Comments on: The Real Dangers of an Obama Victory http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/ In the middle of an empty desert of liberal idiocy, one can find sustenance at the Oasis... Conservative Blog; Conservative News; Conservative Analysyis Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:47:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/ hourly 1 By: Solo http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-763 Solo Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:58:07 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-763 There was no reply because you were successful at addressing yet another misinformed "conservative" fanatic. I'm sorry, but it's citizens like her who scare the heck out of me. By spreading misinformation they feed the folks who don't know any better--and as a result, spread the fear, anger and hatred that reared it's ugly head in our beautiful country. Shame on ALL who continue to provide misinformation, spreading anger and hate, whilst professing to be "Christians". I believe the Bible says something about "casting the first stone"?? As well as "judging others" and showing our enemies Love? What "GOOD" has judging others-especially on their skin colors, belief systems or people they were associated with; fighting violence with violence; or spreading fear through misinformation, EVER done? There was no reply because you were successful at addressing yet another misinformed “conservative” fanatic. I’m sorry, but it’s citizens like her who scare the heck out of me. By spreading misinformation they feed the folks who don’t know any better–and as a result, spread the fear, anger and hatred that reared it’s ugly head in our beautiful country. Shame on ALL who continue to provide misinformation, spreading anger and hate, whilst professing to be “Christians”. I believe the Bible says something about “casting the first stone”?? As well as “judging others” and showing our enemies Love? What “GOOD” has judging others-especially on their skin colors, belief systems or people they were associated with; fighting violence with violence; or spreading fear through misinformation, EVER done?

]]> By: Russell Cole http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-412 Russell Cole Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:02:36 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-412 I do not recall saying that they were protected by the Geneva Convention. What I said was that there is no legal category, illegal combatants. This classification is a contrivance. They are either POWs or they are criminal defendents. You can decide which you would prefer. I for one would prefer that they be deemed POWs and not afforded all of the liberties granted to criminal defendents. Further, the Supreme Court appears to agree with me. That is why they have stipulated that Congress must intervene in order to construct a judicial process through which they can be tried for crimes. What Bush has done is a national humiliation that debases our pretenses to be a force in the world that fights for human rights and democratic values. You did not even address the rest of my previous post, so I will stop there. I do not recall saying that they were protected by the Geneva Convention. What I said was that there is no legal category, illegal combatants. This classification is a contrivance. They are either POWs or they are criminal defendents. You can decide which you would prefer. I for one would prefer that they be deemed POWs and not afforded all of the liberties granted to criminal defendents. Further, the Supreme Court appears to agree with me. That is why they have stipulated that Congress must intervene in order to construct a judicial process through which they can be tried for crimes. What Bush has done is a national humiliation that debases our pretenses to be a force in the world that fights for human rights and democratic values. You did not even address the rest of my previous post, so I will stop there.

]]> By: Con1 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-410 Con1 Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:38:25 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-410 Bush did not insist on the immunity. The Telecoms did. They would not cooperate without it. From the Geneva Convention: "In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them. The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked. The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers. Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups Ñ and thus endanger the civilian population Ñ are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention. " MUST WEAR UNIFORMS. Don't bore me. Bush did not insist on the immunity. The Telecoms did. They would not cooperate without it.

From the Geneva Convention:
“In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups Ñ and thus endanger the civilian population Ñ are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention. ”

MUST WEAR UNIFORMS.
Don’t bore me.

]]> By: Russell Cole http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-409 Russell Cole Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:57:09 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-409 First off, why did bush insist upon retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that colluded with bush in order to monitor the wiretapping of US citizens, if there was no law that was broken? Sure, it is no longer illegal, due to congressional capitulation, but at the time, it certainly was. If you recall the accounts proffered by members of the Justice Department, including officials who were a part of the FBI, a number of high-ranking officials threatened to resign, if Bush did not curb his intrusive spying upon American citizens. Secondly, water boarding is torture according to US legal precedent. We tried a Japanese official, as a war criminal, following WWII for the exact same practice. Further, to say that it is merely psychological is flawed in two respects: first off, the Geneva Convention forbids “psychological torture”. Second off, the people subjected to water boarding feel like they are drowning because they actually are drowning. Water is intentionally poured over the mouth and nose in controlled amounts and, subsequently, inhaled by the subject of water boarding practices, which contributes to the panic that is suffered by the victim. Finally, there is no such legal category as illegal combatants. This is a fiction contrived by members of the Administration, in an attempt to exclude those who were detained from any rights extended by the Geneva Convention as well as the American Legal System. Bush, furthermore, prior to being rebuked by the Supreme Court, maintained that 'illegal combatants,' had no right to habeas corpus, since they were foreign. The reason so many people took issue with the Administration's assertion is the fact that such a denial of habeas corpus could have been extended, even, to American citizens. How can somebody prove that they are a citizen if they are never granted access to a court of law, because the Administration has already deemed them alien and of a non-citizen status. I could go on, but this should be sufficient. The Bush Administration curtailed more liberties than even Lincoln did during the civil war. Lincoln, moreover, did not attempt to conceal what he was doing when detaining people who were held without benefit of any recourse to the judicial system. Bush, on the other hand, has attempted to keep many of his executive orders opaque; thus, the practice of extraordinary rendition. r cole First off, why did bush insist upon retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that colluded with bush in order to monitor the wiretapping of US citizens, if there was no law that was broken? Sure, it is no longer illegal, due to congressional capitulation, but at the time, it certainly was. If you recall the accounts proffered by members of the Justice Department, including officials who were a part of the FBI, a number of high-ranking officials threatened to resign, if Bush did not curb his intrusive spying upon American citizens.

