For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: the Obamessiah to expand Bush's faith based programs?
Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Talk about reaching out to white people who cling to their guns and religion: in the last week, Obama has now come out in support of handguns and faith based charities!
How will this play with the secular left who didn't support Bush's efforts in this regard? Will evangelicals buy into this or see through the charade? Might this end up being Obama's Sister Souljah moment?














Comments Policy
An everyman
July 1, 2008 - 10:18 ET by FoolicanObama is trying so hard to be a be-all, do-all diety, and frankly the results are hilarious. Sooner or later he will have to realize that to err is human, and it is human to err.
Faith based expansion?!?!?!?
July 1, 2008 - 11:53 ET by TruthMongerthis will be a tough one for the DNC to swallow...
what next - the Department of Exorcism? Witch burnings?
go Obama
course he's not REALLY going to expand the OFBI:)...
it's an election year, he's a Dem...
I would say it is smart move
July 1, 2008 - 10:23 ET by shawn228George Bush got about 70 percent of the evangelical vote in 2004. Lots of those same voters are not very happy with the Republican party right now and certainly not very satisfied with the nominee.
Obama is being very aggresive now, he is trying to court their vote and even being aggresive in the south.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Aggressive?
July 1, 2008 - 10:26 ET by FoolicanSo this is all about "courting the vote," it has nothing to do with strength of character or personal beliefs?
Last time I checked, Obama
July 1, 2008 - 11:04 ET by shawn228Last time I checked, Obama has been going to church for the past 20 yrs. This is also politics Foolican, of course he is courting the vote.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
"Last time I checked, Obama
July 1, 2008 - 11:25 ET by Dan The Man 2"Last time I checked, Obama has been going to church for the past 20 yrs" and this is where you cant see the forest for the trees.
Jesus said many will come before me and say Lord Lord have I not good works for you and He will say begone I never knew you.
When you understand this then you will understand the absurdity of what you said.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
You make 2 very good
July 1, 2008 - 11:26 ET by red_dragon311You make 2 very good points....and just by typing 4 words. " This is also politics..."
First: isn't Barack H-word Obama's catch word "change"
Second: are not the american people tired of this kind of "politics"
So if Mcain came out and siad he loves the Vietnamese, wouldn't the left yell and scream that he is just "courting the vote"
you can not have it both ways,
I was against guns before I was for them
I was against private funds before I was for them
I was for Rev Wright before i was against him
the list goes on.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
Red Dragon
July 1, 2008 - 11:46 ET by shawn228I understand what you are saying, and I don't deny flipflopping by Obama. It is hypocrisy pure and simple.
However there is flipflopping by McCain as well. He against drilling before was for it. Again this is politics.
People say what they need to, to get appointed. Just like Roberts and Alito. Everything happenned just like the liberals said. They voted to not let Gitmo detainees have trials, for gun rights and a ban on partial birth abortion. I am not saying I disagree with these decisions, i'm saying they are as right wing as liberals said they would be.
Obama knows he cannot bring about his way of change unless he is elected. He also does not want people to perceive him a the wimp John Kerry was, so he will defend any attacks on his patriotism immediately
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
never thought I would defend McLame
July 1, 2008 - 12:11 ET by SouthJersey1953However, can it really be called a "flip-flop" to be against drilling when gas is around $2/gal but now that gas is over $4/gal and rising? He has re-evaluated his stand on drilling. What did not make sense for him to agree to when gas was cheap. now makes sense. To me, that shows that McCain is willing (nad able) to adjust his stand as the situation warrants.....
Drilling in the artic is
July 1, 2008 - 12:20 ET by shawn228Drilling in the arctic is exactly what we should do, it was right of McCain to change his mind on it after re-evaluating the situation, Just like Obama knows that he has the capability of ourspending McCain 3-1, he has also re evaluated his situation.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
"Drilling in the arctic is
July 1, 2008 - 18:06 ET by ckc1227"Drilling in the arctic is exactly what we should do, it was right of
McCain to change his mind on it after re-evaluating the situation, Just
like Obama knows that he has the capability of ourspending McCain 3-1,
he has also re evaluated his situation."
