or is your brain just floating in Kool-Aid?

Please prove that the

Please prove that the founders gave a hoot what the peoples of Great Britain, France, Germany, or Spain THOUGHT of anything. - Please see our Declaration of Independence (op. cit.)

I hardly think the flowering term of HUMANITY is meant to allow for public sentiment from the continetal powers.

By the way, is the opinion of Poland, Hungary, Ukraine etc worth the same as Rance, Germany, etc?  Because Poland, Ukraine, Hungary etc THINK WE ROCK!!!!!!!!

As usual, liberals worry above all what they are thought of by the left bank crowd of Paris.  Personally I do not.

- No matter how great or powerful we think we are, we can not successfully operate in this world alone.  We need friends and allies.  Our reputation in this world matters.

Who is alone?  I can list the countries I have served with in Iraq.  In this case it is a case of them realizing we are right, not us realizing THEY are right.

Gee, I seem to recall seeing other nations involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq.   Let me think... Yep, saw plenty of allied troops in Iraq both the first and second times I was in Iraq. - You confirm my point.

So your point is? - You just made it - please read what you wrote.

So we have allies in theater and your point is moot.

- We can not win the GWOT (if there is such a thing).  There isn't a military solution to every problem (as Gen. Petraeus said about Iraq).  It takes a diplomatic, economic, military and political strategy (with the information war overlay made famous by the Australian gentleman - David Killallan {?}).  It requires a disintermediation strategy, as well - which the name GWOT opposes.

I have never said that the GWOT was solely dependant upon military strategy.  Sorry.

However, much of it is.  For instance, what do you think is the cente rof Gravity in the GWOT, and how do you porpose to effect it?

Solely by negotiation?  With whom?  What are you willing to give up in negotiation to acheive it?

Who can you enlist in your aid to cause this center of gravity to be moved?

Please list in detail

Do you really think that Barack O will do better in getting international support?  NO WAY!!!!!!!! - Clearly he will.  He will do it much better than Sen. McCain could or President Bush has.

Hahahahahahahha!     Breathe..... hahahahahahha!!!!!!!

All he will do is a mea culpa, and beg for the terrorists to leave us alone.  (But it will be cloaked as a very serius negotiation.....  which will accomplish "LUNCH.")

I an see Barack going to NATO and hemming and hawing about past sins etc, asking for assistance and getting ZIPPO!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  (can't breathe....)

J frank?

J frank?

BD... It looks like you

BD...

It looks like you have your very own stalker (JFW).

 

"Abstain from McCain"

j. frank wilson, you need a history lesson

your just being plain old silly and i am trying very hard to be nice.

@larry on LI:

History lesson?  When does that start?

Yes - you are being nice.

What's immoral?

Frankly, I believe it immoral if we capture a terrorist such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, give him Constitutionally protected Privilege's or Right's, and by doing so hendering our chances of saving lives.

This idea that if we do whatever it takes to extract information, even it that means roughing him up, makes us no better than the terrorists is the antithesis to moral. What's the use in saving face if you risk not saving lives? That, my friend, is immoral.

this is a battle of

this is a battle of moralities...

even Satan has a morality - manifesting largely in the DNC right now...

Since when do libs care

Since when do libs care about morality? How about the morality of letting murderers loose to commit more murder? What a bout the morality of falsely portraying U.S. soldiers as murderers and rapists while boo-hooing about the 'deplorable' conditions at Gitmo (where the detainees live better than they ever did at home)?

Mika is a nepot whose old man has always sought America's defeat (he's the one who said "Vietnam is the Waterloo of the WASP elites" - no bigotry intended, I'm sure); and Capehart is an idiot if he really thinks Oblama would protect us from terrorism rather than make us more vulnerable to it, and if he's just saying that, he's a liar.

and, as always

the liberal thinkers conveniently overlook how many babies are murdered every day in this glorious country - "with such a bad reputation" - many more deaths than have occurred in Iraq or Afghanistan!  Talk about morality!!!!!!

