Obama's Pre-crime indefinite preventive detention for future crimes

Originally Posted by ChesusRice

You got everything right except for the fact that
Bush is a war criminal

there are so many reasons why he is not.

1: he did not order or condone any actions which were outside the scope of his authority as commander in chief of the US during a duly authorized pair of foreign wars.
2: the wars were legal actions instituted as a result of insults and aggression by the regimes of the nations upon which we made legal and just war.
3: every measure, not just reasonable measures,, but even and especially UNREASONABLE measures were taken to protect noncombatants civilians and their property during the campaigns and the occupations
4: every drop of oil extracted during the occupations was purchased from the newly installed governments or stored in a reserve under the management of the officer in charge of enemy property until a legitimate government could be established.
5: our men were in uniform,, and comported themselves within the laws and customs of war,, and where they did not, they were charged and tried in accordance with military law.
6: the much lamented "military contractors" (read as mercenaries) were not under military command, despite the fact that they should have been, and were thus outside the authority of the president to control, much as a foreign ally would have been.
7: we have continued on the timetable for withdrawal as stated, and have not attempted to establish any colonies or "settlements" in the territories that were taken during the wars.
8: the people of these two nations are now free to choose their own governments again,, but they will almost certainly choose another bunch of shitballs,, but thats their choice.

nope,, no war crimes there. no concentratio camps, no death squyads, no medical experimentation on prisoners and detainees,, no torture **couch cough** as defined by the geneva convention, and no mass graves, crematoriums or ditches full of rotting corpses.

Originally Posted by deprave

Marxist savages that were surely deserving of death, were you there? Again, History is told by the winners.

I choose to remain neutral, thats the difference, you just seem to believe everything your told.

a marxist savage eminently deserving of the death he recieved. yes.

that the "victim" was a captain in the viet cong army is confirmed by his wife.
that he was not in a uniform is confirmed by the photo
the ditch full of murdered women and children was confirmed by the photographer (who later apologized for the infamy his photo brought to the general)
the "revolutionary brothers shall liberate me and we shall do more of the same" monologue was confirmed by viet speaking personnel on the scene.
no charges of war crimes were ever brought against the general, even by the north vietnamese because nguyen van lem was a spy saboteur and murderer of women and children and they fucking knew it.

that wasnt even a good effort.

try harder.

Originally Posted by Dr Kynes

your comment is specious, the constitution still previls when dealing with domestic crime, even in the case of drug kingpins, rapists, murderers and pickpockets. bernie maddoff was tried and convicted for his crimes under the law, he was not subject to indefinite detention as an enemy combatant.

even the fort hood shooter is not held incommunicado and waterboarded for his ACTUAL relationjship with terrorist organizations and his ACTUAL commission of political terrorism on US soil. had he deserted,, gone to afghanistan and taken up arms with the talibs he would be in an entirely different kettle of fish.

THAT is the point. terrorist detainees are not scofflaws, drunk drivers or potheads, they are armed spies and saboteurs attempting to destabilize and undermine lawe and order in a military war zone,, and later in a military occupation zone. the laws and conventions pertaining to THOSE douchebags are entirely different from those pertaining to domestic criminal douchebags.

the left and the blind bush haters deliberately avert their gaze from these abundantly clear facts to allow their continued narrative that bush was a war criminal and a scoundrel. pull your head up from rachel maddow's dick and catch a breath of clean clear air. you just might get your noodle bubbling again.

Tell me what this 16 year old did. Oh, you can't, because it's a secret and his Mom has no idea.

Two years ago, a document released by the U.S. Senate showed that in fiscal year 2008, 62% of sneak-and-peek searches carried out by authorities under provisions of the Patriot Act were in cases having to do with illegal drugs. By comparison, only 0.4% of the Patriot Act sneak-and-peek searches in fiscal year 2008 had to do with terrorism. In these searches, contrary to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, targets of search aren’t informed that the government has been searching through their property or personal effects.
Was fiscal year 2008 a fluke? Congresional records show that an update of the same statistics for fiscal year 2009 was provided to the U.S. Senate on July 13 2010 and to the U.S. House of Representatives on September 14 2010. These statistical updates were sent by the Obama administration’s Administrative Office of the United States Courts, but unfortunately the AOUSC has declined to publish those same statistics on its website. The Congress, upon receiving these fiscal year 2009 statistics, forwarded them on to the House Judiciary and Senate Judiciary committees, neither one of which has published the statistics for public consumption. Indeed, the Senate Judiciary Committee actively chose not to release this letter in its publication of committee correspondence for the 111th Congress. These statistics are not for public consumption.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/...ar-skyrockets/

