Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

First of all we must put up the actual words rather than a link:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Then we should ask; who wrote the speech?

I think you're all a bunch of drama queens. Stateless terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and certainly not the U.S. Constitution. President Teleprompter Q. Empty-Suit is best suited for community activism or law review head who doesn't publish articles rather than POTUS, but he's right when it comes dealing with terrorism and terrorists.

Long live Club Gitmo!

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

I'm no Obama fan by a long shot, and I'm against indefinite detention. These are prisoners of war that he's talking about, right? Are prisoners of war normally covered by the constitution? If not, then how can his proposal be seen as violating "the rule of law," etc? Shouldn't something like the Geneva Convention provide the appropriate guidelines here?

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to stateless combatants/terrorists.

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

In my opinion the proper way to handle these cases is the way they would have been handled up to about 1945: when you capture an enemy who is not wearing a uniform, murders civilians, violates every rule of war, you first interrogate him and then you hang him or at best put him up against a wall before a firing squad.

This idea that these people deserve to be treated as though they were entitled to the protections of the U.S. legal system is preposterous. By this logic, every enemy spy or other violator of the Geneva Conventions that we ever killed (like the Nazis who dressed up as US soldiers to infiltrate our lines) was terribly wronged by us.

You have to understand there is a difference between an enemy in a war and someone who commits a crime on our soil.

That's what's so ridiculous about all this. All this concern about the rights of people who by any historical standard would be considered the lowest of the low enemy combatants. Hang them and be done with it. It sets no bad precedent for our freedoms any more than it did all the times in the past when enemy combatants were punished in this way.

Thanks for the breath of sanity Mark. There are lots of people with their heads up their bee-hinds on this issue.

[Raz]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Frightening.

I hate to stir the pot, but I would like to point out that it is refreshing to see a commentator hold to principle and critique a politician they pushed for. I have noticed it is not uncommon for other "liberal" commentators do so as well.

I cannot recall many times when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Fox News etc held to their principles and critiqued Bush, especially before late in his term when his approval ratings were in the dump.

I must say Obama has been an almost total dissappointment. Should have been expected.

Yes of course, Munger, I do know how it pains you to attack anyone you perceive to be "conservative".
I'm sure it tears at your rightous soul.:rolleyes:

You are confusing "Republican" with "Conservative". This country hasn't had one since Eisenhower. Other than two excellent appointments to the Supreme Court I can't think of a "conservative" thing George W. Dumbass did during his eight year wrecking job.
Perhaps you should read the eight year archive of Pat Buchanan's commentaries at WorldNetDaily.com. He was opposed to the stupid "Messinpotamia" before 2003, has been railing about the insane trade policies of the United States since the early 1990s, and after the fall of the Soviet Union said that we should withdraw from NATO. That would have kept us from bombing Yugoslavia back to the nineteenth century. And WE wouldn't be in Russia's face, pushing NATO onto her front porch.
I have a Liberal friend in South Carolina who took my suggestion and told me several months later he was amazed at how much he agreed with the Paleoconservative view.

Sean Hannity is a lightweight and a Republican Hack. But that's not as bad as the condescending hate spewed by Olbermann and his ilk.

And if you believe "W" the Dumbass made a mess of our economy, just give Barry, Timmy, Nancy and "Bubbles" Ben a few years.

[Glenn Black]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

He was a priest. Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

[vinoveri]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

you're right. the nadir was probably 1777.

did you per chance mean the "zenith" of freedom?

[c1ue]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Meet the New Boss.

Same as the Old Boss.

Get on my knees and pray - we don't get fooled again. Oops too late.