Indeed these prisoners at Gitmo are living better than they have in their entire lives!  I'd welcome them being put into a "general prison population" - no special food - no opportunity to throw their disgusting feces/urine bombs at the guards - but plenty of opportunity to be BFs with Bubba!

and, as always

When Obama or McCain become President and shut down Gitmo, will you be one of the first to fly down there and stay in one of the newly vaccent luxery suites?

Who said anything about

Who said anything about luxury? We're talking about as compared to where they came from... Sorry if that's too tough of a distinction for you to grasp.

Who said anything about

It's about as hard for me to grasp as common sense and rational thougth is to you.

Saylman

Member for 2 weeks 2 days.

You need to kick back and watch the ROE before you start posting statments like yours above. 

Postatem obscuri lateris nescitis

saylman ; re gitmo

beats the shit out of a lot of motels i stayed in on e4 pay,no meals included

Jack Welch's Common Sense

I hope a video with the conversation between Mika and Jack Welch which took place around 8:20 am is posted.  It was a great debate between Jack Welch's common sense and the dangerous idealism of liberal elites like Mika.

Shakespeare had a point

Crime and war are too different things. In a war, you don’t wait for your opponent to inflict damage before you move against him. When you follow the rules of war, you attack someone as soon as you learn he belongs to the enemy. In a crime, you can’t do that. You have to wait for your opponent to attack before you go after him. That’s why terrorism can’t be fought as a criminal prosecution. We need to get to the terrorists before they strike.

Lately, though, the issue is whether a war is fought by soldiers or by lawyers. In a war, the soldiers are the heroes. With a criminal prosecution, lawyers run the show, and obviously they want to be the heroes. Is it any surprise that Obama and the majority of the Supreme Court are trying to get lawyers to wage the war?

The worry about Guantanamo is that there are people have been detained who shouldn’t have been. Even in a war, you need to know that the person you’re attacking really does belong to the enemy. But soldiers are already held accountable for those decisions, and soldiers are already punished for shooting or detaining innocent people. The disaster of the recent Supreme Court ruling is that lawyers have decided that soldiers should be held accountable for those decisions as if those decisions were not made on a battlefield. These lawyers (i.e., the Supreme Court and Obama, et al) are trying to deny there is a war, or that the war makes any difference. They ruled that these cases must be decided in civilian federal courts. Frankly, I think it’s the clearest example of lawyers’ hubris – i.e., that lawyers think everything should be conducted under their supervision, even war.

Blood on the hands

But those 5 SCOTUS judges and their water-carriers will simply say that the terrorists were not predisposed to hating and wanting to REALLY kill us until their mistreatment at GITMO at the hands of the evil Bush administration.

If we had ONLY treated them fairly from the beginning, they'd NEVER have done it and would have stayed at home and been commissioners of their local Fantasy Jihadi Football League.

I saw the arguement between

I saw the arguement between Joe and Mika. Capehart couldn't get a word in during his interview. But, later in the broadcast, it seemed that Joe was also approving of the Supreme Court decision. I didn't see Jack Welch's interview, but I saw Rudy's. Rudy was reasonable against Mika's shrill attitude. Mika thinks she's better than anyone else. She's not better educated apparently and lacks a ton of common sense.

I can't help but wonder if

I can't help but wonder if one of these essentially dumb statements by Obama (actually an accumulation of them from months ago up through the convention) may make the Dems at their convention look around and make Hillary the candidate after all.

Lee T.

"Democrats, there is one reason Obama is your party's nominee, and it's not because he's black -- it's because he's not Hillary Clinton." -- Rush Limbaugh, 6/2/08

 

Remember the Torch

They did it with Torricelli. so why not?

Thank You

Mark,

I happen by via Hot Air; I'm always glad that I do because you do a very solid job. This was a great post.

