The problem is you have a court saying the testimony by people recanting was not compelling, but to whom? There were at least two jurors that thought it was compelling enough where they had doubt. I just think with all the doubt they should have at least seated another jury, or redone the sentencing phase. If a person is really guilty nothing will change. As for wasting time, if it means an innocent person doesn't die, why not. As for him getting what he deserved, what makes you the arbiter of justice? I'll stop now because you are clearly one of those people that is just dead set in your beliefs and can never accept change.

Read through the ruling. The recants weren't even really recants.

There has to be limits to the granting of a new trial. It's not just wasted time - though that's a big consideration. Should we let defense investigators harass jurors for decades after the fact, hoping for a recantation? What about state witnesses? If you are brave enough to testify in a murder trial should you be pressured and harassed into recanting for the rest of your life? What about the memories of eye witnesses? The further we get away from the event, there will be fewer witnesses still alive, and memories will fade. There will also be the idea in the heads of some jurors that someone "has already done enough time" - which of course is not supposed to be a consideration for jurors. Not to mention what the victims' family goes through - a new trial potentially every few years? Maybe the defense could try different strategies, coach witnesses in different ways, because hey, if you lose this one, try try again....What's the point of putting people under oath and allowing cross-examination, and having rules of evidence if we're going to put just as much stock in outside-the-court statements made by witnesses years later at a coffee shop late at night with no rules of evidence in place, no cross-examination, with unknown pressure applied by defense investigators, etc. Still, with all these reasons courts strongly prefer "1 trial", new trials are ordered very often, all the time. (Much more often on the grounds of trial error than "new evidence").

I've read a lot of the appellate opinions on this and this guy, of course, tried everything. My favorite argument is that the "aggravated factor" of killing a police officer carrying out his duties (which led to the death penalty) shouldn't have applied because this officer was only working in a private capacity, and that Davis didn't know he was a cop anyway, he just thought he was trying to break up a fight.

The sooner you learn this about Jon and the less time you waste arguing with him, the more enjoyable your time on the board will be. He believes he is absolutely right on everything, and that compromise and changing one's mind is unconscionable.

C'mon, can't you get this shit straight after all these years?

-- If I didn't believe I was right, I'd take a different position. (After all, who the hell sets out to be wrong intentionally ... other than liberals I mean)

-- Compromise is an option when your situation is absolutely & irrevocably unwinnable. That's an exception the would supersede* the unconscionable nature of it.

-- Changing your mind is often an indication of positions set with insufficient examination in the first place. More of a character flaw than unconscionable.

Damn DT, how many times do I have to explain this shit to you?

*I always thought that the word was spelled "supercede" rather than "supersede". But spellcheck can't be wrong, can it?

Learned something new today:

Supercede - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
"Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error."

Cede - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
For some reason, in my mind, I had always tied it to cede and I always thought supercede was correct, too. In the end, I guess it doesn't make a lot of sense as they are different words and different ideas.

Totally different Latin roots:
Cede: "French or Latin; French céder, from Latin cedere to go, withdraw, yield"
Supersede: "Middle English (Scots) superceden to defer, from Middle French, from Latin supersedēre to sit on top, refrain from, from super- + sedēre to sit"

So, like so many things, we can blame the French. They took supersedere and made it superceden and English was just trying to correct back to the Latin root with supersede.

SI

And naturally the French version surrendered ;)

That statement is full of juicy irony...

It's another of those "corrections" made when they produced the American dictionary. Supercede is certainly the English English spelling but as with the replacement of "s" with "z" for the "zzz" sound (as in the analyze/analyse thread) the "c" was replaced with "s" for the "sss" sound (soft c) to rationalise (that is flagged as a spelling mistake) American English spelling.

According to spelling checkers my spelling is awful - they don't like my "s" and prefer a "z", don't like my "c", they prefer an "s" or "k". Any text I write is a sea of red underlining :)

I suspect that the "cede" in "supercede" is the same root. Cede means to accept an alternative argument and supercede that one thing replaces another. Both are about the replacement of one thing by another.