He has known for a long time that he would be able to outspend his opponent, and said as much during one his interviews where he claimed he would not opt out of public financing. The fact that he was able to raise so much more money was the reason he gave for not opting out. The only thing that changed was his mind.
All flip flops are not created equal.
Your right ckc
July 1, 2008 - 18:27 ET by shawn228Not all
Flip Flops
are created equal.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
This is an issue of
July 1, 2008 - 12:30 ET by Dan The Man 2This is an issue of character, McCain has character and Obama is a character. This is why Obama has issues with his stances whereas Mccain is well known and his stances are also. I know you dont understand or you would not be arguing. Fronm day one Obama was dissing the symbols of America. He also trying to hide his past. Obama reminds me of Satan.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Obama reminds me of Satan.
July 1, 2008 - 12:47 ET by shawn228"Obama reminds me of Satan".
Except for the fact that he might have 3 six's on his head, can you elaborate on this further?
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
For starters...
July 1, 2008 - 12:56 ET by dvdaughtryThey are both liars.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Most politicians are liars
July 1, 2008 - 13:01 ET by shawn228How is Obama that much differant than past politicians? Ok many politicans are liars, how is Obama like Satan? Does he support strife and famine? Does he walk around with a pitchfork?
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
How is Obama that
July 1, 2008 - 13:19 ET by red_dragon311How is Obama that much differant than past politicians?
he's not.....THATS THE POINT!!!!!!
he was all about "Change this" and "change that" and "that's what the american people are tired of"
so NOW he can sit back and be the staus quo politician?
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
Red Dragon
July 1, 2008 - 13:32 ET by shawn228I am not defending Obama and I agree that is wrong, but he is no doing anything different than any other politician and I will wait until the debates to hear exactly how is going to deliver the change.
His tactics on winning the election bothers me, but to minimal extent. His idea's for American are what matters to me and I am interested in seeing what they are, I also feel He will be the next POTUS regardless of how I feel or if I vote for him or not.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Sorry if i am coming off as
July 1, 2008 - 13:46 ET by red_dragon311Sorry if i am coming off as an ass...unintended
I just don't like politicians in general, and when one says "change" and is playing the same ol game, and doing everything BUT chnage that really grinds my gears.
and whats worse is the people who blindly follow him because of years and years of being told that these evil, old ,fat, bald,white men ( just look at Dick Cheney) who hate you and want to control you.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
red dragon
July 1, 2008 - 13:55 ET by shawn228No problem. You might got the impression from some, that I am a troll. I don't blame you for having your guard up, because It seems there have been lots of interesting liberal addtions lately. They are interesting to me because they don't seem to be reincarnations or ones that have been kicked off, I think they really are new.
I agree completely with your sentiment, and you woud agree it is wrong to blindly support the Republican party as well?
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
yes i would agree on that,
July 1, 2008 - 15:38 ET by red_dragon311yes i would agree on that, but I am not seeing the blind following for McCain as Obama. He's young and hip, so young people ( my brother included) gravitate to that, same thing happened to Clinton.
and as far as libs, i don't call anyone a troll, if a person IS trolling I don't reply to them, I have seen you here enough times to know you arn't a troll, and I like having civil disscusions.
and I can't wait for the debates and the town halls
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
Mostly it's hyperbole, but
July 1, 2008 - 14:44 ET by dvdaughtryMostly it's hyperbole, but there is some glaring comparisions (also seen below). And just because all politicians lie, doesn't cancel out Obama's flaw.