Although I don't think the Obama "Alex" ad is all that effective (don't get me started), this position that Obama has taken (and insisted on digging in his heels on) is a complete loser. Sorry to sensationalize this, but McCain and every Republican running for national office should be looking to run ads with interviews with surviviving spouses and surviving adult children of 9/11 victims in which they're asked how THEY feel about extending criminal due process rights to detainees and how safe THEY feel with the prospect of an Obama presidency. Obama's position--echoed by Susan Rice and advertised by the likes of Mika and Capeheart--is terrifying.

Others can parse what Mika REALLY meant. I'm convinced what she means is that those who don't agree with her, Obama, and the like are immoral. In so doing, she's taken Obama's San Francisco remarks to a much higher level, and it sure sounds like a great 527 ad to me. I don't give a rat's a** what our soldiers do to detainees, but it certainly sounds as if the scheme in place was procedurally sufficient--military tribunal followed by an appeal channeled to the DC Circuit.

You describe this as a "policy equivalent of Dukakis-in-a-tank." I submit that McCain or the 527s or both need a mugshot of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed matched with his rap sheet and Obama's voice talking about "those folks" down there in Gitmo. This is Willie Horton material.

Shifting gears somewhat, have you noticed how Obama talks about being tougher with domestic opponents than global opponents? As I read elsewhere last week, Obama wants to impose more "conditions" before debating McCain than he wants to impose before meeting with leaders of rogue nations. Likewise, last week, he alluded to Sean Connery's lines from "The Untouchables" about beating back Al Capone when talking about McCain and Republicans, but he's soft on detainees suspected of horrible acts.

One last thing. For my edification, Jake Tapper seems to be the only MSM journalist actually trying to get in Obama's grill and to check under his hood. Am I correct? If not, please speak up. And can you identify any other journalists who are actually doing their job? 

No offense to your

No offense to your suggestion, since it would work on the sensationalist dems, but it's not a campaign the reps should run. Victim parading is the left's tactic(possible exception being unborn babies). I think we should drill them with this issue, but instead of appealing to emotion, use common sense. I would still like to believe that Americans as a whole are still driven by logic and that the right should continue to appeal through that avenue.

I don't see how Obama could be called "tough" here. He backs away from every political challenge by declaring any opposition to be unfair and only moving when everything is heavily in his favor.

There's a few other msm journalists who are slowly revealing Obama, but I agree that Jake Tapper is one of the first to give the tough questions. My issue is still that there is no real follow through when the empty suit slips out of giving a real answer. The question is whether the general public will recognize this. It reminds me of Wallace's interview with Clinton. Billy tried to sneak his way out of answering and became aggressive when actually forced to address the issues. Somehow many people saw the interview as a triumph by Bill when it was obvious that he can't handle facing real questions. In time we will see whether the general public picks up on what's really happening here.

No Offense Taken

That Dude:

You are probably right about pulling emotional strings. But I wasn't thinking so much of victimhood as I was thinking of downright anger at the idea of returning to a policy that led to 9/11.

The Presidential Oath of Office

Our Founding Fathers were wise to include within the US Constitution the requirement that each President take the following:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The US Supreme Court has issued its ruling. Sen. Obama has stated that when he becomes President he will keep the oath of office.

This is news?

 

 

Our Supreme Court took a

Our Supreme Court took a similar oath of office, including the words "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

At least four of the present justices, Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer, have publicly admitted replacing the Constitution with Foreign Law when deciding recent cases:

Kennedy: "and ([o]f even more importance, writes Kennedy) a 1981 decision by the European Court of Human Rights holding that a Northern Ireland law proscribing consensual and private homosexual conduct was invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights."

Stevens: "Last year, Justice John Paul Stevens cited foreign law in a footnote when the majority banned executions of mentally retarded convicts. Stevens noted that "within the world community, the ... death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved.""

Breyer.

Ginsburg.

These acts violate the Justices' oath of office.  They should be impeached and removed.   By promising to appoint more like minded Judges, Barack Obama would be violating HIS oath of office were he ever elected President,.