Didn't get a chance to watch the debate so catching up on the internet.

This one was funny. Was it as awkward as it reads?

Romney, Perry go after each other in debate - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com

Ron Paul seems to always do well.

Who Won The Debate? | Fox News

"Gary Johnson" sounds more like a gay sex act than Santorum ever will.

I'm not sure about "awkward" but yes they did have a go at each other - though the most common response was to avoid a question by attacking Obama :)

Romney hit home with his "you'd better find the other Rick Perry and stop him saying that" and Perry was clearly embarrassed by that. Mind you, Romney saying "there are many reasons for not voting for me" struck me as giving a hostage to fortune should he make the nomination. If Fox will release the video I can see a whole series of Democrat attack ads using that as an intro in an election campaign.

Laugh of the debate came when one said "my next door neighbour's dog has created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama".

I'm not sure why they saw Paul as the "winner" but then I'm not part of the choir when it comes to his particular music :rolleyes:

We need this character ---ç for words like supersede.

And oddly enough I had a similar reaction to Jon when I was using supersede in a paper today. It doesn't look correct.

Yes, though the use of "s" is perfectly rational as are the other changes introduced for the American dictionary. English kids do have a lot of problems with traditional English spelling and I often have to think and even write down words before knowing the "correct" spelling. Traditional English spelling can be a pain in the butt.


Yes it does look "wrong". Maybe because it's not a word in too much common use and you've mainly seen it in text books or older texts in which the English spelling is used. I'm pretty sure an English English teacher would flag it as incorrect but the spelling checker on this board rejects "supercede".

Look no further than the sentence at the bottom of the linked page.
This is not a scientific poll.

The Paulbots are consistent voters in online polls & the like.

Cynical b*#stard! :)

But I watched the debate and I must admit I can't see why they saw Paul as the winner and the audience interviewed after were in no doubt that they believed Romney won it. A few did suggest they'd moved away from Perry.

But that's the thing, according to merriam-webster above, they aren't:


That's what surprised me a little but cede does have a bit of a different connotation

SI

It got lost given the Israel/Palestine stuff, but this seems like a really big deal. Now that the government has said this, won't there have to be changes to our relationship?

Just looked up the spelling of supercede/supersede in the Oxford dictionary and it does include supercede but says that, while often used, is generally regarded as an error in spelling and the correct spelling is supersede. That would back the argument that sedere and not cedere is the Latin root. I stand corrected and will change my spelling from now on :)

I think it's part of a diplomatic game. What we see in the press is just a move by our government or theirs. The geopolitical reality is what it is, and our relationship is going to be based on that. This news makes me think just that there's some reason we want to put the heat up, or put some distance between us at this point. The Pakistani generally like that as well, as they can't look like they're too close to us.

I think I've moved from GWB's fault to still GWB's fault but Obama shares blame for not getting us better. I get the GOP has been fighting him and not giving him what he wants but this pending double dip is definitely on his watch.

Poll: Majority of Americans blame Obama for economy – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The article wasn't very detailed on the changes but sounds as if we knew we weren't going to make it so we moved the goalposts.

Obama making big changes to Bush-era education law - politics - White House - msnbc.com

I had friends in the military in prior century and they were adamantly against gays in the military. I think the millenials are ready for this.

End of 'don't ask, don't tell' brings relief, celebration - CNN.com

I'm not sure, but to hit that 29.1 percent number I almost think they are counting only income that is taxed by the income tax which doesn't cover the $1 salary CEO who gets most of his money through investment income which is taxed differently. Most of the numbers the article starts out with are highly biased ones (total share of taxes has nothing to do with individual rates when you look at wealth disparity gaps).

I think the 'FACT CHECK' needs to put up a list of say the Forbes 100 in the USA and put their effective tax rate next to it. Enough of the numbers are public that even without accounting for weird deductions you can get a raw estimate based on how they earned their income for the year (salary versus stock net worth, etc.). Even if you take that list down to every millionaire in the United States you will see a large number under 29.1 percent.