Niether of them walk around with a pitchfork (which also might be an intended exaggeration). From the sounds of the posts below, it won't matter what comparisons we make, they won't be good enough.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Satan the most beautiful,
July 1, 2008 - 13:13 ET by Dan The Man 2Satan the most beautiful, words that flow from his mouth are like honey. In the Garden he was in teh form of teh serpent and persuaded Adam and Eve to stray from the truth. His arguments had some truth but were designed to lead you away from the truth. "Did the Lord rally say that or did He mean this?" Obama is like that, he has some truth but not were it counts. His many political moves prove that.
Of course your asking shows that you are under his spell.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Would Jesus nuke em till they glow in the dark?
July 1, 2008 - 13:21 ET by shawn228I have not heard anything the clearly shows he is trying to lead us away from the truth. I guess different people interpret faith differently, have you seen the relgious threads lately?
I mean I guess not all Christians turn the other cheek like Jesus said, but I am guessing if Jesus were alive today, I doubt the son of man woud say "nuke em till they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Shawn, yes he would
July 1, 2008 - 13:50 ET by jefflebowskiJesus would nuke the Muslims! It's the right thing to do. I'm sure somewhere in the bible it says that it is OK to nuke Muslims...but I'm not a scriptorian.
What my grandmother used to say about my brother and I when we were little kids applies to the Muslims......they would make Jesus cuss!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Jeff
July 1, 2008 - 14:03 ET by shawn228I heard of many things God would do. God flooded the earth and spared no man, woman or child. I guess all of them must have been wicked?
I'm talking about Jesus Christ. Is there any mention in the Bible thats says Jesus advocates violence?
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Shawn God is one in 3
July 1, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Dan The Man 2Shawn God is one in 3 persons and one character. So Jesus is the Father and the Holy Ghost but they are seperate persons each having their own job to do. So asking if Jesus would nuke some country yes, He will be back as teh conqueror.
I am sorry you are lost and recommend you immediately go to the nearest Southern Baptist Church.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Shawn, I was just joking but
July 1, 2008 - 23:23 ET by jefflebowskiI believe that God or Jesus would want us to protect ourselves against attack. I don't believe that they are pacifists for a minute.
Also, the 3 person in 1 thing doesn't make sense! Don't want to start a big religious discussion...but that has never made sense to me.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Well Shawn you just don't
July 1, 2008 - 14:08 ET by Dan The Man 2Well Shawn you just don't know God. He wiped out th entire earth once except for a handful of the faithful and 2 cities later on. He builds up peoples and destroys them for His purposes. And Jesus is coming next as the conqueror with a great army. Read the Bible and comprehend it and you shall undertand it.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Scripture: Jesus is alive today...
July 1, 2008 - 14:18 ET by Britcomand will overthrow the nations of the Earth upon his return to the Earth. The nations aren't going to lay their power at his feet, they will war against Him, and the battle will be great, and they will lose. See Revelation 19:11-21
---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&
Yes, I think Jesus would
July 1, 2008 - 14:54 ET by dvdaughtryYes, I think Jesus would use violence. He cleared the temple a good fury.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Is Satan not the angel of
July 1, 2008 - 13:21 ET by bassndudeIs Satan not the angel of light? Or was. One of Gods most beautiful creations?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Sure Bass
July 1, 2008 - 13:27 ET by shawn228I hear ya. Your right the msm is trying to Obama look like an angel of light, I will not disagree. As far as God's most beautiful creations, I would not say Obama is beautiful. Certainly no Denzel Washington. Not even more than an equally attractive man Mitt Romney.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
NO WAY
July 2, 2008 - 01:00 ET by UnsaneThe MSM is NOT trying to make Obama look like Lucifer.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Rev 17:5
July 1, 2008 - 14:48 ET by UnsaneHow about Michelle Obama being mentioned in the Bible? In Revelations 17:5.
:-)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
to McCain
July 1, 2008 - 12:52 ET by red_dragon311to McCain flips....this is why I don't like him. and why unless somthing wild happens I will not vote for him.
how can Obama say " change we can belive in" when "it's only politics" isn't THAT what Obama wants to chnage in the first place??
