Skip to comments.Cheney to Obama: "End This Reckless Experiment.... We Are at War."
Posted on 11/17/2010 10:17:19 PM PST by Islander7
Bad ideas have dangerous consequences. The Obama Administration recklessly insisted on a civilian trial for Ahmed Ghailani, and rolled the dice in a time of war. The Department of Justice says its pleased by the verdict. Ask the families of the victims if theyre pleased. And this result isnt just embarrassing. Its dangerous. It signals weakness in a time of war. The Ghailani trial was supposed to be a test case for future trials of 9/11 terrorists.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I think you meant the other Cheney.
Oops! Adult female smacks boy-child.
obama is such a FAIL.
It was Liz Cheney who applied the smack. Love that woman!
Liz Cheney represents her family so well. Obamadenijad isn’t man enough to be in the same room with her.
Liz has one wrong assumption, that being the wan is on our side.
I saw a video of Mr. Cheney and he has really changed since he got out of office. Much thinner and older looking. He didn’t look ill especially, but definitely had changed from what I remember him looking like.
Mr. Cheney has no pulse.
His Fail Meter was made in the USA. The object being measured was not.
It was Liz Cheney who applied the smack. Love that woman!
I’ve wondered if she’s had any thoughts about 2012.
She’s smart, calm and steady.
Liz. Obama knows as well as we do that "we" are at war. We The People must accept the fact that he is NOT on our side.
President Twinkie could care less about national security. I'll bet he's kicking back and having a good laugh at the uproar over the new airport screenings
The Supreme Court made civilian trials just about inevitable. Barack Obamas and Eric Holders decision exhibits the consequences of Supreme Court malpractice. Notwithstanding catastrophic dangers justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, and John Stevens eviscerated the political departments Constitutional authority regarding defense.
The Legislative and Executive branches hold all national defense powers. Congress has power to declare war. The President, as Commander in Chief, directs military operations, including armed force application, intelligence gathering, and disposition of captured enemies. These branches, most sensitive to citizen accountability, receive tasking for this momentous issue concerning national viability.
The unelected Judiciary no has defense powers. Yet the justices disabled national defense in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld by falsifying an association of terrorists with Common Article Three of Geneva Conventions. False because terrorists do participate in international armed conflict, lack pacific character, and do not meet definitions for legitimate armed forces.
These justices also improperly intruded with Bonemediene vs. Bush. They rejected guidelines developed from Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld and applied Habeas Corpus to enemy aliens contravening U.S. practice, Common Law, and the Constitution.
These justices perpetrated judicial malpractice. Terrorists became citizens entering a legal conduit and backdoor into our society where their present and prospective unsurpassed butchery was equated to a civil murder. These judicial actions compare to surgical malpractice leaving a festering rag inside a body cavity. As those doctors should forfeit practice of medicine, these justices by impeachment should forfeit practice of law.
Politicians now hide within these rulings and indulge personal moral orthodoxies forcing America into harms way.
I say Yea let’s end this experiment it is unworkable! Throw the Bum out of office now before it is to late! Let’s have a do over of the 2008 election!
President Twinkie could care less about national security. I'll bet he's kicking back and having a good laugh ...
I’M TWINKIE !!! Not him. He ain’t gettin’ my name!
Twinketoes suits the won. That’s close but you’re safe!!!!
Article about Cheney’s heart from a few days ago:
The US Congress can and should tell the USSC to go Pound sand, then bring all justices with questionable logic not founded in the Constitution up for impeachment. My forst choice however would be to include in various Laws that we the people feel necessary, to include the clause: The Judiciary Shall remain Silent on this issue. Yes Congress Has the right and duty under the constitution to limit what the Judiciary can do, Read it and you will find I AM RIGHT. “
” UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY CONGRESS”
Holder HAS to go!
The Department of Justice says it is "pleased" with the guilty verdict on one count, which carries a 20 year minimum sentence, according to ABC. Ghailani was aided during his trial by the judge's decision to exclude key testimony from one witness because the government learned of the witness's identity during a CIA interrogation of Ghailani that employed so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques."
I love Cheney and that Photo!
Thanks much. I went to wikipedia to read up more on Hamden vs Rumsfeld. What disgraceful action by our Supreme Court that you say paved the way to civilian trials for foreign terrorist scum
Good point. In a longer version of the same point I included my own rewrite of a porion of Marbury vs. Madison. Here it is:
A paraphrase from justice Marshalls opinion in Marbury vs. Madison appropriately defines our limited Constitution and helps apply this understanding to all branches of government. The powers of the judiciary are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by a judiciary intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the judiciary on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution either controls any judicial act repugnant to it: or, that the judiciary may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary judicial act, and like acts of other branches, is alterable when the judiciary pleases to alter it. Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the judiciary repugnant to the constitution is void.
You are the good kind of twinkie. A male twinkie President is a disaster as Americans are finding out.
LOL :) Yes, I can imagine that could have a detrimental affect on one's looks.