Obama Approval/Disapproval and Approval Rating Discussion

• Writerbuckeye

  

  This column by Krauthammer nails the whole issue thoroughly and makes Holder look like the ass he is -- and Obama the fool he is.
  
  When a guy who kills 3,000 innocents VOLUNTEERS TO BE EXECUTED you grant his request, you don't give him more rights and a platform to air his grievances.
  
  This whole thing is not defensible. If it were, Holder wouldn't have stumbled over his own tongue the way he did.
  
  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjAxZWY3OWMyY2ZkMmE5NzI3ZGFmYmI2NWNjZDQ3ZDc=
• QuakerOats

  Elliot Stabler wrote: Cool it with the "we've elected the enemy" bullshit
  
  Who says it was the worst decision Quaker?? You??

  Not just me; many in much better positions to make that judgment.
  
  As for "we've elected the enemy" .... you're right; it should read ...
  
  .................... some of us have elected the enemy; me not included.
• derek bomar

  

  can we knock this shit off? seriously
• Elliot Stabler

  I defend this decision...
  
  They should be tried where they committed their crime.
  
  Quaker..let me guess...They're all Republicans??
  
  Explain how the fuck did we "elect the enemy"? Did we elect Bid Laden?? Chavez?? Hitler??
• Footwedge

  Krauthammer and the National Review talking about war crimes? Anybody else feel the permeation of brutal, brutal irony here?
• BCSbunk

  QuakerOats wrote: decision in the history of U.S. jurisprudence --
  
  
  http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/19/morning-bell-a-historically-bad-decision/
  “The U.S. Constitution protects American citizens and visitors from the moment they are suspected of criminal wrongdoing through a potential trial. These same protections are not, have never, and should not be granted to enemy combatants in war,…”
  
  
  And then we have this:
  
  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116552
  
  
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have elected the enemy!

  That quote is completely wrong. Article 3 section 2 explains what you do with foreign criminals.
  
  This is covered in the Constitution and I cannot believe my ears that some Republicans want to abandon it and change it for their own sakes.
  
  Now both sides want to destroy the Constitution for their own ideology.
• Footwedge

  QuakerOats wrote: decision in the history of U.S. jurisprudence --
  
  
  http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/19/morning-bell-a-historically-bad-decision/
  “The U.S. Constitution protects American citizens and visitors from the moment they are suspected of criminal wrongdoing through a potential trial. These same protections are not, have never, and should not be granted to enemy combatants in war,…”
  
  
  And then we have this:
  
  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116552
  
  
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have elected the enemy!

  Maybe if we just chopped their heads off and put it on youtube that would show em, eh?
  
  Maybe, just maybe, we didn't elect the enemy...we as an American Society have become the enemy.
• vball10set
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Footwedge wrote: Krauthammer and the National Review talking about war crimes? Anybody else feel the permeation of brutal, brutal irony here?

  Prove the crimes. I'll be happy to wait for you.
• Footwedge

  BCSbunk wrote:

  QuakerOats wrote: decision in the history of U.S. jurisprudence --
  
  http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/19/morning-bell-a-historically-bad-decision/
  “The U.S. Constitution protects American citizens and visitors from the moment they are suspected of criminal wrongdoing through a potential trial. These same protections are not, have never, and should not be granted to enemy combatants in war,…”
  
  
  And then we have this:
  
  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116552
  
  
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have elected the enemy!

  That quote is completely wrong. Article 3 section 2 explains what you do with foreign criminals.
  
  This is covered in the Constitution and I cannot believe my ears that some Republicans want to abandon it and change it for their own sakes.
  
  Now both sides want to destroy the Constitution for their own ideology.

  Exactly. well stated. to put it in Orwellian terms....we are all constitutionally bound....but some of us are more constitutionally bound than others.
  
  In other words..we are America...and we stand above and beyond all that is wrong and illegal...except when we don't.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:That quote is completely wrong. Article 3 section 2 explains what you do with foreign criminals.
  
  This is covered in the Constitution and I cannot believe my ears that some Republicans want to abandon it and change it for their own sakes.
  
  Now both sides want to destroy the Constitution for their own ideology.

  Which parts of the bill of rights in the constitution do we throw out in order to attain a conviction of KSM?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  In the meantime, I have a question for you liberals:
  
  Why are we wasting millions of dollars and subjecting ourselves to potential terrorist acts by putting on a trial for someone who has (1) confessed and (2) volunteered to be executed?
• fish82

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  QuakerOats wrote: decision in the history of U.S. jurisprudence --
  
  
  http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/19/morning-bell-a-historically-bad-decision/
  “The U.S. Constitution protects American citizens and visitors from the moment they are suspected of criminal wrongdoing through a potential trial. These same protections are not, have never, and should not be granted to enemy combatants in war,…”
  
  
  And then we have this:
  
  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116552
  
  
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have elected the enemy!

