On Monday's "Nightline," ABC reporter Jake Tapper challenged Barack Obama over the fact that "there has not been a terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11." He pointedly asked Obama to provide an example of when he has actually reached across the aisle to break from Democratic orthodoxy and generally proved that it is possible for the Obama-friendly program to ask tough questions of the Democratic candidate.
After bringing up the Supreme Court's ruling last week that gave legal benefits to enemy combatants, Tapper reminded Obama that there has been no terrorist attack since 9/11. He then quizzed, "...And [the Bush White House says] the reason that is, is because of the domestic programs, many of which you oppose. How do you know that they're wrong?" Tapper also mentioned examples of Senator McCain bucking his own party and challenged, "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" In contrast, frequent "Nightline" contributor David Wright has previously rhapsodized that Obama rallies are like "Springsteen concerts."
On April 25, 2008, Wright made an appearance on "Good Morning America" to laud Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright (no relation), as a "soft-spoken man" who, in a interview, "couldn't seem more different from that fire-brand preacher we've all seen in those sound bites." Remember, this is the same pastor who urged God to damn America.
David Wright has not been the only "Nightline" alum guilty of extolling the virtues of the senator from Illinois. On November 6, 2006, "Nightline" co-anchor Terry Moran provided one of the most effusive, gushing descriptions of Obama:
TERRY MORAN: "You can see it in the crowds. The thrill, the hope. How they surge toward him. You're looking at an American political phenomenon. In state after state, in the furious final days of this crucial campaign, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has been the Democrat's not-so-secret get-out-the-vote weapon. He inspires the party faithful and many others, like no one else on the scene today...And the question you can sense on everyone's mind, as they listen so intently to him, is he the one? Is Barack Obama the man, the black man, who could lead the Democrats back to the White House and maybe even unite the country?"
Again, to contrast, Tapper, who appeared on Tuesday's "Good Morning America" with more of his Obama interview, actually challenged the candidate as to why he (thus far) seems incapable of sustaining a lead over Republican John McCain: "You and Senator McCain right now are pretty much tied. Why aren't you doing better? Why didn't you get a bounce?"
So, perhaps viewers of "Nightline" should hope for more Jake Tapper-style queries and less fawning questions from David Wright and Terry Moran.
A partial transcript from Tapper's "Good Morning America" interview on June 17, and the complete transcript of the June 16, "Nightline" segment with Obama, follow:
7:02am
ROBIN ROBERTS: But first, the race to '08 and we'll have more on those new poll numbers in a moment. But we begin on a big name endorsement for Senator Obama in Michigan last night. Our senior political correspondent Jake Tapper was there in Detroit and he's still there this morning for us. Good morning, Jake.
JAKE TAPPER: Good morning, Robin. Well, Senator Barack Obama is trying to make up for lost time here in Michigan, a state the Democrats did not have an official primary contest in. A few weeks ago, you might remember, Obama came in, got a big splashy endorsement from former Senator John Edwards. Last night he came in, got a big splashy endorsement from Al Gore. Last night in Detroit, the Gore-acle bestowed 'the one' with his blessing.
AL GORE: We have such a nominee. We have such a leader. Yes, we can. Ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the United States of America, Barack Obama.
TAPPER: Senator Obama talked more about the race in our exclusive network interview. You and Senator McCain right now are pretty much tied. Why aren't you doing better? Why didn't you get a bounce?
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Well, you know, my understanding is the current polls show me up, despite the fact that we went through an extraordinary primary. I mean, we went through a long, long contest and Senator Clinton was a formidable and terrific candidate. And so, while we were doing that, John McCain was basically getting a pass, both from the media, from you guys, as well as from other opponents.
6/16/08
11:35
MARTIN BASHIR: Having swept aside Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, tonight, Barack Obama swept up one of the biggest endorsements. That of former vice president, Al Gore. Mr. Gore said that in 2002, he warned against invading Iraq and few elected officials supported him. But I remember, he said, that an eloquent legislator named Barack Obama stood up boldly and clearly. So, how will Senator Obama benefit from Mr. Gore's standing up for him? Here's our senior political correspondent, Jake Tapper.
JAKE TAPPER: His was a long desired endorsement throughout the never-ending Democratic primaries. But the Gore-acle resisted.