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
Agreed Red Dragon
July 1, 2008 - 13:03 ET by shawn228I have to wait until the debates until I decide on who is right for America. Obama will have to explain his "change" at some point.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
sorry shawn,
July 1, 2008 - 13:07 ET by AgnosticI have a hard time believing you will see anyone in the debates that is right for America and I believe that to be true from either side of the liberal/conservative aisle but especially if you are on the fence.
Agnostic
July 1, 2008 - 13:11 ET by shawn228Could you tell me why you feel that way? I have always presented myself as a person that is more conservative in a fiscal sense and more liberal when it comes to social issues.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
feelings Shawn?
July 1, 2008 - 13:30 ET by AgnosticBoth Senators have good and bad points but they share a couple of common problems that given another option would have me running to said third option.
One is each of them having the arrogance to believe that all their posturing is anything but politics-as-usual. The phrase about putting make-up on a pig comes to mind when I think about how they patronize their audience by making believing that a majority of Americans don’t see them as politicians first.
The second thing they share is an ever changing focus and priority system. Don’t misunderstand, I know there is a wide scope of subjects to discuss and as times change priorities change. However, either one of these two seem to be able to drop “life-long” beliefs at the drop of a hat and point into the wind of popular opinion. My biggest complaint about President Clinton was that he followed poles and never led them. It made him popular but not a good leader.
For Senator McCain specifically it is mostly his need to look like the ‘good guy’ instead of worrying about being right. A couple of times that he has lost his composure has been when he has been pushed and not been able to come across as the moderate, across-the-aisle Senator that he wants to portray.
For Senator Obama it is that I do need to know why he can’t haul out any non-controversial friends that date back as far as his controversial ones. I don’t want to judge him by the actions of his friends but there is precious little else to judge on considering his voting record is extremely liberal and he preaches the rhetoric of a man wanting to bring everyone together. There is little to no proof that he truly wants or can provide the things he repeatedly promises and if you look past the well written speeches there is nothing but a list of social programs and regulations.
In the end I will probably vote for Senator McCain but I was actually leaning toward Senator Clinton at one point (barely). If it isn’t too childish, can I ask for a do-over.
Obama & the Evangelicals
July 1, 2008 - 10:56 ET by GothampcYou can't court the evangelical vote and approve of gay marriage and abortion.
polititicans from both sides want it both ways
July 1, 2008 - 11:01 ET by shawn228Just like giving a path for citizenship to illegals, but build fence around our borders.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
As an evangelical
July 1, 2008 - 11:06 ET by misterbee241Right Gothampc and same with the Catholic vote
July 1, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Dee BunkObama is appealing to the Liberal Christian vote. Those people who's churches encourage them to believe what they want to believe.
exactly - as if a campaign
July 1, 2008 - 11:56 ET by TruthMongerexactly - as if a campaign "promise" is going to impress a fundie...
Dems just don't get Jesus - that's all this tells me - yet again...
Yes TM - liberal Christians
July 1, 2008 - 12:10 ET by Dee Bunkallow the media and peer pressure to convince them that things like abortion are strictly religious beliefs.
True Christians should be able to see the value in the way God teaches people to live. God did not make arbitrary rules just so he can look down and laugh at people for trying to follow them. He made them to help people.
Just because people can be forgiven for aborting babies doesn't mean society should encourage it.
Dems & Christians
July 1, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Gothampc"Dems just don't get Jesus - that's all this tells me - yet again... "
But what is so mindblowing is that the Dems think Christians are stupid. There are many people across the United States that have studied the Bible and "hid its words in their hearts". Democrats come along and think they can skim the surface of the Bible and tell Christians what Jesus would have done. They don't seem to understand that Christianity is a lifestyle and not a club you join.
