Posted on 06/16/2008 4:31:08 PM PDT by stevelackner
ABC News reports Barack Obama praising the Supreme Court decision in Boumediene et al v Bush that gave Habeas Corpus Rights to those in Guantanomo Bay. Obama said that "I think we should make it an issue" in the election and I happen to agree. I don't agree with him when he says the decision "said we are going to live up to our ideals when it comes to rule of law." The fact is that we were living up to our ideals just fine, that there was a system of military tribunals. The fact is that historically the rule of law never required habeas rights for enemy combatants. The fact is that the Supreme Court had told Congress to set up a military tribunal system and then five lawyers in black robes decided arbitrarily that the Congress's military tribunal system which met the court's previous demands were just not good enough.
Obama went on to make a bumbling gaffe, an especially egregious one for Obama who was apparently a former senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama said "that principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that’s the essence of who we are. I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday." I have no problem comparing Islamoterrorists to Nazis, that is fine. But what Barack says here makes no sense. This is another idiotic statement from the great Chicago legal scholar. Jack Tapper of ABC News points out "that the Nuremberg trials did not give Nazi war criminals access to U.S. courts, but to a special international military tribunal created by the U.S., USSR, France and the U.K. Though Nuremberg currently is considered a model for international law, it's not as if Rudolph Hess had access to challenge his detention in U.S. federal court." Nuremberg was an example of setting up an international military tribunal. Congress had set up a military tribunal that gave Gitmo detainees the rights that the Supreme Court had demanded. But Nazis captured by the U.S. (unlike Hess who was captured by the Brits, by the way) never had the right to petition U.S. federal courts and challenge the detention. This is ludicrous. The fact is that the Nuremberg example would lead a clearheaded candidate who knew his history to oppose the Supreme Court decision as does John McCain rather than spout historical jibberish.
This is not the first time Obama has completely muddled history. He has repeatedly refered to JFK meeting with Nikita Khrushchev as a a model for Obama's promise to meet with leaders of rogue states without preconditions in his first year of office. But if he knew just a little bit of history before he drew his nonsensical parallels he would realize that meeting was a complete and utter failure. Khrushchev went to to build the Berlin wall. He went on to put nuclear weapons in Cuba. How could anyone use that as a model of diplomacy, as something to be replicated? But people don't know history so they hear his nonsense in a speech and it sounds mighty fine, it makes it sound as if there is a historical basis for Obama's naivete.
On the Gitmo ruling Obama said, "John McCain thinks the Supreme Court was wrong. I think the Supreme Court was right." Indeed.
AND not a peep from the mediaPUKES!! This getting out of hand and the mediaCLYMERS continue to cover for him!
What about the good old days when the press referred to him as a professor at the U. of C? Now he’s just a senior lecturer.
Hell, I’ve lectured at the U. of C. If I did, anybody can.
If a Republican had said just half of the idiotic things that come out of Obama’s mouth, he or she'd be labeled the next Dan Quayle. But the MSM already has its narrative for Obama: is he really more of a genius, or really more of a messiah. Or is he just the best of both?
Obamasama has pretty much devalued a law degree from the University of Chicago now. Fur Shur, get a lawyer with a better degree to do your most serious business.
Obama may be on to something. Lets try the Islamo before an impartial international court. Of say Israel, Armenia, Cypress and us.
Yep it’s good to know our history. Yes the Nuremburg trials gave a trial to war criminals, but not in a U.S. court. These five judges don’t understand the difference between a military tribunal and other courts.
And Obama doesn’t understand the difference either, or else, because he’s so liberal, he wants war criminals/enemy combatants to be tried in civilian courts.
2) Consider the implications of the term “Affirmative Action Admission”. Having quotas for the admission of certain ethnic groups implies the possibility that the group members admitted might not be of the standard intellectual caliber.
is he really more of a genius, or really more of a messiah. Or is he just the best of both?
He’s someone who will be a willing puppet and implement the left’s agenda. What more could the media ask for?
On reason for Military Tribunals is to protect military intelligence, methods, and such from a process of discovery. If these trials are to take place in a normal fashion, enemy combatants will have recourse to demand discovery - information that will surely aid our enemies.
These people (Liberals) want to undermine the US Military, and what better way then to force discovery in a criminal trial? Give away our military secrets through courts of law.
And 3) Consider the implications of the term “Affirmative Action President,” and imagine what will happen in the arena of domestic and foreign affairs if we have an OHB presidency.
osamabamanation makes juan mcvain look smart and that is difficult to do.
He was “lecturing” in Chicago although he has his degree from Harvard. It’s the students from Chicago I worry about. If he can’t figure out habeus corpus you can just imagine what he taught in Torts 101.
is he really more of a genius, or really more of a messiah. Or is he just the best of both?
He’s someone who will be a willing puppet and implement the left’s agenda. What more could the media ask for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He is what “ignorant rednecks” used to refer to as an “educated fool” but in his case, having received an unearned degree by affirmative action, he is an uneducated fool. His wife makes him look intelligent by comparison....or is it the other way around?
What is a Post Turtle?
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle’.’
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was.
The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.’
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain. ‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there to begin with.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.