AL GORE Yes, we can. Ladies and gentleman-
TAPPER: Until tonight.
GORE: -of the United States of America, Barack Obama.
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: And when I am president, I will be counting on Al Gore to help me lead the fight for a clean energy future here in America and around the globe.
GORE: After eight years of the worst, most serious foreign policy mistakes in the entire history of our nation, we need change.
TAPPER: Obama's campaign is counting on an infusion of fresh blood to help out in their big battle against the Republicans. Today, the campaign announced Patty Solis Doyle, Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager who was fired during the height of the Clinton/Obama battle, is coming on board to be chief of staff for the vice presidential nominee, whoever he or she might be. One more ambassador to those former Clinton supporters who have threatened to vote for John McCain, who is brazenly wooing them.
MCCAIN: I respect the campaign that Senator Clinton ran. I congratulate her on motivating millions of people to join her campaign.
TAPPER: That was one of the subjects Obama and I discussed in our exclusive network interview today. John McCain is aggressively going after women's vote, especially former supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton.
OBAMA: I think John McCain is gonna have trouble making the case when on almost every single issue that's important to women he has been on the wrong side. He has opposed efforts to protect women against, you know, some of the discrimination that they experience in the workplace. He is in favor of judges who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.
TAPPER: That the Supreme Court is on the ballot is an argument Obama makes as he campaigns throughout the country.
OBAMA: John McCain thinks the Supreme Court was wrong. I think the Supreme Court was right.
TAPPER: In Pennsylvania over the weekend, Obama praised the Supreme Court for granting legal rights to enemy combatants being held in US custody. The Bush administration says no matter what people think about other programs, other policies they have initiated, there has not been a terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11 and they say the reason that is, is because of the domestic programs, many of which you oppose. How do you know that they're wrong?
OBAMA: It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States. But we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. Let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons incapacitated.
TAPPER: The stark philosophical divide between McCain and Obama guarantee this match-up will make the Democratic primaries look like spring break in Jamaica. McCain's campaign thinks Obama is glib and all talk.
TAPPER: It's not difficult to look at Senator McCain's record and see examples of times when he reached across the partisan divide at great political risk to himself. Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?
OBAMA: Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get - something done in Washington it entails some political risks.
TAPPER: Tomorrow, Senator Obama flies to Washington, D.C. for some meetings includes some about his vice presidential prospects. The stakes keep getting higher. This is Jake Tapper for "Nightline" with the Obama campaign in Detroit, Michigan.
BASHIR: Our thanks to Jake Tapper.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.















Comments Policy
We clearly can't handle the truth
June 17, 2008 - 16:59 ET by RiharOr a simple answer it seems.
TAPPER: Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?
OBAMA: Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get - something done in Washington it entails some political risks.
So... "No" then?
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Apparently "well, look.." is
June 17, 2008 - 18:04 ET by FairlightApparently "well, look.." is code for 'NO.'
Jake Tapper is one of the few MSM reporters.....
June 17, 2008 - 16:59 ET by Missouri Conservative...that consistently challenges Obama. His blog at ABC is one of the few drive-by media blogs that I read. He's very good, and very fair.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Maybe he should be a
June 17, 2008 - 19:09 ET by GregEMaybe he should be a candidate to replace Russert.
That's one, two... a couple
June 17, 2008 - 17:01 ET by mattmThat's one, two... a couple more and they'll have it covered and they can go back to their bootlicking....
Obama's note to staff:
June 17, 2008 - 17:02 ET by Slickster" I want that racist bastard fired, tell the press questions about bi-partisanship are off-limits and have somone beat the hell out of the teleprompter programs for not being quick enough with my intelligent answers".
Obama, Jimmy carter's younger half brother.
obama's note to staff
June 18, 2008 - 16:03 ET by tejanodiabloand be sure to keep an eye out for that vicious rabbit .. use the holy handgrenade ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
What we know is that in
June 17, 2008 - 17:04 ET by Free ThinkerWhat we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial.
Follow up question - True, but as we saw in the second attack on the world trade center we are facing an enemy that is not deterred by being put on trial and going to prison. Again, how are we not safer now and don't give me that bs "constraints of the constitution" line again if you can't offer a concrete example?
exactly what I thought Free
June 17, 2008 - 17:26 ET by exLibexactly what I was thinking.