Outstanding Democrats
July 1, 2008 - 10:25 ET by ricklailHere is a good story on 2 outstanding pillars in the Democrat party.
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
Hey Rick, I posted that
July 1, 2008 - 10:34 ET by SemperrightHey Rick,
I posted that late last night. Can you believe they actually admitted that they were Dems? Let a young Republican get caught worshiping the devil and all hell will break loose. Which is what devil worshippers want I suppose.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Sorry
July 1, 2008 - 10:40 ET by ricklailDouble post goof.
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
Sorry
July 1, 2008 - 10:39 ET by ricklailI am way behind on my reading. I have 3 of my grandkids at my house. Been kind of busy.
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
No prob Rick, It was
July 1, 2008 - 10:44 ET by SemperrightNo prob Rick,
It was about midnight last night when I posted it. I had just gotten my 2 year old back to bed when I read it.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
→ Obama supports handguns
July 1, 2008 - 10:29 ET by Cool ArrowSo will McCain have the huevos to ask him where he stands on the lawsuit to strike down Chicago's gun ban?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Yes
July 1, 2008 - 10:30 ET by FoolicanMore likely than not, I think. Based on what I've seen from McCain's attitude, he seems only to be steering away from any discussion of Obama's race, Obama's pastor, and Obama's religion, instead wanting to focus more on critical issues.
Obama has found a way to
July 1, 2008 - 10:31 ET by SemperrightObama has found a way to get govt. money (my Money) into the hands of Rev. Wrights racist little paws. I'm sure there will also be a big push to fund any faith based program as long as it's for muslims of any American hating religion.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Hey, semper, don't you know
July 1, 2008 - 10:54 ET by motherbeltHey, semper, don't you know that these programs proposed by President Bush have all been a dismal failure?
But that's just because they haven't been big enough, and they weren't a liberal's idea. When Obama expands them (probably with all that money he's going to save by abandoning Iraq) and there is a liberal Democrat in the White House...they will all be wildly successful, it will all be sunshine and blue skies! Because the "right" people will be running them!
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
MB I forgot, you're
July 1, 2008 - 11:00 ET by SemperrightMB I forgot, you're right.
I'm going to run down to accounting and see if I can get my federal withholdings raised to 100%. I think I would feel better with O-blamalam old black barry holding my cash.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Voting habits may be
July 1, 2008 - 10:31 ET by Clear thinkerVoting habits may be genetically determined, study finds
You simply cannot make this stuff up, or can you?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
an abortion is definitely a
July 1, 2008 - 11:58 ET by TruthMongeran abortion is definitely a future non-vote for a "pro-choice" liberal that's for sure:)
Here
July 1, 2008 - 10:33 ET by sarcasmoIs historian Doug Wead's take on the meeting. Previous posts on the issue here, here & here.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
A Liberal in Charge of Faith Based Programs?
July 1, 2008 - 10:53 ET by GothampcAs an Evangelical Christian, I have to say that the Democrats must think we're idiots. Obama is going to throw us a bone with faith based programs? A liberal controlling faith based programs? Does anyone else smell the desperation of Obama?
Hey Obama, how about throwing us a bone and making gay marriage illegal? How about throwing us a bone and making abortion illegal? How about throwing us a bone and closing the borders?
they do think we're idiots
July 1, 2008 - 11:59 ET by TruthMongerthey do think we're idiots - ironically making them - idiots
libs are all about irony
Impatient POW's
July 1, 2008 - 11:28 ET by billbIt appears the SCOTUS has decided that the terrorist suspects in Gitmo have better things to do than wait around for the US military to try them. No matter how long it takes, they WILL get a fair trial, but the US citizens they murdered will still be dead.
Obama can say anything he wants...
July 1, 2008 - 11:36 ET by c5thenI for one, do not trust ANYTHING he says at all.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Obama & Faith Based Programs
July 1, 2008 - 11:44 ET by GothampcWhat happened to separation of Church and State? Where is the ACLU when you really need them?