In fact, the only way I think the math works out for 29.1 percent counting all income is if they are taking an average based on each person's individual taxes. Maybe there are enough millionaires paying at 35% plus (I know of at least one, damn daytrading) to balance out the billionaires at 18%. My guesstimates are based on the whole pool of money which certainly is not being taxed at 29.1 percent (if it was our budget deficit would disappear instantly, that is how much money is sitting in that pool at a lower than 29% rate even for private individuals).

Linked from TMQ, political pundits no better than a coin flip:

Hamilton College - Pundit - Executive Summary

Liberals are better predictors than conservatives, and lawyers are the least accurate. My conclusion: there are too many lawyers in the Republican party.

No word if MBBF was one of those they checked and if he skewed the results.

Five Of Boehner's Six "Fiscal Experts" Agree: Deficit Reduction Requires Revenue Increases | Political Correction

Well, I think Boehner & the Republicans' response to that would be that you have to grow the economy in order to increase the revenues. And in principle, I agree that "raising taxes" isn't always the best way to cut a deficit (a deficit I don't think should be there in the first place...but I digress).

Its the reality of the world economy which makes me disagree that there is a realistic opportunity, within 8 years (and perhaps much longer), to grow the economy enough to make that approach viable.

I was watching the politicians talk all week and learned it's all the fault of job killing regulations by the EPA. Job killing tax increases will never work if the job killing regulations are repealed. But the primary thing to do is cut taxes on job creators making 1M so the economy can be fixed.

The democrats response to that was maybe.

I caught the tail end of an interview on CBS Nightly News with some bigwig African-American business leader. He came out and said what I think I've tried to say in here: the way to fix this is to have some politicians, House, Senate, and President, willing to be one-term politicians and make the hard choices that will fix the issues no matter what it means to their re-election chances. Nice to see someone nationally say that.

But that won't work. Those one term politicians will be replaced by people who vow to overturn those decisions. Without buy-in from the public any changes will be temporary.

That's without getting into the deeply undemocratic fantasy of "fixing" the problems in ways that ignore popular will.

It still amazes me that people buy that stuff. Tax cuts don't create jobs, demand does. All we need to do to prove this is point out the top percentile is paying less than in any time in history and we have high unemployment.

There is plenty of demand out there. But there is not a magic button that will tell you, there is demand for 100,000 units of energy saving household light bulbs at $5.45 per unit. An investor / entrepreneur has to figure out what will fulfill a potential demand and at what price point to cost ratio. That means they have to invest time/effort and risk capitol to do that.

It is a fact that regulation, taxes, fees, licenses and other barriers to entry are a factor in whether or not someone spends their time and money on a venture.

It is more likely that someone like a Steve Jobs or Michael Moore will engage in a developing a new product or movie concept than someone like me or you. They have are already successful in their respective fields and can afford to pay the barrier costs. But even those guys are not going to risk time and funds on a venture they are not pretty sure will be a winner.

Bottom line, increased regulation and taxes reduce new development efforts and support the status quo because it is tougher for new people to enter the field. That touches on two things. One, the argument on regulation and taxes and two, the argument on how unfair it is that rich people have an unfair advantage. More regulation and taxes just increase their advantage by decreasing competition.

Okay, I think this one is a legit #2 or #3.

U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed: Yemeni officials - CNN.com

I think the idea that a democrat would be weaker on terror or weaken our national defense against Al Qaeda has been debunked over the last few years. Its nice to see that BOTH Republicans and Democrats can now both run for office without the ridiculousness that pervayed.

Yeah, funny how continuing Bush's foreign policy is getting him kudos now. However, he's still got a ways to go to overcome what Clinton did to our defense back in the 90's. But agreed that it's POSSIBLE for a Democrat to be sane about these things.

Interesting - I'm sure I'll take heat for this, and I in no way shed any tears that this guy is dead (yay USA!), but did he ever renounce his citizenship? I assume so, right?

If he's running at you with a gun, you're not going to stop to check his papers. I think it's pretty clear where he stood.