What a horrible answer.
I am sure when we let some of these terrorists go because of "legal rights" they will run back to their fellow terrorists and urge them to put down their weapons and "make peace".
what we know is that
June 18, 2008 - 16:08 ET by tejanodiabloyes, a nice long trial with lots of discovery, ex post facto the attack (assuming it wasn't another homicide attack) would suit ramsey clark and the aclu just fine ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
oops
June 17, 2008 - 17:07 ET by mattmoops
Another question
June 17, 2008 - 17:22 ET by bubbatech01This just shows how short sighted and naive Obama is. So, his whole plan, his brilliant plan would be to focus only on those that actually committee crimes. Well, that sucks for the victims of those crimes now doesnt it. Instead of finding the gangleader, Obama the wise and all powerful is going to only go after the lacky unlucky enough to draw the short straw for his 60 virgins.
So, in Obama logic, the issue of 9/11 was solved because those that committed the crimes are dead. well, what in the hell are we doing fighting terrorism then? i mean, he has this thing figured out.
Unfortunately for Obama, he has this little thing called history to worry about. the WTO bombers were placed on trial and put into jail (some of them), but did that stop 9/11? The democratic party man-crush, Bill Clinton, thought so, and built inept and pathetic foreign policies to back it up. Needless to say, those policies were integral in providing the means and the incentive for the hijackers of 9/11.
Hollywood Fighting 101
June 17, 2008 - 17:29 ET by exLibYes, this is classic Hollywood fight rules.
If you aren't aware of it already the rules are as follows:
- You can't hit your oponent unless he hits you first.
- You have to allow you oponent to get up and go after you before you can hit them again.
- If your oponent is a large group they must kill large numbers of people before going after them is OK, and now the post Iraq War rules are you must be absolutely certain who did it and have "proof" whatever that is.
- Your oponent must do something to get himself killed, you can't do it yourself unless it an accident, like they fell on you knife/sword.
cool rules
June 17, 2008 - 17:42 ET by bubbatech01loved the rules, thanks!
@Scott Whitlock:
June 17, 2008 - 18:13 ET by j. frank wilsonYou posted: "After bringing up the Supreme Court's ruling last week that gave legal benefits to enemy combatants..." The US Supreme Court has no rights to "give." The ruling recognized rights found in the US Constitution.
...What rights found in the
June 17, 2008 - 18:22 ET by bigtimer...What rights found in the Constitution?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
@bigtimer:
June 17, 2008 - 18:57 ET by j. frank wilsonFrom the Syllabus:
A brief account of the writ’s history and origins shows thatprotection for the habeas privilege was one of the few safeguards of liberty specified in a Constitution that, at the outset, had no Bill of Rights; in the system the Framers conceived, the writ has a centrality that must inform proper interpretation of the Suspension Clause. That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty is evident from the care taken in the Suspension Clause to specify the limited grounds for its suspension: The writ may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times of rebellion or invasion. The Clause is designed to protect against cyclical abuses of the writ by the Executive and Legislative Branches. It protects detainee rights by a means consistent with the Constitution’s essential design, ensuring that, except during periods of formal suspension, the Judiciary will have a time-tested device, the writ, to maintain the "delicate balance of governance." Hamdi, supra, at 536. Separation-of-powers principles, and the history that influenced their design, inform the Clause’s reach and purpose. Pp. 8–15.
Wilson... All that to say
June 17, 2008 - 19:03 ET by Clear thinkerWilson...
All that to say that the SCOTUS made up a new law last week. And here I thought their job was to interpret and enforce the laws that are made by Congress.
"Abstain from McCain"
@Clear thinker:
June 17, 2008 - 19:59 ET by j. frank wilsonOne of the jobs of the US Supreme Court is to be sure new laws passed by Congress are Constitutional. While a Republican-dominated Congress tried to pass laws that the federal judiciary couldn't review, that weak attempt fell on its face (separation of powers and all that messy stuff).
Whether or not you agree with the decision, its the law of the land. And my contention remains: The Supreme Court does not have any rights to give (so it can not give any rights).