Secondly, water boarding is torture according to US legal precedent. We tried a Japanese official, as a war criminal, following WWII for the exact same practice. Further, to say that it is merely psychological is flawed in two respects: first off, the Geneva Convention forbids “psychological torture”. Second off, the people subjected to water boarding feel like they are drowning because they actually are drowning. Water is intentionally poured over the mouth and nose in controlled amounts and, subsequently, inhaled by the subject of water boarding practices, which contributes to the panic that is suffered by the victim.

Finally, there is no such legal category as illegal combatants. This is a fiction contrived by members of the Administration, in an attempt to exclude those who were detained from any rights extended by the Geneva Convention as well as the American Legal System. Bush, furthermore, prior to being rebuked by the Supreme Court, maintained that ‘illegal combatants,’ had no right to habeas corpus, since they were foreign. The reason so many people took issue with the Administration’s assertion is the fact that such a denial of habeas corpus could have been extended, even, to American citizens. How can somebody prove that they are a citizen if they are never granted access to a court of law, because the Administration has already deemed them alien and of a non-citizen status.

I could go on, but this should be sufficient. The Bush Administration curtailed more liberties than even Lincoln did during the civil war. Lincoln, moreover, did not attempt to conceal what he was doing when detaining people who were held without benefit of any recourse to the judicial system. Bush, on the other hand, has attempted to keep many of his executive orders opaque; thus, the practice of extraordinary rendition.

r cole

]]> By: Tracy http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-375 Tracy Sun, 02 Nov 2008 02:47:57 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-375 "Are you some kind of racist scumbag?" Why, yes, he is, jjt. Yes, he is. “Are you some kind of racist scumbag?” Why, yes, he is, jjt. Yes, he is.

]]> By: jjt http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-373 jjt Sun, 02 Nov 2008 02:44:30 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-373 You describe BO as "a crafty half black politician". I thought he was half white. Are you some kind of racist scumbag? You describe BO as “a crafty half black politician”. I thought he was half white. Are you some kind of racist scumbag?

]]> By: Con1 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-358 Con1 Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:17:26 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-358 First- "illegal" wiretaps, as you put it, are and were an interpretation of newly penned Homeland Security and FISA laws. Until the courts "ruled", no precedence for "illegal" was set, therefore, no real "knowing" breach of "rights" could be implied. Once the courts ruled, the practice stopped. Nice try though. I am not seeing or hearing a slew of lawsuits that are being won which represent a violation of "constitutional" rights. You have not provided any proof of any gross and sweeping Bush driven scheme to undermine "rights' either. You have spewed your opinion. You stated, in a broad and implicating manner, "the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under" and "the loss of liberties that have been perpetrated by Bush and his altogether disregard for Constitutional liberties." None of your response supports any reality which substantiate your accusations. In fact, you talk mostly about possibilities, not realities. Lastly, as for torture, I don't consider waterboarding torture, in the classic sense. I consider it psychological terror, but not "torture". People die from torture. They don't die from waterboarding. Lastly, our Constitution and the rights therein are not "guaranteed" to enemy combatants, abroad. In fact, they are not guaranteed to anyone outside the US, regardless who they are. This is why those folks are NOT on official US soil. So, again, please provide a list of specific rights violations of the Bush administration. You should have no problem, considering your comment "I would interpret the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under"... First- “illegal” wiretaps, as you put it, are and were an interpretation of newly penned Homeland Security and FISA laws. Until the courts “ruled”, no precedence for “illegal” was set, therefore, no real “knowing” breach of “rights” could be implied. Once the courts ruled, the practice stopped. Nice try though.