Among the many changes since Sept. 11, 2001, the Patriot Act has been one of the most debated.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells writes in the New York Magazine this week about how the act is doing, 10 years later, calling it the “kitchen sink approach to national security.”
The act makes “it easier to wiretap American citizens suspected of cooperating with terrorism, to snoop through business records without notification, and to execute search warrants without immediately informing their targets (a so-called sneak-and-peek).”
So how has the Patriot Act fared as a defense against terrorism? The act has been used in1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...EBAK_blog.html

What I'm saying is factual. What you're saying is completely unfounded bullshit and you're foolish to ever support these kinds of powers. Especially for such a non threat as terrorism. You're more likely to be killed by the police (a lot more likely, especially given your assumed hobby). You're hundreds of times more likely to be killed in a car accident.

Originally Posted by deprave

What sources? Rachael maddow is dumb when it comes to some things I agree with that(Guns for example) but she has a good heart and good intentions evidenced by the fact she frequently covers things others won't cover and does real investigative reporting, its a miracle she works for MSM. Don't even know what your ranting about I guees its your marxist/savage takeover fantasy again lol Sorry everyone doesn't fit into your very narrow world view. The political compass is not some vast conspiracy theory that looks like this: Attachment 2300648

Rachael Maddow does not have good heart. She distorts and spins most every thing she broadcasts, often she outright lies. These are not the actions of a "good heart". These are the actions of a scoundrel.

red1966 does not have good heart. he distorts and spins most every thing he posts, often he outright lies. these are not the actions of a "good heart". these are the actions of a scoundrel with a tiny penis.

Originally Posted by Dr Kynes

there are so many reasons why he is not.

1: he did not order or condone any actions which were outside the scope of his authority as commander in chief of the US during a duly authorized pair of foreign wars.
2: the wars were legal actions instituted as a result of insults and aggression by the regimes of the nations upon which we made legal and just war.
3: every measure, not just reasonable measures,, but even and especially UNREASONABLE measures were taken to protect noncombatants civilians and their property during the campaigns and the occupations
4: every drop of oil extracted during the occupations was purchased from the newly installed governments or stored in a reserve under the management of the officer in charge of enemy property until a legitimate government could be established.
5: our men were in uniform,, and comported themselves within the laws and customs of war,, and where they did not, they were charged and tried in accordance with military law.
6: the much lamented "military contractors" (read as mercenaries) were not under military command, despite the fact that they should have been, and were thus outside the authority of the president to control, much as a foreign ally would have been.
7: we have continued on the timetable for withdrawal as stated, and have not attempted to establish any colonies or "settlements" in the territories that were taken during the wars.
8: the people of these two nations are now free to choose their own governments again,, but they will almost certainly choose another bunch of shitballs,, but thats their choice.

nope,, no war crimes there. no concentratio camps, no death squyads, no medical experimentation on prisoners and detainees,, no torture **couch cough** as defined by the geneva convention, and no mass graves, crematoriums or ditches full of rotting corpses.

Sure whatever gets you thru the night

Care to explain why he doesnt travel overseas to like Europe?

Originally Posted by ChesusRice

Sure whatever gets you thru the night

Care to explain why he doesnt travel overseas to like Europe?

Because of too many people with mental problems like you there.

Originally Posted by Canna Sylvan

Because of too many people with mental problems like you there.

George W Bush has had to call off a trip to Switzerland next weekend amid planned protests by human rights groups over the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and the threat of a warrant for his arrest.
David Sherzer, a spokesman for the former US president, confirmed the move in an email to the Associated Press. "We regret that the speech has been cancelled," he said. "President Bush was looking forward to speaking about freedom and offering reflections from his time in office."
The visit would have been Bush's first to Europe since he admitted in his autobiography, Decision Points, in November that he had authorised the use of waterboarding – simulated drowning – on detainees at Guantánamo accused of links with al-Qaida. Whether out of concern over the protests or the arrest warrant, it is an extraordinary development for a former US president to have his travel plans curtailed in this way, and amounts to a victory for human rights campaigners.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/f...to-switzerland