Barack Obama - so much for change
- Thread starter beddo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think I would trust a fair trial to do the right thing anyway... for example O.J oh snap... Lol Jk
These guys are enemies of the country, and the military as long as there treated like humans, they don't should have a military trial... And goddamn what's with so much Obama's not gonna change anything. He's had 5 months give him some goddamn time
These guys are enemies of the country, and the military as long as there treated like humans, they don't should have a military trial... And goddamn what's with so much Obama's not gonna change anything. He's had 5 months give him some goddamn time
The concept of the bailout deal is enough to make any reasonable person want to pick up their pitchfork and take back their tax money.Jindrak said:
But it seems like a necessary evil. If the banks were allowed to crash, people would lose their savings and others would lose their jobs. I'd be a larger supporter if better regulation was put in place and tax havens were smashed, but I think it's just business as usual in Britain, so we're back to boom and bust.
Anyway. I assume the democrats have made bailouts before? Did they ever go horribly wrong?
One of the great "bailouts" was during the Great Depression, unfortunately the true impact of it will never be known, because WWII changed our economic landscape toward a massive wartime economy, but we do have FDR's words:Nickzilla said:
"The lessons of history ... show conclusively ... that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. ... The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief."
Geneva convention doesn't apply, we never signed the UN charter on human rights and the Constitution only applies to citizens.beddo said:
And they have gone from secret tribunals to actual military trials, at least people are being moved along as opposed to left to rot.
The Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens.
"Fair trials" are the reason why so many murderers and other criminals are running the streets.
Every politician that runs for office lies to get votes.
Obama can't change the way an entire country is run overnight, no one can. He hasn't even been in office long enough to really make a big impact, and he has attempted change (whether these changes of his are good or bad we will soon see). He's not a dictator, so he can't just change whatever he wants at his own discretion...
And yeah I was too lazy to quote but you get the idea.
"Fair trials" are the reason why so many murderers and other criminals are running the streets.
Every politician that runs for office lies to get votes.
Obama can't change the way an entire country is run overnight, no one can. He hasn't even been in office long enough to really make a big impact, and he has attempted change (whether these changes of his are good or bad we will soon see). He's not a dictator, so he can't just change whatever he wants at his own discretion...
And yeah I was too lazy to quote but you get the idea.
The US signed up to the Geneva convention in 1882. They have signed all subsequent conventions and ratified them in law. The US went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq hence, an 'enemy combatant' captured is a prisoner of war and are entitled to be treated under the rights given to them by the Geneva convention.asinann said:
If you want to argue that the combatants are not prisoners of war then they are by definition, civillians. In which case you are subjecting them to illegal detention, any trials are invalid under international law and any death penalties carried out would be crimes against humanity.
The US constitution does not only apply to citizens of the United States, it applies to any person within the United States such as tourists, foreign business workers and diplomats. Even people who are in the United States illegally are entitled to be treated as criminals with constitutional rights.
Guantanamo Bay belongs to the United States and hence the Constitution applies there. Else it belongs to Cuba or is undesignated. In these cases the laws of Cuba would apply or International law would apply respectively.
While their situation has been improved the adminstration are still not respecting their human rights.
I predict this thread will be closed soon.
And I personally think Obama's doing the best he can. There are no magic fixes in politics. Politicians have to do the best they can in the time that's given to them. Bush didn't, but I think Obama is.
And I personally think Obama's doing the best he can. There are no magic fixes in politics. Politicians have to do the best they can in the time that's given to them. Bush didn't, but I think Obama is.
One man isn't going to change the world overnight, and one politician is an idiot if he steps on a lot of toes at once. I don't think the guantanamo issue is done with yet, but it's not a simple situation, and there is no simple answer, no matter how much you want it. Same with all the other issues he hasn't managed to magic away yet.
Agreed. Obama inherited a giant clusterfuck of an administration, and to expect him to fix everything less than four months after being sworn in is insane.The_Oracle said:
Plus, I still think we're better of with Obama than we would have been with McSame and VPILF. (I still wouldn't, though, because I'm afraid her particular brand of crazy might be catching.) I'd be glad I voted for him even if he lost.
What!? They were going to get a trial anyway, just now the trial cannot contain illegally obtained or otherwise inpermissible evidence.Mazty said:
You're saying that because some of them may be 'guilty'; of an unspecified crime it's acceptable that some innocent people may be punished. Many people have this opinion about crime in general but it is contrary to the ideals of the US justice system.
Regarding the Bush administartion; they lied about the justification of going to war against Iraq, they stole Iraq's oil, they implied direct links between Saddam Hussain's government and the Taleban. They get most of the people in Guantanamo through 'extraordinary rendtion'; illegal snatch and grab operations in many countries across the world, most notably Pakistan. They conducted torture in their black sites, the conducted torture in Gauntanamo Bay. Given these human rights abuses it doesn't seem a big stretch to believe that they took many 'innocent' people. Also, like I said, what crime has been committed?
If these people really did commit crimes then why could they not be charged in a standards US court rather than a military one which doesn't require the same burdon of proof?
beddo said:
Most if not all aren't legally citizens of the united states.
So I say, what constitution?
Most of them were snatched through extraordinary rendition and not captured on the battlefield. In which case they cannot be considered combatants unless they a part of that country's military.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Firstly, a 'Competency Trial' has to be held. Then you need to show that these people have violated the laws of war. If you can implement them in these actions then they becme 'unlawful' combatants who are entitled to be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". Which clearly they are not given that they were tortured under the Bush administation and are now being denied a fair and regular trial.
However, as I stated above they still have to be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"". Why they were not and subsequently are not.
Clearly Bush broke mant rules regarding these detainees.
I believe that they will be denied "the rights of fair and regular trial".
I don't care for legal technicalities and semantics. Respecting human rights means treating all people equally and recognising that they should all have the same protections. This is not being done.
So I don't see how you can say this is not change.[/quote]
barack obama was always gonna be a let down because of all the hype built up around him, still he's only been in power for like 4 months; no one can really make that much of a difference in that short of a period of time