Wilson... You are missing
June 17, 2008 - 20:07 ET by Clear thinkerWilson...
You are missing the point. This time they got it wrong!
"Abstain from McCain"
As they also got it wrong
June 17, 2008 - 20:13 ET by GregEAs they also got it wrong in Kelo vs New London, the case in which they, as a non-legislative branch of government, expanded the interpretation of eminent domain.
The Supreme Court can and does get things wrong. They're not the Supreme Being.
Don't forget Roe v
June 17, 2008 - 20:15 ET by Clear thinkerDon't forget Roe v Wade.
"Abstain from McCain"
Yes, and I was going to add
June 17, 2008 - 20:17 ET by GregEYes, and I was going to add that though the Supreme Court cannot give rights that it doesn't have to give, as Wilson stated, it did just that in Kelo, giving additional rights to the federal government.
@GregK:
June 17, 2008 - 20:35 ET by j. frank wilsonDid you read the Kelo decision or are you parroting what you read about that decision? Kelo was a cut and dried states' rights decision. The US Supreme Court ruled (1.) Connecticut state law was reasonable; And this is the key part that always seems to be left out (2.) Each state is a better judge of what eminent domain should be than the federal government.
Personally, I have a tremendous problem with eminent domain being used to transfer ownership of property from one private owner to another. But I fully support the concept that it should be left up to each state to decide - not the federal government.
jfw, did YOU read the Kelo decision?
June 17, 2008 - 20:45 ET by R D HelmYou think it reasonable that a group of PRIVATE developers can now freely use local governments to condemn and thus confiscate the PRIVATE PROPERTY of individuals in order to build f'ing SHOPPING CENTERS? DRIVING RANGES? GOLF COURSES? SUBDIVISIONS? WATER PARKS? STRIP MALLS? CONDOS?
No, we are not talking about highways, parks, or other things of that nature.
We are talking about privately owned f'ing SHOPPING CENTERS!
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
The
June 17, 2008 - 20:54 ET by GregEThe decision.
http://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/private_property/kelo/kelo-USSC-opinion-6-05.pdf
@RD Helm:
June 18, 2008 - 00:11 ET by j. frank wilsonClearly you haven't read the Kelo decision - you didn't even read my comment.
Your post assumes there is
June 18, 2008 - 11:03 ET by BDYour post assumes there is no route of appeals for the detainees. There is, it is the US Court of Appeals for the Military. You will find more data available at:
http://en.wikipedia....
You will note that this is the same route of appeals for me as a member of the US Military if I am convicted of a crime. Good enough for me, should be good enough for them, right?
So why do the libs wish to push these cases into the Civil Courts system? Answer: Because libs control the Civil Courts system.
@BD:
June 18, 2008 - 11:26 ET by j. frank wilsonMy post assumes the US Supreme Court has made three significant "Gitmo" decisions - and the Bush Administration is now 0 for 3 in trying to re-write the US Constitution and international law.
It is now up to each of us to either follow the law or face the consequences.
Follow the law?
June 18, 2008 - 11:45 ET by BDFollow the law? EXCELLENT!!!!!!
When are the summary executions for the illegal combatants picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan and convicted by a Company Level Courts Martial for not abiding the Law of Land Warfare scheduled?
After all, in accordance with current military law, they should have happened already.
As posted before, the proper route for these appeals SHOULD have been the US Court of Appeals for the Military, not the manner in which it was handled.
THE US Supreme Court was WRONG! And they did their decision based on obviously faulty logic (As well as a huge dose of liberal ideology ala previous decisions).
After all, if the US Court of Appeals for the Military did not handle this in accordance with the law, then why do they exist?
@BD:
June 18, 2008 - 11:51 ET by j. frank wilsonI don't think your comparison is apt, as there is far more to this than the route of appeal.
From wikipedia - with its obvious limitations:
[edit] Comparison with the American justice system
The United States has two parallel justice systems, with laws, statutes, precedents, rules of evidence, and paths for appeal. Under these justice systems prisoners have certain rights. They have a right to know the evidence against them; they have a right to protect themselves against self-incrimination; they have a right to legal counsel; they have a right to have the witnesses against them cross-examined.
