Saturday, June 14, 2008

Obama Sides With Radical Islamists

The magnitude of difference between the two candidates running in our presidential election could not be more stark! After reading the statements of both Obama and McCain regarding the horrible Supreme Court 5-4 decision to allow Gitmo detainees the right to be tried in civilian courts, we can clearly see what a flawed, unfortunate, and terrible direction Obama would take this country if [God forbid!!]elected in November.

Obama's statement:

Barack Obama statement on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision today extending civilian legal protections to terrorist suspects held in Guantanamo Bay:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values. to Obama? Foreign terrorists caught in battle against our forces during war have never been eligible for "habeas corpus"! They are not covered by the Constitution of the United States of America. So...what "rule of law" are you referring to?

Ah! Probably European law? Or, more likely, the law opinion of that do-nothing, waste of money, corruption filled United Nations?

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. But I can read and comprehend the fact that this ongoing war against radical Islamic terrorism is very different from any other type of war that the U.S. (and, the world) has fought in before. It requires much more stringent forms of protection for our nation and people!!! Especially when it affects the lives of our military in harms way!!

From Wikipedia:

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9 which states:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

United States federal law affords persons the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus mainly if held by the federal authorities or for violations of the United States Constitution. Habeas corpus petitions are generally argued as ex parte cases. Individual states also afford persons the ability to petition for habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws when held or sentenced by state authorities.
During the Civil War and Reconstruction and during the War on Terrorism the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus was substantially curtailed for persons accused of engaging in certain conduct.

Earth to Obama! Let's read this portion again:

“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. ”

John McCain's statement:

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases. By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.

Let's not forget that four Supreme Court judges rendered dissenting votes!

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Speaking of "the rule of law" as Obama put it, how hypocritical is it for someone who has had ties with some of the worst characters in our nation to even know what it means to genuinely follow the rule of law?

But that's another topic.

Apparently, there is an investigation going on that might reveal, once and for all, the REAL OBAMA! Keep your eyes and ears open come this Wednesday, June 18th.



Sweating Through fog said...

As I wrote on my blog, McCain could win the election on this issue alone. All he has to do is say that if he is elected, he will ignore this Supreme Court decision.

Carol Van Atta, Princess Warrior said...

I am so against Obama. I am eager to learn about what is happening on June 18th. Can you give a teaser? God bless you! Carol

Christinewjc said...

Hi Sweating Through Fog -

Interesting screen name! Just wondering, is "ignoring a Supreme Court decision" by a newly elected president constitutional?

Christinewjc said...

Hi Carol Van Atta,

Like you, I am appalled that a man with his terribly policies and corrupt associations with America-hating men has been elected as the Dem candidate for the presidency! I pray every day for our nation and that God will prevent Obama from ever reaching that position!

To answer your question. I chose not to publish a blog post that I did on this subject. Perhaps I will release it from the draft bin after the 18th. One of the reasons I haven't published it is because I cannot verify the information that I have been reading about any possible involvement regarding Obama.

If you want to know more, you can do an internet search on "Donald Young murder."

Christinewjc said...

For the curious about tomorrow, here are two more links to read:

So far, just a rumor:

Sinclair claims Obama was lovers with murdered gay choir master.

Sinclair Press Conference on 6/18 at National Press Club.

How ironic that the name of the blog, "Death by 1000 Papercuts" labels itself as:

"DBKP - The Worldwide Leader in Weird

News - Politics - Weird News - Crime - Scandals - Celebrities - Video"'s all weird alright! Seems to me that Obama's entire campaign is one big ball of WEIRDNESS!

Draw your own conclusions after tomorrow's press conference...if any journalists show up that is!

Talk Wisdom decide!

Christinewjc said...

Hmmmm....I must have been very busy on June 2nd because I missed this tidbit of info on that day:

Obama's ex-church has won 15 m in federal grant money.




Pair this info with Wright's new million dollar home and beefed up bank account as the 'retiring pastor' from Trinity United Church and...well...perhaps there might be a connection?

Wasteful government spending AT ITS WORSE!!!!

Instead of the proverbial "bridge to nowhere," we've got Wright's Porky's Palace!

I'm so disgusted...