[MEDIA][/MEDIA]

[Munger]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Yes of course, Munger, I do know how it pains you to attack anyone you perceive to be "conservative".
I'm sure it tears at your rightous soul.:rolleyes:

You are confusing "Republican" with "Conservative". This country hasn't had one since Eisenhower. Other than two excellent appointments to the Supreme Court I can't think of a "conservative" thing George W. Dumbass did during his eight year wrecking job.
Perhaps you should read the eight year archive of Pat Buchanan's commentaries at WorldNetDaily.com. He was opposed to the stupid "Messinpotamia" before 2003, has been railing about the insane trade policies of the United States since the early 1990s, and after the fall of the Soviet Union said that we should withdraw from NATO. That would have kept us from bombing Yugoslavia back to the nineteenth century. And WE wouldn't be in Russia's face, pushing NATO onto her front porch.
I have a Liberal friend in South Carolina who took my suggestion and told me several months later he was amazed at how much he agreed with the Paleoconservative view.

Sean Hannity is a lightweight and a Republican Hack. But that's not as bad as the condescending hate spewed by Olbermann and his ilk.

And if you believe "W" the Dumbass made a mess of our economy, just give Barry, Timmy, Nancy and "Bubbles" Ben a few years.

You are correct about Buchanan - and I do recall him criticizing Bush often enough. I have come to respect him for that, and actually agree with him on many points.

The incessant echo-chamber of ignorance that currently comprise the most visible aspects of the American right is nepenthe for cogent conservative thought. Unfortunately, it seems that the true conservatives (with whom I more than occasionally agree) have been marginalized.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Hey guys,

I think Obama's position is far more nuanced and credible than what's being argued here. It appears to me that he's trying to grapple with the issue of how the U.S. government can identify and then deal with committed enemy combatants -- people who will continue to kill Americans and mount attacks if released.

I'm not happy about it, and the idea should be scrutinized in every way. But it's not the cartoon reported on MSNBC....

Read the speech!

Here's the relevant excerpt:

The French could have said the same thing about the Free French and their partisans that fought throughout the period their nation was under the control of the Germans during WW2, or again the German people could have used exactly the same terms to describe all the allied soldiers that fought against them.

The difference was that they, we all, took these people into our homes and they stopped fighting. Why? Because we removed the reason for the fighting, we brought the war to an end. Not just in the battlefield, but also in the hearts and minds of our opponents.

Turning to the speech. Overnight I have come to the conclusion that Obama is giving us what we might describe as a form of message in a bottle. But this time it is a coded message embedded in his speech.

You, the American people, have elected a sensible, honourable man, with a fine wife and family, and the end result is you place them right at the heart of the original den of monsters that started the whole process in the first place.

What is he supposed to do?

He knows full well, (we only have to remember the fate of previous presidents, or for that matter, the shield in front of him at his inaugural speech, or again, the way his body guards have prevented him freely walking the streets in his own nation), that his life is in danger every day he is in office.

He sits down in the same rooms wherein the original monsters perpetrated the ideas and methods that lie at the heart of the present debate; the White House, the Pentagon and the fine buildings "somewhere in Virginia".

What is he supposed to do?

I believe that he is reaching out to the LAW of the nation; the people that make and administer the law; asking them to take responsibility for the fate of the detainees. That he has discovered he is powerless to do more than make such a speech and hope that everyone outside recognises he needs help.

[GRG55]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

...how long before ej eats his obama endorsement?

I think that's already happened...at least as far as making real progress on the "New, New Deal".


[Then again if you can't recall or find the reference, then maybe I am imagining things...;)]

[metalman]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

did you per chance mean the "zenith" of freedom?

yes i did! unconsciously... my mind went right to where we're headed, the nadir. the zenith was 1777.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

The French could have said the same thing about the Free French and their partisans that fought throughout the period their nation was under the control of the Germans during WW2, or again the German people could have used exactly the same terms to describe all the allied soldiers that fought against them.

The difference was that they, we all, took these people into our homes and they stopped fighting. Why? Because we removed the reason for the fighting, we brought the war to an end. Not just in the battlefield, but also in the hearts and minds of our opponents.

Turning to the speech. Overnight I have come to the conclusion that Obama is giving us what we might describe as a form of message in a bottle. But this time it is a coded message embedded in his speech.

You, the American people, have elected a sensible, honourable man, with a fine wife and family, and the end result is you place them right at the heart of the original den of monsters that started the whole process in the first place.

What is he supposed to do?

