Apparently We Were "This Close" To Also Getting...

[volinbham]

My gripe is the ACLU abandoning his rights because Obama says it's OK.

This type of response is the only one from our govt that scares me. "uniformly" means exactly dick to me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I read the ACLU stuff different - they are fighting Obama and Co. on this one (or were).

 

[therealUT]

I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. I would be fine with it if they at least try him in absentia.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I read the ACLU stuff different - they are fighting Obama and Co. on this one (or were).

I definitely misunderstood. I was attributing the bolded to the ACLU.

The fact that it was those currently in govt, it's worse.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

I have no issues with taking the bastage out. I can see where there may be some issues.

Would advocating the destruction of the US while hiding in another country constitute renouncing one's citizenship? I don't know. I would like to hear the thoughts of other posters.


Dang, bham, you came up with a tough one here. Never really thought abt it. Kudos to you, sir.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Now to complicate it even further. What is the basis for decision making in this Admin? They argue Gitmo is borderline unconstitutional and fight for US style due process (civilian court) for non-citizen, enemy combatants.

They basically throw out all forms of enhanced interrogation whether considered torture (WB) or not (music, stress positions, temperature).

Yet, they target a US citizen for death while arguing he doesn't deserve due process. In addition, they shoot an unarmed, untried enemy combatant.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the underlying belief structure is that squares all these seemingly inconsistent acts all done in the name of fighting terrorism.

 

[BigPapaVol]

It ties well with Obama's foreign policy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

Now to complicate it even further. What is the basis for decision making in this Admin? They argue Gitmo is borderline unconstitutional and fight for US style due process (civilian court) for non-citizen, enemy combatants.

They basically throw out all forms of enhanced interrogation whether considered torture (WB) or not (music, stress positions, temperature).

Yet, they target a US citizen for death while arguing he doesn't deserve due process. In addition, they shoot an unarmed, untried enemy combatant.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the underlying belief structure is that squares all these seemingly inconsistent acts all done in the name of fighting terrorism.

I kind of liked trUT's suggestion of trying him in absentia. I agree that it is definitely a conundrum for the administration. I'm honestly kinda stumped.
Posted via VolNation Mobile