I am not seeing or hearing a slew of lawsuits that are being won which represent a violation of “constitutional” rights. You have not provided any proof of any gross and sweeping Bush driven scheme to undermine “rights’ either. You have spewed your opinion.

You stated, in a broad and implicating manner, “the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under” and “the loss of liberties that have been perpetrated by Bush and his altogether disregard for Constitutional liberties.”

None of your response supports any reality which substantiate your accusations. In fact, you talk mostly about possibilities, not realities.

Lastly, as for torture, I don’t consider waterboarding torture, in the classic sense. I consider it psychological terror, but not “torture”. People die from torture. They don’t die from waterboarding.

Lastly, our Constitution and the rights therein are not “guaranteed” to enemy combatants, abroad. In fact, they are not guaranteed to anyone outside the US, regardless who they are. This is why those folks are NOT on official US soil.

So, again, please provide a list of specific rights violations of the Bush administration. You should have no problem, considering your comment “I would interpret the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under”…

]]> By: Russell Cole http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-357 Russell Cole Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:12:53 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-357 Sure, Bush has illegally wiretapped American citizens. He claimed that he did so merely to monitor terrorists. In actually, as recent whistle blowers have revealed, phone calls of all sorts were being monitored, even the private calls between oversees military members and their spouses in the US. Bush claims to be a spreader of freedoms. However, this appears not to deter him from conducting extraordinary renditions. What such a practice could possibly have to do with spreading freedoms is beyond me. Bush has attempted to create a new Executive Power that allows a President to modify legislation through the issuing of signing statements. It is hard to find any Constitutional scholar who even entertains the notion that such ploys have any credibility, but if Bush and ideologues, such as Chaney, who subscribe to a Unitary Executive, had the ability to pack the Supreme Court with any more of their sympathizers, who knows? signing statements might become a legitimate power of the Presidency, adding to the realization of an imperial presidency. finally, Ill point out that torture, conducted upon anyone, is not only illegal, it is fundamentally unamerican, and anybody who is cowardly enough to defend the use of torture, such as water boarding, because they it might keep them safe is not only a coward but a threat to all of our liberties as we continue to slide down a slippery slope. Sure,
Bush has illegally wiretapped American citizens. He claimed that he did so merely to monitor terrorists. In actually, as recent whistle blowers have revealed, phone calls of all sorts were being monitored, even the private calls between oversees military members and their spouses in the US.
Bush claims to be a spreader of freedoms. However, this appears not to deter him from conducting extraordinary renditions. What such a practice could possibly have to do with spreading freedoms is beyond me.
Bush has attempted to create a new Executive Power that allows a President to modify legislation through the issuing of signing statements. It is hard to find any Constitutional scholar who even entertains the notion that such ploys have any credibility, but if Bush and ideologues, such as Chaney, who subscribe to a Unitary Executive, had the ability to pack the Supreme Court with any more of their sympathizers, who knows? signing statements might become a legitimate power of the Presidency, adding to the realization of an imperial presidency.
finally, Ill point out that torture, conducted upon anyone, is not only illegal, it is fundamentally unamerican, and anybody who is cowardly enough to defend the use of torture, such as water boarding, because they it might keep them safe is not only a coward but a threat to all of our liberties as we continue to slide down a slippery slope.

]]> By: Con1 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-353 Con1 Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:05:34 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-353 I was wondering if you would be so kind as to define which Constitutional liberties have specifically been violated? I was wondering if you would be so kind as to define which Constitutional liberties have specifically been violated?

]]> By: Russell Cole http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/comment-page-1/#comment-352 Russell Cole Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:00:25 +0000 http://conservativeoasis.com/the-real-dangers-of-an-obama-victory/2008/10/25/#comment-352 These are some fairly superficial concerns. I am in no way a liberal. However, I would interpret the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under. You take the time to wail over the possibility that the rights of agnostics and atheists would have to be respected by removing inappropriate theistic mambo jumbo verbiage from our civic spaces while, failing to address the loss of liberties that have been perpetrated by Bush and his altogether disregard for Constitutional liberties. These are some fairly superficial concerns. I am in no way a liberal. However, I would interpret the Bush Administration as the greatest enemy of American civil liberties that this country has ever suffered under. You take the time to wail over the possibility that the rights of agnostics and atheists would have to be respected by removing inappropriate theistic mambo jumbo verbiage from our civic spaces while, failing to address the loss of liberties that have been perpetrated by Bush and his altogether disregard for Constitutional liberties.

]]>