  Maybe if we just chopped their heads off and put it on youtube that would show em, eh?
  
  Maybe, just maybe, we didn't elect the enemy...we as an American Society have become the enemy.

  I was thinking more along the lines of being eaten alive by pigs...perhaps as a PPV.
• BCSbunk

  Writerbuckeye wrote: In the meantime, I have a question for you liberals:
  
  Why are we wasting millions of dollars and subjecting ourselves to potential terrorist acts by putting on a trial for someone who has (1) confessed and (2) volunteered to be executed?

  Potential terrorist attacks? There is ALWAYS potential of terrorist attacks so your point falls moot.
  
  Also you assume we are wasting tax dollars. Well if you consider it a waste to uphold the Constitution then you got me there.
  
  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land it is what this country is all about not a flag, not a pledge, not a President, and not any party.
  
  President Obama is following the Constitution you want him to abandon the Constitution?
  
  If you wish to apply special pleading to your arsenal of thinking so be it but it is not reasonable thinking at all. It is emotional based thinking that gets us no where.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:Potential terrorist attacks? There is ALWAYS potential of terrorist attacks so your point falls moot.
  
  Also you assume we are wasting tax dollars. Well if you consider it a waste to uphold the Constitution then you got me there.
  
  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land it is what this country is all about not a flag, not a pledge, not a President, and not any party.
  
  President Obama is following the Constitution you want him to abandon the Constitution?
  
  If you wish to apply special pleading to your arsenal of thinking so be it but it is not reasonable thinking at all. It is emotional based thinking that gets us no where.

  No emotion here. Answer for me the following questions:
  
  If we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?
  
  Will you demand that these parts of the constitution be followed to the letter?
  
  Note amendements IV, V, VI, VIII.
  http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#4
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: In the meantime, I have a question for you liberals:
  
  Why are we wasting millions of dollars and subjecting ourselves to potential terrorist acts by putting on a trial for someone who has (1) confessed and (2) volunteered to be executed?

  Cause it is the right, moral thing to do. Why grant KSM's wish? Why not let him suffer through the trial knowing that he is going to die, but waste away in a cell. I prefer a slow, mental death than a quick one for this bastard.
  
  If he confessed, he should still be offered rights to a fair trial. Now, I am not a big fan of the civilian court way, I prefer the military courts, but this is still better than the status quo.
  
  Bigger picture though, this can hopefully provide evidence that we can fight this conflict in military, social and judicial means. Both soft and hard power are needed to limit the reach of al Qaeda. Trials and due process, while signs of weakness to war hawks, provide means of soft power to potential allies and foes.
  
  No question the process of detention over the past eight years is a black eye to the rest of the world (even Condi acknowledged that), but moving toward a somewhat legal conclusion to some of these events can restore American soft power in many areas.
• Mr. 300

  

  Sad thing about this whole scenario, we will have lawyers defend these dirt bags and get them off free. Who will be to blame???
• Footwedge

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:Potential terrorist attacks? There is ALWAYS potential of terrorist attacks so your point falls moot.
  
  Also you assume we are wasting tax dollars. Well if you consider it a waste to uphold the Constitution then you got me there.
  
  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land it is what this country is all about not a flag, not a pledge, not a President, and not any party.
  
  President Obama is following the Constitution you want him to abandon the Constitution?
  
  If you wish to apply special pleading to your arsenal of thinking so be it but it is not reasonable thinking at all. It is emotional based thinking that gets us no where.

  No emotion here. Answer for me the following questions:
  
  If we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?
  
  Will you demand that these parts of the constitution be followed to the letter?
  
  Note amendements IV, V, VI, VIII.
  http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#4

  You forgot one...and one that could set them free....waterboarding.... to elicit confessions.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:Potential terrorist attacks? There is ALWAYS potential of terrorist attacks so your point falls moot.
  
  Also you assume we are wasting tax dollars. Well if you consider it a waste to uphold the Constitution then you got me there.
  
  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land it is what this country is all about not a flag, not a pledge, not a President, and not any party.
  
  President Obama is following the Constitution you want him to abandon the Constitution?
  
  If you wish to apply special pleading to your arsenal of thinking so be it but it is not reasonable thinking at all. It is emotional based thinking that gets us no where.

  No emotion here. Answer for me the following questions:
  
  If we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?
  
  Will you demand that these parts of the constitution be followed to the letter?
  
  Note amendements IV, V, VI, VIII.
  http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#4

  There have been complaints that the Constitution was being blatantly disregarded by the former administration.
  
  If they walk because of the blatant stupidity and/or disregard for the supreme law of our land that is the fault of the former administration.
  
  I suggest you do something about that.
  