@NOL207:

Ah - the "foreign law" canard.  You forgot to mention Justice Thomas - who quotes more laws not passed by the United State Congress than all the other justices put together.  Or haven't you read his many opinions quoting Blackstone? If memory serves he even quoted Blackstone in his Kelo dissent.

"Quotes"??  Where did I

"Quotes"??  Where did I say 'quote'.  I said "replace", as in replace the US Constitution as the final arbiter of US Law, an important distinction.

Thank you for conceding the entire main body of my argument by attempting the "Judge Thomas does it too" defence.  In doing so you have conceded that the Judges I mentioned have been using foreign law in place of the US Constitution to decide US cases.

I see you have no

I see you have no response.

NL tacks another slimy, liberal hide to his barn door.

@NL207:

So it is your position that the United States has a monopoly on all knowledge and wisdom?  If I used "quote" instead of "cite" that is my error.

As to your self-congratulation, it would come as no surprise that you are your own biggest fan, a legend in your own mind, and doubtless your favorite partner, as well...

Monopoly?  No, but more

Monopoly?  No, but more than everyone else?  OBVIOUSLY!!!!!

You're a mendacious

You're a mendacious idiot.

The foundation of American jurisprudence is English Common Law prior to the American Revolution.

The English jurist Blackstone died before the US Constitution was ratified.

Ever heard of habeas corpus and Magna Carta. They were the basis of English law which applied to the colonies prior to the revolution.

English Common Law is not "foreign" in regard to the foundation of the United States. 

And that's your response for Thomas? You are as shallow as you are insolent.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

@Jack Bauer:

"Mendacious?"  Did you just tear a page from your "Word-a-Day" calendar?

The known world did not begin in 1776.  We didn't win the American Revolution all by ourselves.  We don't have a monopoly on morals or knowledge - and we require friends and allies to survive in this world.

"Magna Carta?"  Is that a Hummer?

We didn't win the American

We didn't win the American Revolution all by ourselves.

Yeah, the French were a big help.  By the time they finally showed up at Yorktown, it was all over.

You asked earlier when you history lesson begins. Consider it begun, Hawking.

But he's right

Citing Blackstone != citing some modern Euroweenie socialist. The idea that Justice Thomas cites the latter is far fetched, to say the least.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

sarc -- apparently it's too

sarc -- apparently it's too much to expect a dimwit to know what mendacious means.

So you're wasting your time in even implying that quoting Blackstone to support his shallow insolence regarding Justice Thomas is a remarkably dumb thing to do.

Not only is Blackstone not a "foreign" source of legal thought (he was dead before the United States was even born after violent revolution)

Blackstone's ideas and phraseology are actually enshrined in the US constitution.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Yes.

When you think about it, many of the ideas behind our legal system go back to the Magna Carta, and English cases were our only precedent for quite a while. It's impossible to think of early US history in an England-free vacuum, but that's not the same as saying Europe's modern legal work is persuasive. If anything, it's scary, especially the speech restrictions which keep giving the lure of forbidden fruit to hate.

The unspoken subtext of these complaints is a hidden-influence kind of complaint lawyers don't much want to talk about, because it truly does look bad. The Supremes get lots of time off, and some tend to take luxury teaching/speaking vacations in Europe. While they're over there, shifty European lawyers spend months wining & dining them and otherwise expensively kissing their asses, and many people suspect this asskissing has an effect...
JMR

 

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

I don't buy into the

I don't buy into the argument that these terrorists should be denied constitutional rights simply because "these terrorists want nothing better than to kill us"  What about the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh?  Both guys had aspirations to kill and terrorize as many people as possible and yet nobody took away their right to a lawyer, the right to appear before a judge and so forth.  A person's intent, no matter how evil and disgusting, should not be considered when trying to decide if a person is entitled to those rights.  Because you get into a very slippery slope of determining a person's rights based upon a crime that they have been accused of and not yet having been proven guilty.

