Obama screws the families of the Victims of the USS Cole, orders the trial stopped. Yes, We support the Troops, Obama, if thats support, we don't need to worry about the Enemies of our Nation. Charges dropped vs. suspect in 2000 USS Cole blast Thursday, February 5, 2009 8:27 PM EST The Associated Press By LARA JAKES Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon's senior judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay dropped charges Thursday against an al-Qaida suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing, upholding President Barack Obama's order to freeze military tribunals there. The charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active Guantanamo war crimes case.
So kangaroo courts, secret evidence, and torture are how we should support military families? I had a higher opinion of the US military than that, but I'll take your word for what makes people like you feel supported.
The problem of letting hatred rule Screwed them how? The BBC reports: Pentagon officials said Judge Susan Crawford had dismissed the charges against Mr Nashiri without prejudice - meaning that new charges can still be made against him at a later date. (Boldfaced accent added) I'm of the opinion that if we can convict these guys according to our best standards, it's all to the better. Indeed, if we have to create a special court in order to circumvent the U.S. Constitution in order to put the bad guys away, the enemy is winning. In the meantime, insupportable exaggerations intended to stoke people's outrage don't do anyone any good. This is the problem of letting hatred rule. But if one is trying to score cheap political points to impress and influence the stupid, I can see why he might think such rhetorical excrement useful. ____________________ Notes: "Judge halts last Guantanamo trial". BBC News. February 6, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7873654.stm
The Oath that US enlistee takes starts with , "NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. " http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm It seems to me that military personal are legally obligated to support what Obama has done with Gitmo.
In fact, the Marines swear a different oath - even more kowtow to the President, than the Constitution. I could be wrong - lemme see if I can search it...yeah I guess it's the same now, someone told me it was different.
Yeah it was an old marine served in Nam. He said they swear'd the oath only to the president. I dunno, maybe he was just completely full of shit.
Since the UCMJ was passed in 1950, the oath has been the same for all branches. It does not sound totally impossible that the Marines would have a more ballsy oath, though I have several marines in my family and I haven't heard anything about a different oath. ~String
You should be grateful. He's saving the reputation and face of your country and military in international circles by ensuring any trials are open and fair, instead of secret trials that actually go against the US Constitution. Nowhere in your little blurb that you copied from a paper (without any links mind you) states that the terrorists are not to be retried. Were you being sneaky on purpose? He hasn't been released, has he? No. Instead, all the charged were dismissed "without prejudice", which yes, does mean that he can and most probably will face new charges and tried legally in the US and in accordance with your Constitution. Is there something wrong with that? Or do you prefer that all military matters are conducted in secret kangaroo courts all the time?... Which would mean you would support your soldiers facing a similar fate if captured overseas.. He's actually upholding the law and the US Constitution. That you could criticise your president for acting lawfully is, well, for you, funny. You know, since you seem to tout yourself as the great supporter of justice and all.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dunno. Gonna find out. Always thought it didn't make sense to not swear it on the constitution, that's uhh....pretty un-american.
We will see about what He saved. The count down has begun, al Queda hasn't ended the Jihad, and they still want to hit the U.S. again. Now will it happen in Obama's first term? That is my guess. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2928027.stm 'Bin Laden tape' urges attacks The tape calls for suicide attacks An audio recording said to be of Osama Bin Laden has emerged in which he urges Muslims to rise up against countries that support the war on Iraq. In the tape - obtained by the Associated Press news agency - the al-Qaeda leader is said to call for attacks on governments in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unlike previous recordings allegedly by Bin Laden, this one has a single theme - suicide attacks - the news agency reported. Actually no Obama is not. There are no Constitutional right for enemy combatants, show me anywhere in the Constitution were the rights of a Citizen apply to those who are not citizens of the United State, and are enemies combatants (Legal and Illegal)conducting military attacks against the United States and it's Armed Forces.
If Obama had any sense he would take the billions the Pentagon is pouring into creating weapons of mass destruction in order to kill more innocent people and out it to better use.
Do you approve of secret and unfair trials for enemy combatants? Keep in mind that US soldiers would also face similar secret and unfair trials if captured by your enemy. Yes or no?
So the 'land of the free' is really about kangaroo courts and secret unfair trials? Here I thought the US was actually about freedom and democracy for all and against oppression and tyranny.. but instead you're saying the US should be about that on one front and kangaroo courts and secret trials on the other. Thanks for clearing that up for me and admitting that the US is not about freedom and democracy.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As per the Geneva Convention, and the Supreme Court of the United States, and in accordance with that Supreme Court Ruling, by act of Congress in compliance with the Geneva Convention, and Supreme Court Ruling, a Competent Court was established, by act of Congress to adjudicate those held in Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility. Now what don't you get that those Courts are Legally established, by law, and in compliance with Geneva Convention requirements.
You still didn't answer the question. Would you be as happy if it were US soldiers being held in similar conditions as you hold detainees in Gitmo? And would you be just as happy as you are about your kangaroo courts if they were held overseas and those being tried US soldiers who are captured and deemed "enemy combatants"? In short, would you be happy if the same treatment were doled out to US soldiers as you are doling out to "enemy combatants" in Gitmo and all that goes with it (that includes being held for years without charge, being 'legally' tortured by a Government that has excused it and said it's not tortured, then being made to face a secret trial or kangaroo court)? Yes or no?
When an individual enters military service the enter through an induction center. They are given physicals. After the physicals and in the case of Army, given waivers, you are all sworn in together. Everyone, Coast Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, Airforce, Army all are given the same oath of service. Inductees are then taken to the airport and travel to their services basic training center.