The two parallel justice systems are the Judicial Branch of the US Government, and a slightly streamlined justice system named the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for people under military jurisdiction. People undergoing a military court martial are entitled to the same basic rights as those in the civilian justice system.
The Guantanamo military trials do not operate according to either system of justice. The differences include:
The Military Tribunal
June 18, 2008 - 12:30 ET by BDThe Military Tribunal system falls under the US Courts of Appeals for the military. Congress, who has oversight and the right to set up such tribunals is allowed to set them up in any form they desire.
The congress could decide that Tribunals COULD do the trial in secret and in the nude if they so desired, and as long as it was codified in law it is operative. Since no US persons are involved and no Constitutional rights apply, there is no standing for Civil court or procedures.
@BD:
June 18, 2008 - 14:34 ET by j. frank wilsonYou are certainly welcome to your opinion. This time, however, you appear to have been outvoted by 5 Justices sitting on the US Supreme Court who do not agree with you. Perhaps it is the issue of timing - perhaps the US Gov't can not hold people for as long as it feels like it just because it feels like it. Due process requires, well, a process that is actually carried out within a reasonable period of time.
So much of the position that we can hold people for years and years with no one questioning it is based on a circular position: They are bad guys so we can hold them as long as we want; we can hold them as long as we want because they are bad guys. How do we know they are bad guys? Because we have them. Why do we have them? Because they are bad guys.
Actually they will be held,
June 18, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Free ThinkerActually they will be held, just not on soil the US has control over. You can expect a similiar prison to be be built in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Poland, etc. where the US courts do not have jurisdiction. Either that or future captured terrorists will be given over to governments who can more aggressively acquire the kind of vital information acquired from Gitmo terrorists that has lead to numerous terror plots thwarted and the dismantling of the al Queda organization. I for one am glad we are getting rid of Gitmo for the sole reason that we have been treating these Islamofacist thugs too well.
This time, however, you
June 18, 2008 - 15:43 ET by BDThis time, however, you appear to have been outvoted by 5 Justices sitting on the US Supreme Court who do not agree with you.
Perhaps it is the issue of timing - perhaps the US Gov't can not hold people for as long as it feels like it just because it feels like it.
Due process requires, well, a process that is actually carried out within a reasonable period of time.
So much of the position that we can hold people for years and years with no one questioning it is based on a circular position: They are bad guys so we can hold them as long as we want; we can hold them as long as we want because they are bad guys.
How do we know they are bad guys?
Because we have them.
Why do we have them? Because they are bad guys.
If your position is that
June 17, 2008 - 19:04 ET by BDIf your position is that the framers of the constitution believed that all of humanity had inherent rights and priveleges in accordance with the constitution, why did they NOT ENFORCE IT IN THE WAR OF 1812 when most of them were still around?
Hmmmmmmm.....
Nor did they seemingly enforce it during the Barbary (Tripolitan) Wars, War with France, War against the Seminole, Blackhawk war, and a whole host of others.
@BD: Which is it?
June 17, 2008 - 20:19 ET by j. frank wilsonI find it quite interesting how on the one hand we are told this is the most dangerous time in our history, we stand in mortal danger of total destruction, the old rules don't apply, we can't afford the quaint provisions of the Geneva Conventions (although they are the law of the land), etc., etc.
Then on the other hand the Supreme Court is "granting" rights that have never existed before in the history of our country, we've never had to fight this way, this is unheard of in history...
Which is it?
For the record, I would say the current dangers faced by the United States are certainly not in the top 3 - probably not in the top 5.
Top three dangers
June 17, 2008 - 20:40 ET by RESTLESS 1faced by the United States:
1- liberal judges
2- liberal ploticians
3- (tie) liberal trolls/terrorists.
Ta ta wilson.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
And while you ponder these things
June 17, 2008 - 21:38 ET by general companyFrank
Think about how fortunate you are to have the privledge, not the right, but the privledge you have to feel this way about a country with both allows you to say this, but also off witch you also despise. You are not a very productive citizen, especially from a communist point of view
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
@general company:
June 18, 2008 - 00:17 ET by j. frank wilsonYour twin brain cells appear to have finally imploded. Hope you've got someone close to change your drool cup and your Depends - your going to need all the general assistance you can get!
