Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"
President-elect Barack Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.A third group of detainees -- the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information -- might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are not final.
This is some of the worst writing I've ever seen.
Wonderful, however you've cited absolutely no examples of what makes it terrible. All you did was make an ad hominem attack and nothing else. That is the cheapest and weakest form of debate. Third graders say stuff like that. If it was really as bad as you claim, you would have been able to point to something. That you didn't, indictates not that it was bad, but that you disagree. That you disagree doesn't make it bad. Given your childish response, it's actually in most ways a compliment that you disagree.
One major goal of this is to shift control of war and national defense from the president to the courts. The Dems want to make the courts the ultimate decisionmakers in matters of national defense as a means of constraining presidents and generals from ever opting for a military response. They want future presidents to HAVE to defer to the UN in deciding on the use of force, something Bush refused to do. A good place to start is by having the domestic courts supervise the treatment of prisoners of war. Another innovation that is underway is to start threatening the president and his advisors with war crimes prosecutions for decisions made in the course of a military action.The ultimate goal is to create so many legal barriers to the use of force as to make it essentially illegal to go to war. Then the US will have to either limit itself to non-violent measures such as UN-approved sanctions or simply acquiesce to the will of our enemies.
AQ is licking its chopshttp://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/al-qaeda-planning-huge-attack-for-obama.html
Post a Comment
4 comments:
This is some of the worst writing I've ever seen.
Wonderful, however you've cited absolutely no examples of what makes it terrible. All you did was make an ad hominem attack and nothing else. That is the cheapest and weakest form of debate. Third graders say stuff like that. If it was really as bad as you claim, you would have been able to point to something. That you didn't, indictates not that it was bad, but that you disagree. That you disagree doesn't make it bad. Given your childish response, it's actually in most ways a compliment that you disagree.
One major goal of this is to shift control of war and national defense from the president to the courts. The Dems want to make the courts the ultimate decisionmakers in matters of national defense as a means of constraining presidents and generals from ever opting for a military response. They want future presidents to HAVE to defer to the UN in deciding on the use of force, something Bush refused to do. A good place to start is by having the domestic courts supervise the treatment of prisoners of war. Another innovation that is underway is to start threatening the president and his advisors with war crimes prosecutions for decisions made in the course of a military action.
The ultimate goal is to create so many legal barriers to the use of force as to make it essentially illegal to go to war. Then the US will have to either limit itself to non-violent measures such as UN-approved sanctions or simply acquiesce to the will of our enemies.
AQ is licking its chops
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/al-qaeda-planning-huge-attack-for-obama.html
Post a Comment