However...I do agree with the argument that these terrorists shouldn't *legally* be allowed to exercise the rights of the Constitution.  Especially if they aren't American citizens and were apprehended on foreign soil during a time of war.  I agree with a previous poster who says they should be held in the terms of the Geneva conventions.  And I don't think the Neuremberg trials were immoral.  I don't like the idea of holding somebody indefinitely based on suspicions and never giving that person their day in court...Mainly because I would hope that our government wouldn't want that for its own citizens.  If an American citizen or soldier was suspected of a vicious crime in a foreign country, I would want that individual to eventually have their day in court to prove their innocence. 

So, while I do think these terrorists should eventually have their day in court, I absolutely do not think it should be in a cushy American courtroom enjoying the cushy (and quite error-prone) American judicial system.

 

"This is a freakshow and I am screaming..."  --  The Cure

You dont have to buy into

You dont have to buy into the fact that they should be denied constitutional rights. They are not citizens of this country and therfore not afforded the rights given by the constitution to US citizens. Tim McVeigh, and the Unabomber however ARE citizens of this country and protected by the constitution.

Correction...

In McVeigh's case, you mean "WAS a citizen"...

he's been roasting in hell for seven years 

true......"Was" is correct.

true......"Was" is correct.

My wife is takeing the US

My wife is takeing the US citizenship test on july 23 and one of her questions is

"Who is protected under the Constitution?"

the answer will shock you

 

"Everyone living in the United states"

so you non-citizens living in the United states ARE afforded the rights given by the constitution

POWs however are not covered by the constitution

Cureboy675

Son you don't ever -- ever -- want to travel to many of the world's countries if you think you will get your "day in court" like here in America.

I'll bet you that if you were to go to Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe tomorrow, and he wanted to jail you for the rest of your natural life for whatever he said you did, you would never get the rights you have here no matter what your fellow Americans wanted for you. 

Some of you folks need to take the blinders off and realize that this is not a pretty world all the time and you wanting to sit around and do make believe and hold hands and stuff is not ever going to change that.  You kinda need to grow up and stop being a perpetual adolescent. 

There are really bad people out there and if you have not met any of them personally I would say you are very protected or have chosen to never notice.

On your analogy: Mugabe

On your analogy: Mugabe doesn't jail anyone. SOP is chopping off hands and feet, and being burned alive.

Come on, quit

Come on, quit exaggerating.
He only does that to special people.

Normally, Mugabe's enemies are merely shot in the head in front of their family.

Geesh.

Bush should reinstate Clinton/Gore policy of rendition....

Bush should reinstate Clinton/Gore policy of rendition....

Reference items for this bit of fun:

1.) Transcript of Director Hayden's Interview with Charlie Rose

2.) This from White House intelligence advisor Richard Clarke's book] - my bold.

RICHARD CLARKE - Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. . . The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

And shortly thereafter, Bill Clinton ordered the CIA to establish the US program of extraordinary rendition (PDD#39); the idea being that we could ship them off to you know who in Egypt - so that they could be tortured to get information out of them.

President Bush should simply announce to the MSM, "Fine. Even Charlie Rose came to understand, once he was exposed to a few facts and history (no thanks to you folks), that it was better that we abandon the policy of renditioning these terrorists to places were we had no control and where God knows what was done to them, to our own facilities were we did have much more civil rules in place and where the media would have knowledge and access to.  So, effective today, I am reinstating the Gore/Clinton policy of internationally illegal covert action better known as the "go grab their ass and ship them off to foreigners to be tortured" policy. Good day.

Speaking of rendition,

Speaking of rendition, supposedly the CIA has a shell company set up at the airport a mile from my house that carries out some of these rendition flights.

http://www.newsobserver.com

http://www.ncpeacebooth.org/

Here's a picture of the plane:

CIA Plane

An air traffic controller friend confirmed that the CIA has a plane in this area, but he wouldn't go into detail. He just said that they had a reason to be around here. 

 

 

Cool!     "Abstain

Cool!

 

 

"Abstain from McCain"