Who's in Guantanamo?
July 1, 2008 - 12:12 ET by blogonatorAgain the answer comes: someone who shouldn't be.
It gets better:
But, hey, he's in Guantanamo! He must be evil incarnate! Rumsfeld said so! Civilian judges are going to get us all killed with their precious "justice" and "fair trial" ideas! If the president wants to detain someone for years, decades, without anything but bare and unverifiable claims, he should be able to do it! There's no way he's just engendering more hatred for Americans! We're the good guys! We love Freedom! We bring Democracy at the barrel of a gun to unwashed masses the world over!
You forgot to include an
July 1, 2008 - 12:46 ET by Dan The Man 2You forgot to include an important few words in the article "Some lawyers said the ruling highlighted the difficulties they saw in civilian judges reviewing Guantánamo cases.
“This case displays the inadequacies of having civilian courts inject themselves into military decision-making,” said Glenn M. Sulmasy, a law professor at the Coast Guard Academy and a national security fellow at Harvard.
Think of this way, teh military is most suited to determine who should and should not be held when found on the battlefield. Even though these are judges they are specialized in civilian matters and the thresholds of the civilian system whereas the military has a different system they follow.
It is similar to asking a civil engineer to look at some nuclear plant specifications and make judgements as to teh suitability of such specifications. The civil engineer simply does not have the training and expertise to make such judgements. And the civilian judges simply dont have the expertise to make judgements in military matters.
Presdient Bush should just say the matter is an executive descision within the powers given to him by the constitution and that is that.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The military does not run this country
July 1, 2008 - 14:09 ET by blogonatorThey don't get a pass. If they can't justify these detentions, they need to get out of the business of maintaining detention centers. And as far as I'm concerned "trust me" is no kind of legitimate justification.
Justification
July 1, 2008 - 14:55 ET by UnsaneI am really not looking forward to Mirandizing non-citizen enemy combatants and soldiers who were and are trying to kill me, my troops, and my fellow citizens back home.
Is this justification enough for you: those who are detained did everything in their power to KILL U.S. citizens and military personnel. We aren't just locking them up just for fun. Besides, you should be grateful. If this were WWII, they would all have been SHOT long ago and quite possibly be sitting on the bottom of Guantanamo Bay.
Why don't you adopt one of these cuddly terrorists, blogonator?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
How's that kool aid taste?
July 1, 2008 - 17:13 ET by blogonatorYep, they're all guilty. Kill them all. There is no Fog of War. Everyone spirited away to Gitmo was aprehended reloading his AK-47 on the battlefield.
As Rummy might say, horsefeathers!
If your theory was true, then we wouldn't have any trouble convicting them with real evidence, would we?
The enemy, captured by
July 1, 2008 - 17:17 ET by bassndudeThe enemy, captured by military forces, on, in or near a battlefield, have never been tried in civilian courts.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
If the enemy was all we had in Gitmo...
July 1, 2008 - 18:14 ET by blogonatorthere'd be less of a problem with the operation.
Fact is there are plenty of people who have been through Guantanamo who have not been guilty of anything more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Link
So in the past and likely again in the present we have the innocent, the assorted riff raff and the hardcore jihadis all detained. Seems like whatever else we do the innocent ought to be free. You and I are innocent, and we are free too. Now, how do you sort the good from the bad? Maybe could use a process where one side presents evidence against the other side and in response the accused could be given a fair chance to defend himself. Crazy idea right?
Your proof that they are
July 1, 2008 - 18:23 ET by bassndudeYour proof that they are not all enemy combatants? Your link has nothing to do with proof of non combantants. There must be something to the Gitmo detention. After all, our military did not run forays into neighboring countries to pick up bodies to fill the cells. And Albaina was the only country willing to take these terrorists. Dr. or not, he was either fighting or caring for the terrorists in his unit. That is an enemy combantant, by any definition. Is not a Dr. in the American army still a soldier? That would carry over to a terrorist unit. A terrorist Dr. is still a terrorist.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Innocent until proven guilty
July 1, 2008 - 18:33 ET by blogonatorThat's how American justice works. It's not for me to prove anyone is innocent. It's for the accuser to prove them guilty.