So what about Rumsfeld's speech on Sept. 10th, 2001 that talked about continuing and extending the military cuts started during the Clinton administration?

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/spee...x?speechid=430

Nope. Due-process free assassination of an American citizen.

My point wasn't about where he stood, it was more about what lcjdnh says right above as far as assasination of an American citizen.

Slippery slope.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not shedding a tear or complaining that he's dead - I just think it's a significant line that we should all recognize has been crossed.

Irrelevant hypothetical. Long on the "targeted killing" list despite his American citizenship and lack of due process.

Sets a dangerous precedent is all.

If the government decides you're a terrorist now, don't expect to be notified. They'll just send an assasin to take you out and you'll be dead before you know it.

Now was this guy a POS who deserved his fate...yup. Not arguing that. But it's a dangerous precedent.

I'm not sure how this is a dangerous precedent. If we'd targeted this guy in a come in Connecticut, I'd have a problem. Targeting him (was he the main target) in an Al-Qaeda camp in Yemen seems less dangerous.

Vast majority supported it in an unscientific poll. Hope he's enjoying his virgins otherwise he's in hell.

Open Channel - Vote: Should U.S. kill citizens overseas without affording them due process?

Not sure I see the distinction. Do you lose your due process rights as an American citizen by leaving the country's borders? This was not a we-tried-to-capture-but-had-killed-him. It was an actual assassination.

What about Padilla, a US citizen who was arrested in the US, tortured to the point of madness and when it came time to charge him as the "dirty bomber" the government backed out rather than proving the original charges.

I think the distinction is that unlike, say a Finnish barber shop for instance, a Yemeni Al Qaeda training camps are a pretty good place to put some level of "trust" into the military killing somebody.

I understand the slippery slope argument and I'm usually on that side of it. In this case, I'm indifferent due to "where" this man was killed. He certainly wasn't there trying to talk them into surrendering and turning over a new leaf. Is there a line to be drawn somewhere between witch hunts & bureaucracy run-wild? I think so...this just isn't it imho.

Already answered.

Evangelical Christian planning terrorist bombings of abortion clinics, operating in U.S. Same result?

What was that whole thing about the guy trying to fly model airplanes full of C4 into buildings? Surely that couldn't be effective....seemed more like a "we need to warn you of these evil doers so that you remain on edge and concede freedom" type reveal.

I'd recommend reading 'Them - Adventures with extremists", its written by a journalist who went out of his way to befriend a lot of the extremist groups which are repeatedly mentioned in newspapers back in England.

They're often shown by the newpapers as well organised and dangerous - whereas his experience is more that they're sad, unhappy individuals largely without a clue ...

Amazon.com: Them: Adventures with Extremists (9780743233217): Jon Ronson: Books

(its written biased against them (fairly obviously) and does tend towards bringing out the ironic because us English like that sort of humour and it makes for a good read - but its still worth looking at imho)

If such person were a known operative for an organization that has been tied to mass murder, and such a place were in a country where said organization had established training camps that are unchallanged by the local government...sure, go ahead and fire away.

But no, the Christian tag (or evangelical ftm) has no relevance or bearing just as calling this other guy a Muslim doesn't either. People claim to be many things and commit acts based on what they think they are.

Just as we don't give credence to criminals who think they are God, we also don't give them a pass for claiming to be a follower of a God.

How is he any different than outlaws being wanted "dead or alive", weren't they US citizens too?

WTF is this even being debated? He was a willing participant in a group of people that had declared war on the United States -- not just in rhetoric but in attacks in every way, shape, and form. At that point, he's not a citizen -- he's an enemy soldier. He was killed as part of that and we're bothered by this? It's one thing to be talking against the US. It's something completely different to be going to war against the country.

I shouldn't have used the religious tag because it's irrelevant to the point. More important was a terrorist operating in the U.S.

Don't know enough about the history of the "Wild West" to know the truth of it, but our government has done quite a few things in the past we wouldn't approve of today.