Frankie it is interesting
June 18, 2008 - 02:34 ET by Dan The Man 2Frankie it is interesting you say this "we can't afford the quaint provisions of the Geneva Conventions (although they are the law of the land), etc., etc." because by what you said you have never read the GC. It is a series of documents and eminently boring but somehow enlightening. SCOTUS has it wrong and President Bush has it right, the people at GITMO are being held on suspicion of being spies and saboteurs.
Under the GC they have no rights and we have every right to execute their butts any time we wish. This is according to the GC.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
@Dan the Man 2:
June 18, 2008 - 09:17 ET by j. frank wilsonYou typing has improved - now you need to work on your thought process. I have read the Geneva Conventions. They are part of United States law. The first part of what you quote above is me quoting others - I certainly don't agree that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" or otherwise unnecessary.
I guess before he changed his mind (again) Sen. McCain had the same view. One of his most serious problems is that it's very difficult to identify his positions because he constantly changes almost all of them.
It appears you missed the point of the US Supreme Court's three "Gitmo" decisions. We can not hold people for years and years based on what we claim they might have done.
Apparently unlike you, I have faith in our Constitution, our system of laws, and our courts.
Yeah, since the SCOTUS
June 18, 2008 - 10:14 ET by pbanks7Yeah, since the SCOTUS conveyed nation status on a private, non-government interest group called al Qaeda, signed the treaty for them, and said al Qaeda does not have to abide by the conventions (because they did not sign it), what you say is true. They did this in a previous ruling.
However, since al Qaeda does not have a uniformed army, and they wear civilian clothing while acting in a military function, they are regarded by those conventions as spies and saboteurs, and are entitled to be summarily shot. We have plenty of precent for that:
You must have also skipped the part where the conventions don't apply when dealing with nations that have not signed the treaty.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
You ducked the point. The
June 18, 2008 - 11:28 ET by BDYou ducked the point. The framers did NOT give these rights to enemy combatants, illegal or legal prior, so we must have assumed they did not desier them for them and the new desire to provide them is just that. A new made up desire.
Regarding your posting that this is the most dangerous time for the US, it very well might be. The scope of firepower available to our enemies now dwarfs that of enemies before.
Current dangers not in the top 3? Really? did the Koreans, Germans, British, etc, have access to nuclear material from the former Sov union?
Did THEY have access to slick US lawyers?
Oh frankie..I've been gone
June 17, 2008 - 21:40 ET by bigtimerOh frankie..I've been gone for awhile...but like I said, what Constituional rights?
LOL..You have proved zilch. ..Hamdi..Hamdi...Hamdi...enemy... enemy... enemy...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Please show me where in the
June 17, 2008 - 19:01 ET by BDPlease show me where in the Constitution an individual captured on a foreign battlefield, not a US citizen has ANY rights.
Waiting.
(This is GONNA BE FUN!!!!!!)
Give them enough time and
June 17, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Clear thinkerGive them enough time and our liberal SCOTUS will "make up" such a right out of magical words.
I guess the only upside to this wil be.... Soldiers on the battlefield will not be taking prisoners.
"Abstain from McCain"
I guess the only upside to
June 17, 2008 - 19:15 ET by BDI guess the only upside to this wil be.... Soldiers on the battlefield will not be taking prisoners.
BD... I understand how
June 17, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Clear thinkerBD...
I understand how important it is to be able to get info out of a live prospect, but do you think this will matter any more?
I was not trying to be funny when I talked about not taking prisoners. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has put our soldiers between a rock and a hard place. This is not funny either.
The next scenario for the left to latch onto will be.... bringing one of our soldiers up on charges because he killed an enemy scumbag terrorist while the enemy scumbag was trying to surrender.
And to think that our brave soldiers are putting thier lives on the line for these idiots that sit on the bench.
"Abstain from McCain"
@BD:
June 17, 2008 - 20:27 ET by j. frank wilsonJohn Yoo? There's just the man to ask for an opinion...
Why would his opinion not be
June 18, 2008 - 11:49 ET by BDWhy would his opinion not be valid?
Is he not studied in the current law?
Is he not studied in national Defense Issues?
Is he not a more valid opinion than, lets say Ruth Bader Ginsberg who is NEITHER?