  The Constitution must be followed and Presidents who support breaking it need to be impeached immediately and not embraced as some sort of great leader.
  
  IF they do walk you can thank the former administration and not blame President Obama who is following our Constitution.
  
  As you can see you have just shown that the former administration has failed our country by ignoring the foundation of our country.
  
  The Constitution is clear very very clear and it takes a lack of respect of what our country was founded and built upon to just ignore it.
  
  If they walk I will be very upset but not at President Obama instead I will direct my frustrations where they belong on the ones responsible for this debacle.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:There have been complaints that the Constitution was being blatantly disregarded by the former administration.
  
  If they walk because of the blatant stupidity and/or disregard for the supreme law of our land that is the fault of the former administration.
  
  I suggest you do something about that.
  
  The Constitution must be followed and Presidents who support breaking it need to be impeached immediately and not embraced as some sort of great leader.
  
  IF they do walk you can thank the former administration and not blame President Obama who is following our Constitution.
  
  As you can see you have just shown that the former administration has failed our country by ignoring the foundation of our country.
  
  The Constitution is clear very very clear and it takes a lack of respect of what our country was founded and built upon to just ignore it.
  
  If they walk I will be very upset but not at President Obama instead I will direct my frustrations where they belong on the ones responsible for this debacle.

  Fair enough. I would agree if they go to civilian court that it is how it would have to be if we were to follow the constitution. And treat them as civilian criminals.
  
  Now another question. Were the attacks on 9/11 an act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial?
  
  During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives on the battlefield without tria,l while they are planning or perpetrading war against us. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution would not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  majorspark wrote:If we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?

  You forgot one...and one that could set them free....waterboarding.... to elicit confessions.

  That is what I was refering to.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:There have been complaints that the Constitution was being blatantly disregarded by the former administration.
  
  If they walk because of the blatant stupidity and/or disregard for the supreme law of our land that is the fault of the former administration.
  
  I suggest you do something about that.
  
  The Constitution must be followed and Presidents who support breaking it need to be impeached immediately and not embraced as some sort of great leader.
  
  IF they do walk you can thank the former administration and not blame President Obama who is following our Constitution.
  
  As you can see you have just shown that the former administration has failed our country by ignoring the foundation of our country.
  
  The Constitution is clear very very clear and it takes a lack of respect of what our country was founded and built upon to just ignore it.
  
  If they walk I will be very upset but not at President Obama instead I will direct my frustrations where they belong on the ones responsible for this debacle.

  Fair enough. I would agree if they go to civilian court that it is how it would have to be if we were to follow the constitution. And treat them as civilian criminals.
  
  Now another question. Were the attacks on 9/11 an act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial?
  
  During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives on the battlefield without tria,l while they are planning or perpetrading war against us. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution would not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.

  I believe they were civilian criminals and it is not war.
  
  Though the word war has different definitions and connotations in its usage.
  
  It is a gang war. Is that the same as The US declared war on Japan?
  
  I think the proper usage in this case is the latter. They do not have the capablity to declare war they are not a soveriegn country they are a group of individuals.
  
  Was Timothy McVeigh tried in a military trial? No, he most certainly was not. Did he declare war on the US? No and he was a former soldier.
  
  He with Terry Nichols who were American militia sympathizers were not capable of declaring war. They were civilians and were tried in civilian court.
  
  This entire problem lies with the former administration 100% their faults in this particular case.
  
  If these men were soldiers representing a country that declared war upon us which would be one of their options being sovereign, then it would be held in a military court.
  
  It is a great leap to make when people think that the Constitution should be followed to that same person wants them to walk.
  
  If people want to be angry about this situation (and they should) the anger should be at who created this problem and not the current administration.
  
  IMO this just shows how bad the polarization is that many Republicans want so desperately to blame President Obama instead of blaming who is at fault in this ordeal.
  
  It is sad that some people will go so low as to basically say. " He is a terrible President the worst of all for following the Constitution."
  
  It is implying that the Constitution has little to no value and the current President is supreme over the Constitution.
  
  That is a terrifying prospect IMO.
• Glory Days

  

  No, they werent representing a country, but it also wasnt an individual attack like McVeigh. their goal is to destroy Israel and other western allies in the middle east. that sounds like war to me.
  

  According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews

  http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I guess I'm the only one that caught on to this, but...
  
  Was anybody else actually surprised that Eric Holder came to that questioning totally unprepared?
  That man should have known his stuff inside and out and been ready. Instead, he was like "uh..buhh...duhh...umm..."
  
  He's the freakin Attorney General who KNEW that those questions were going to be asked!!!!!!!! :huh:
  And that is the very best he could do?!? Come on now!!! :@
• Gobuckeyes1

  Why is it that so many people have no confidence in our Constitution or our Justice system to deal with this problem?