Because some people believe in rule of law. The Bill of Rights includes a robust set of protections for American citizens. These procedural rules often require we make difficult decisions that put these protections above substantive law. For instance, convictions against a drug dealer thrown out because the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. It's the cost of of our commitment to those ideals.

As I said before, this was not a case where we tried to capture but instead killed him. We assassinated him. Maybe you think this is perfectly fine, but you should at least recognize why people are somewhat uneasy about it.

And, as far as I know, Al-Alwaki legally remained a U.S. citizen, despite the rule you would apparently like in place.

So during the Civil War the opposing sides should have been trying to grab each other so they could go to trial instead of fighting a war?

If we were at war with another country instead of some group, and a citizen took up arms for the other country and was killed, nobody would think twice about any of these things.

There's a difference between killed and assassinated. It's a distinction that has been made in this thread, so I'm not sure why you're ignoring it unless it's just not convenient for your argument.

You're not assassinated if you're part of an enemy that declared war on the people who got you. You're KIA.

To me, you have to ask at what point does the layer of obfuscation get applied or not applied?

For instance, we clearly target groups of people when at war with another nation on a battlefield. Does it matter if we (do or don't) know their individual names before we attempt to kill them? Or is it only assassination when its 1 person and that person is deemed "important" (and by who)?

The group Al Qaeda, whether it has recognized possession of land or not, is an organization that the U.S. has established cause (IMO) to kill members of without attempting to apprehend. And any US citizen that defects to the side of a nation or other organized entity which we are at war with subjects themselves to being identified (whether formally or informally) with the enemy. This is the very nature of war until such time we deem this entity to no longer be relevant, our enemy, or worth our resources (both financial & human) to continue waging war with. Where & how they attempt to kill Al Qaeda members certainly has limitation but certainly a training camp in Yemen is not it, in my view.

I understand the mere notion of "enemy" is something we don't like to hear. But at some point, as a nation (or organized group) or people, you must establish how you will (or will not) interact with nations or groups which you believe to be working to cause harm to your population. And generally speaking...the word "enemy" means you simply kill them.

I doubt its a hoax, I've known a few traders with a nearly identical personality. Only surprise is he is on tv saying all of this, maybe its a new tactic to stir up the panic further.

Try them for treason. There is a system set out for just these sorts of people. Unfortunately both parties have decided it's easier to just let the President make these decisions unilaterally.

The IRA declared 'war' on England and committed far more terrorist acts than any which have been perpetrated against America in the last decade; many of these acts were directly funded by people within America - would you have agreed with England having assassinated IRA members who were in America raising funds in those circumstances?

I know where you're coming from to a certain degree - but terrorism isn't 'war' regardless of the rhetoric surrounding it, if you fight it with violence then you're just feeding the loopback system and proving to the people involved that they're right to hate your country and act against it.

imho the only way to fight terrorist activities is to resist strongly on your own terms, not stooping to those of the people committing the acts.

Here's a list of 1's, 2's and 3+'s in case anyone was counting.

Dead, captured and wanted – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

Was he willing to turn himself in? It didn't seem like this guy was interested in going the legal route either. We are allowed to take out threats whether that be a terrorist planning attacks overseas or a guy holding a gun to someone's head.

I think this may be used against him if he becomes a real threat but good to see he is sticking by his principles.

News from The Associated Press

Yep...pretty much. In the example above, we don't put priority of apprehending the "attempted" murderer (i.e. so we can try them in court) above stopping the murder by force. The same would be true for treason, where the offender is embedded in an enemy's despotic compound (or training ground) with no (capable) local law enforcement.

Try him in absentia. Even if you need legislation to make it happen, it's doable.

We've ceded far too much authority to the executive over the past decade. Forcing the government to justify accusations of treason was one of the central protections granted to the populace. If it's so obvious this guy is deserving of execution it shouldn't be hard to prove that.