Again with the blind faith. Where does it come from? Unless you're willing to claim the military could never, ever, ever make the mistake of picking up the wrong guy, you should be ready to accept the possiblity they have picked up the wrong guy. He may still be confined. Why should you care? I don't know. Humanity? Got any of that? Pride that even under duress, America remains a beacon of hope and positive example to the world? Got some of that?
Here's another link for you. Sometimes we get the wrong guy, and then he decides he wants to be a jihadi after we stick him in Cuba. Brilliant!
Innocent untill proven guilty?
July 1, 2008 - 18:44 ET by bassndudeExactly where do you find that in the Geneva Accords? Wars in foreign wars on foreign soil are not governed by the United States, no more than foreign lands are governed by the United States. The American justice system playes no part in war. The Constitution, for your information, was written to protect the citizens of the United States from domestic rulers.
As for your link, who is to say it was after Gitmo? My guess is that he was a jihadist when he was taken to Gitmo. After all, those guys are not the most honest bunch are they? If you have such faith in what they tell you, why dont you offer to travel to their home with them next time. Even after they tell you, you will not be harmed.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Your guess...
July 1, 2008 - 18:50 ET by blogonatorIs as good as mine. It'd be nice to have some proof, wouldn't it?
Let's conquer the world
July 2, 2008 - 01:11 ET by UnsaneSay, blogonator, if the U.S. Constitution (not the Geneva Convention) applies to POWs and enemy combatants, maybe we should just stop the charade and conquer the world and make it official then, huh?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Hey you make a great
July 1, 2008 - 17:43 ET by red_dragon311Hey you make a great point, you know what lets ask Nick Berg if he was given a fair trial
oh yea he had his head cut off on camera
well lets ask the Prisoners that the Iraqi "freedon fightes" have in thier custody if they are going to be given a fiar trial or have their "day in court" ......DAMN can't do that either they are all dead too.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
Nick Berg admitted his guilt, justice was served
July 1, 2008 - 18:24 ET by blogonatorI don't see what your problem is with the military justice meted out to him. He admitted his association with a semetic people deemed to be the enemy. He even did it on camera. Even though he was tied up at the time and surrounded by threatening looking men, he did admit his crime. Now why this was determined to be a capital crime by the court was not properly presented, but then some of the evidence was probably classified, and the court, mindful of the current state of war, was rightfully not compelled to present a full body of evidence. They probably did not want the enemy to benefit from the process of discovery that would have put the war effort at risk.
/sarcasm
Oh please blog...lets not
July 1, 2008 - 18:29 ET by bassndudeOh please blog...lets not let this devolve into something moronic. That would be even a stretch for HAMAS to belive.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
So all we have to de
July 1, 2008 - 18:46 ET by red_dragon311So all we have to de is get them to admit their crimes and thats it, then you would be fine with them being there.....why didn't you say so
fire up the car batteries, get some jumper cables and buckets of water. Now tell them guys at gitmo to drop trou, we got balls to electrocute!!!!!!
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
I'm assuming you missed the...
July 1, 2008 - 18:53 ET by blogonator/sarcasm HTML tag. I am sorry for your confusion.
Nice try at projecting
July 2, 2008 - 01:07 ET by UnsaneKool-Aid? No, not what YOU are drinking. I'm guzzling water. Try and keep up.
YOU are the one spouting Leftist talking points like there is no tomorrow. I am merely discussing 1) practical consequences and 2) pointing out that all of these guys earned their trip to Gitmo.
If we were randomly going through towns and villages, waking these guys up at night, dragging them