Information will still be
June 18, 2008 - 10:21 ET by Free ThinkerInformation will still be extracted from future prisoners, but it will be done so in friendly countries that do not abide by our constitution. The law of unintended consequences will rule, as future captured terrorists will now no longer enjoy the nice treatment they would have been granted at Gitmo. All those folks who have celebrated this ruling are probably the ones that will scream the loudest as these thugs are actually tortured in places the U.S. courts have no jurisdiction. Judicial economics at work you might say.
@Clear thinker:
June 17, 2008 - 20:29 ET by j. frank wilsonYou mean like when they made up the law in Bush v. Gore?
He he he,
June 17, 2008 - 20:46 ET by RESTLESS 1You've been having to swallow hard on that one for eight years. Hahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Damn those
June 17, 2008 - 20:46 ET by Clear thinkerDamn those conservatives!
"Abstain from McCain"
I suppose if Algore won
June 18, 2008 - 09:01 ET by Seabeach4348I suppose if Algore won in 2000 then no one would dare suggest that the SCOTUS "...made up the law..." in Algore's favor, now would they?
And, really, why are you so concerned about the health, welfare, and well-being of lower life forms (aka, enemy combatants, terrorists) who relish the opportunity to disconnect your head from the rest of you in no time flat if given the chance, not to mention other heinous activities such as detonating one of our cities with a nuclear device, etc.?
What's wrong with treating our enemies as just that: enemies?
Do tell us what law they
June 18, 2008 - 09:15 ET by NL207Do tell us what law they made up. This will be amusing.
@NOL207:
June 18, 2008 - 09:26 ET by j. frank wilsonThat the US Supreme Court court rule on the State of Florida's recount procedures. Traditionally the conduct of elections has been left to each state - along with marriages, driver's licenses, and other areas that under the Bush Administration we have seen the federal government insert itself into.
The state can't change its
June 18, 2008 - 10:17 ET by Free ThinkerThe state can't change its procedures in the middle of a recount as the Gore camp sought to have happen. Since this would affect a federal election, the court agreed and stopped an attempt at election fraud. The Supreme Court basically stopped the Gore camp from its attempt to steal the election. Its not like it was even close if I recall, 7-2 I believe. Not sure how this is relevant though.
Yeah, the part where the
June 18, 2008 - 10:29 ET by pbanks7Yeah, the part where the Florida Supreme Court ignored their own constitution where they intrepeted shall certify to mean said certification is invalid.
The part where Florida's Congress and Senate were both going to ratify said certification, and Florida's Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
I am certain that if Gore
June 18, 2008 - 11:57 ET by BDI am certain that if Gore had sought a total recount of all counties, not the cherry picked four, nor sought to disenfranchise my comrades overseas, or had sought to change the methodology (Hand recount with "I think he meant to vote for" vice approved machine recount) in an effort to steal the vote, then I am certain the SCOTUS would not have stepped in.
But you likely do not mind THAT.
@BD:
June 17, 2008 - 20:09 ET by j. frank wilsonArticle. VI.
I would suggest you read the Supreme Court decision and take it up with them if you don't agree with it.
Article VI All debts
June 18, 2008 - 07:17 ET by Jack BauerArticle VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Which treat have we entered
June 18, 2008 - 12:06 ET by BDWhich treaty have we entered into that assures illegal enemy combatants have access to US civilian criminal courts?
Certainly not the Geneva Conventions which specifically prohibit legal/illegal combatants from being tried in Civilian Courts.
BD, I don't think Frankie
June 18, 2008 - 13:02 ET by Dan The Man 2BD, I don't think Frankie has actually read any of teh GC accords. I think I will put him down as a low grade troll.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
@BD:
June 18, 2008 - 14:49 ET by j. frank wilsonThe most recent Supreme Court case, as I read the decision, was based on Section 9 of Article I. I do not believe it was based on a treaty.
You were the one who
June 18, 2008 - 15:46 ET by BDYou were the one who claimed that the GC was controlling as US law based on your previous posts.
Go one way or the other. (I recommmend against the Accords as I can school you on them for hours, and you will NOT like what you learn they allow.)
@BD:
June 17, 2008 - 20:12 ET by j. frank wilsonArticle. VI.
Care to
June 17, 2008 - 21:26 ET by <