This is the problem with Ron Paul as I see it. While its fine to be an isolationist as a general guiding principle, and while I'm sure he would suggest that we would not be the target of groups like Al Qaeda if we just let Iraq keep Kuwait and invade & conquer Saudi Arabia (subsequently why we would have no need to target and kill a guy like Al Awlaki)...the reality of the world isn't conducive to pure isolationism for the world's most powerful country's fundamental interests (which is to keep the world from chaos more than it is to prevent wars...if you follow that line of thought). Does it have to be free-wheeling "overthrow all evil-doers" type policy? Of course not.

But the things that lead up to groups like Al Qaeda are so much more dependent on poverty(a poor economic structure) & lack of freedoms (like the press, women's rights, voting, etc.) than they are on the microcosm of wrong actions by the US (and the above is what enables the wrongdoings to be spun & amplified as if these are the root of the problems).

This is why I am hopeful of the Arab spring and all of the uprisings that have taken place in the Middle East. Its a bit scary as you don't know what or who will end up assuming authority but I think it is worth supporting these changes to the extent that we can as they will happen because the average Middle Easterner is seeing the problem for themselves...leadership which isn't working to improve their personal lives. And that leadership has seen that the world will not sit by and let them slaughter masses of people just maintain their authority, which leads to oppression, and enables groups like Al Qaeda to even exist as outlet (or perceived solution) for this oppression in the first place.

And to tie all of this back to Ron Paul...I don't think Ron Paul foreign policy would lead to this type of common-man uprising as he'd rather sit by & let them slaughter their own people and each others' people so long as it doesn't directly kill people in the US (its unclear to me his policy on attacks against the US, but I give him the benefit of the doubt there). That's fine policy if you're Canada or Switzerland since "somebody" else will stop those problems...but not if you're the US/Europe/China/Australia, and not if your interests are to keep the world from going to chaos so as not to have to face down the winner of a game of "dictator king of the hill" where the winner controls half the world's oil (which you'll need to stop such a threat).

I like Ron Paul as a voice in the debate. I just think some of his ideas are just too unrealistic & purist for the reality of the world.

That's a fair point. My assumption is that you'd have a hard time finding "witnesses" to testify, and since the majority of evidence against him would be technically circumstantial (or at the least...uncontested), it would lead to accusation of just being a kangaroo court procedure.

I suppose you could go through that for the sake of having procedure to it...but the verdict will never be "kill on sight" anyway so not sure what type of problem that solves.

Obviously the DOJ is not a war tribunal or court of law but at least some due diligence was done. He was clear and present danger.

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi - The Washington Post

I was thinking that Leon Panetta is one of those people that have been in the background but really is a mover and shaker. I remembered him as budget director, then CIA and now Defense Chief.

Wiki gives him credit for expanding the drone strikes which has been pretty successful imo.

Leon Panetta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this particular case a kangaroo court wouldn't bother me. I'm more concerned about establishing systems so that when it isn't so obvious there is a break on executive authority. Over the past decade we've allowed the executive to indefinitely detain citizens without access to lawyers or family, torture citizens, and now execute citizens. Giving the executive that much unchecked authority is bound to lead to abuses. Even if you don't think there have already been abuses, and I'll admit I do, you should be concerned about where these powers will lead.

I agree but it is refreshing.

The biggest problem with this is that it has the potential to undermine the entire judicial system. If you start with one, then every other one has that potential.

What does that change though? So the guy is found guilty. He gets appeals and I don't believe you can execute someone with a cruise missile.

For me I look at it as, who gives a shit? If the government starts firing missiles out of predator drones at drug dealers in Baltimore, I'll be upset. But this guy was a pretty shitty dude who was trying to kill as many of us as possible. He was sitting in a shithole like Yemen where we couldn't exactly storm in and arrest him without incident.

Right, not to mention that now you'll have to establish what to consider "assassination" vs "KIA because we were trying to kill lots of enemies". And the end result is that the government will no longer be as forthcoming with these types of things and simply tell us he was KIA but not the target of the strike if targeting is what will break the legality.

It creates the situation where you have to spite your nose for the sake of your face. I don't like creating those contradictions of motivation, and as RM pointed out, this wasn't just some common thug on civilized soil...this was a real enemy of our people, whether he was a citizen or not.