He knows full well, (we only have to remember the fate of previous presidents, or for that matter, the shield in front of him at his inaugural speech, or again, the way his body guards have prevented him freely walking the streets in his own nation), that his life is in danger every day he is in office.

He sits down in the same rooms wherein the original monsters perpetrated the ideas and methods that lie at the heart of the present debate; the White House, the Pentagon and the fine buildings "somewhere in Virginia".

What is he supposed to do?

I believe that he is reaching out to the LAW of the nation; the people that make and administer the law; asking them to take responsibility for the fate of the detainees. That he has discovered he is powerless to do more than make such a speech and hope that everyone outside recognises he needs help.

Absolutely right! What is he supposed to do? Another complete mess left to him by the most incompetent, morally disgusting administration to ever occupy the white house.

Put them on trial? There was no evidence collected for any crimes! Many of these detainees were turned over to the military by their neighbors just to collect the big monetary rewards that were offered. They will finally be able to go home. But what about those who freely admit to being Al Qaeda? There is no evidence that they've committed any "crimes", but they are sworn to do harm to Americans and others. What can you do with them? Most countries don't want them. Are you going to send them to Afghanistan to kill the local populations? Or do you hold them in indefinite detention until Al Qaeda changes or is defeated?

Obama was left with another huge mess that has no good solutions. New laws and policies will need to be developed and they will challenge the principles of civilized societies that must deal with an uncivilized threat.

[Sapiens]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

There is nothing new under the sun. If you want to read an account of how the game is played, including how the legal code is liberally interpreted to suit the need of the at anytime present administration, read this book :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago

The Gulag Archipelago (Russian: Архипелаг ГУЛАГ, Arkhipelag GULAG) is a book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn based on the Soviet forced labor and concentration camp system. The three-volume book is a massive narrative relying on eyewitness testimony and primary research material, as well as the author's own experiences as a prisoner in a Gulag labor camp. Written between 1958 and 1968 (dates given at the end of the book), it was published in the West in 1973, thereafter circulating in samizdat (underground publication) form in the Soviet Union until its official publication in 1989.

...

Solzhenitsyn tells you how hardly anyone resists arrest. But you must read the first chapters of this book to really understand why they do not resist.

[flintlock]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Frightening.

I hate to stir the pot, but I would like to point out that it is refreshing to see a commentator hold to principle and critique a politician they pushed for. I have noticed it is not uncommon for other "liberal" commentators do so as well.

I cannot recall many times when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Fox News etc held to their principles and critiqued Bush, especially before late in his term when his approval ratings were in the dump.

I must say Obama has been an almost total dissappointment. Should have been expected.

Savage ranted against Bush all the time, so I wouldn't throw him in with the others. Hannity makes me sick he's so fanatically loyal to his party. Rush is a party hack too, but at least has some original thoughts every now and then. Hannity just reads from the party handbook.

I also think Obama always codes messages into his speeches. Nothing is off the cuff, he's laying down things "for the record" so pay attention carefully to what he says.

As for terrorists, I have mixed feelings about their treatment. I do think the use of torture is being abused at the least and that it should be used at most in only the most extreme cases. Torturing some foot soldier for "information" isn't likely to produce much of use. The high ranking terrorists, that's another story

The British considered some of the American partisans fighting in the Revolution terrorists also. No uniforms. Ambushes. Murders even. Just something to think about.

[Rajiv]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

As for terrorists, I have mixed feelings about their treatment. I do think the use of torture is being abused at the least and that it should be used at most in only the most extreme cases. Torturing some foot soldier for "information" isn't likely to produce much of use. The high ranking terrorists, that's another story

I think you should read the following articles

The Torture Myth

Torture doesn't work - It erodes national security and democracy.

Military, Intelligence and Law Enforcement Officers Opposing Torture

FBI interrogator: Torture doesn't work, breeds jihad

Why Is Torture Ineffective? - And why is it still used today?

I could not find any articles that had a cogent argument that torture works -- the only argument that is proposed in such articles is "torture obviously works in producing good information -- otherwise it would not be used!"