How do you define that formally? IDK...but I'm not too worried about that yet (yet, being the operative word) based on this situation.

Do we know that an arrest was feasible? The U.S. would probably preferred to take him in for interrogation purposes. Maybe people think that it's better to just let him live than kill him, but its misleading to frame this as "kill him v. try him", when the latter may not have been an option at all.

Also, it's interesting that when the guy's killed, suddenly people that usually oppose military tribunals are OK with them. If he was in custody, wouldn't you be calling for a regular civilian trial instead of a military tribunal (like with all the other terrorists who aren't even American citizens)?

And, it's interesting that citizenship is apparently now a meaningful distinction in this instance, where typically, that opposing voice thinks the constitution applies to everyone, anywhere, regardless of citizenship or location.

It does seem like that whatever happens, that opposing voice will just deduct 15% from what the president actually did and say "they should have done this instead".

I don't think it has as much potential to undermine the judicial system as ignoring the need for a trial.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The point is that he wasn't killed in battle. We specifically targeted him for killing a while ago.



Civillian trial fine with me.


Don't think they're necessarily inconsistent views. One need not argue citizens are entitled to more protection. One can just worry that even citizens are entitled to full protection, it appears.

I don't think I ever said I was opposed to the idea of military tribunals. My problem was not having any system to deal with Guantanamo detainees.

What changes is that the government went through the process required. The outcome of a trial is all-but certain in many cases, but we still go through the process of letting the justice system decide instead of the executive making a unilateral decision. As I said, there are costs to having the protection we have in place. Sure, some decisions become a lot easier if we have a rule that says "due process applies unless the executive branch decides this person is really, really bad and it will be hard to try them in a court of law", but I think the problems with that are obvious, without even resorting to slippery slope arguments.

True, looking back I'm thinking of someone else.

I think Dick is stretching a little on this matter but then there is the problem of Gitmo that's still open for business.

Cheney: Obama owes apology for security criticism of Bush administration - CNN.com

LMAO - the irony of Cheny (who is afraid to leave the country for fear of being arrested and tried in the ICC) complaining about this administration on this issue is hilarious.

Pot meat original motherfucking kettle.

The reality is that no right-wing conservative should be upset that President Obama has essentially "stayed the course" with regard to the Global War on Terror (Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo) policies that were put in place by the Bush administration.

Obama's done enough on the foreign policy front to calm any concerns I had going into this in '08 anyway (and there were many).

As for Cheney, he's just playing politics and staying in the spotlight so his book sells well, I suppose.

Agreed. I've been frustrated by Obama on several fronts, but keeping most Bush admin policies has been one of his best moves. He's a hypocrite, but he's made the right decision in the end and that's all that matters.

He did say he would withdraw from Iraq (and for the most part have kept that promise) and increase our role in Afghanistan (which he has done). I think the increased drone strikes in Pakistan is a bonus.

I think the key hypocritical promise is gitmo.

Gitmo is what I was referring to. I think we should give Obama credit for putting some people in place to advise him well in regards to the military. He was ready to withdraw ASAP in those areas, but eventually capitulated and made some more reasonable time frames that fit the situation much better.

He tried to close Gitmo, but Congress refused to provide the funds.

Honestly, I think he either does not want to spend or has enough political capital to do it.

Obama Administration Misses Deadline To Close Guantánamo | American Civil Liberties Union
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, Insists On Guantanamo Closure (PHOTOS)

He certainly doesn't have the capital to do it. He can't get anything past the House or past a filibuster in the Senate. And there are a number of Dems willing to grandstand on it.

Pretty good article from the washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

I thought it was common knowledge that it was easier to make money in a down economy than an up economy, if you're "fast money". 401Ks and other institutional investors are in there for the long haul so that's a lot of money to be made shorting in the short term.

SI

I have to say, I'm with Ron Paul on this one. Just not a fan at all of killing American citizens without due process.

If you knew where he was to bomb him, you could have rounded him up and brought him back to trial...

SI