Obama Fatigue

Smuncey,

I share your pain brother.  I am beside myself & must, of course, once again, agree with you 100%.  It almost seems like a blast from the past ala the Brady Bunch.  Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!  It's always about MARSHA!

But take heart.  Uncle Rich is here to the rescue you from the doldrums of Obamaland.  This should make you feel better & hopefully ease your pain.  In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Ct. told Bush for the third time, yes, the third time, in four years that he is only a president.  Not a dictator or king.  This time, they told him that he can't deny prisoners at GTMO  the right to challenge their detention.  I mean, just how silly are some people, asking for such things? Just who the heck do they think they are any how, human beings? 

Of course, Roberts & Alito, two Bush appointees, joined Scalia & Thomas in dissenting.  I guess that even being racidal, conservative, right wing activist judges doesn't hinder the legal process.  I got the phrasing of that right, didn't I?  Just wanted to put it in terms that people like you are used to.

So maybe if you're tired of hearing @ Obama all the time, you might want to check out some other news items while checking out reality.  Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.  Make it a great day for realism.  Try it, you'll like it.  JATFUR.

RichK

Only American Citizens should have the right to challenge their detention.  POW's do not!  Any chance your a supporter of CAIR?

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Smuncey,

Once again, you get it so wrong.  Those people are not prisoners of war.  No war has been declared by Congress, the only body of our government authorised to declare war.  Perhaps you missed that point....AGAIN. 

CAIR?  Not hardly.  But I do care @ some things & some people.  I care about any human getting humane treatment.  I care @ equal justice, equal treatment & humane treatment even towards people who have allegedly did wrong to us.  I guess it's my old Christian upbringing.  Do unto others.... Love your enemy.....  Render unto Ceasar..... Yes, I'm sure I read that somewhere.  I guess some people care while others can only mindlessly repeat & recite instead of practice.  Does that make me a Christian or only a caring, thinking agnostic who has a sense of morals, ethics & humanity? 

Does the fact that they are not American citizens mean that they should NOT be treated in a humane, legal manner?  Where are YOUR Christian principles?  Or are you just another one of those people who endlessly spout chapter & verse without bothering to practise what you preach?  A wise person once said that you can tell a lot @ the honor, character & integrity of a country by the way it treats their prisoners.  All things considered, is it any wonder why this administration has plunged the image of our country right into the crapper?  JATFUR.

RichK

PS.  In the particular case of where you used it, "your" is incorrect.  It should have been the contraction "YOU'RE," meaning you are.  A bit of attention to detail is always appreciated.

RK

Solovoce speaks of humane? lets see beheading of Prisoners, Car bombing shopping districts, maming and killing children - these are all in Al-Qaeida's book of terrior.

Ever wonder why John McCain can only raise his arms mid chest?  Let me remind you.  Arms behind back, hands tied together then hoisted off the ground.  i don't remember him or any of the others at the Hanoi Hilton getting appeals before a Higher Court.

Constitutional rights how is it that they have Constitutional Rights anyway?  Constitutional Rights only apply to Citizens of the United States of America and that my friend they are not.

There's no question that the enemies of freedom who come in the form of Islamic terrorists participate in barbaric, atrocious behavior in pursuit of their goals.

But we should, and more importantly can, be better than that.  We in the United States should do more than talk about being the world's moral leader.  We should prove it every day.

Throughout history, societies have been judged by the way they have treated their prisoners.  Americans react with disgust at the tactics of its enemies, then seek some moral or practical or legal justification to employ tactics on Gitmo prisoners that would never be permitted to be used on our own citizens.

The terrorists choose their own behaviors, but so do we.  We can and should choose to be the world's example of human rights. 

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

clayviewpoint.

Don't forget illegal aliens, They have Constitutional rights.

Clayviewpoint,

I do understand the views of both you and Smuncey.  To clarify, I understand, not condone.  Taking your viewpoints, & you are by no means alone, to their logical conclusions, we then take the tortuous, reprehensible path that would turn us into them, the very kinds of people whom you & Smuncey rightfully, I would add, condemn.  I have yet to hear a reasonable, logical explanation why it would be permissable, let alone, desireable, for that to happen.

We are either a country that lives up to the ideals we promote or we are not.  There is no middle ground.  This subject is only one of the many reasons that our reputation has plummeted in the eyes of the world.  By taking the attitudes & possible following actions that you might suggest, we would only cause further damage we can't afford.

You are correct in stating the obvious fact that these people are not citizens of the US.  They are not prisoners of war.  But they are people.  If we tell the world how moral & ethical we are, we would then show the world how deceitful & hypocritical we actually are if we fail to even treat them in some humane manner under our laws.

Any person or country can claim to taking the high moral, ethical road.  That's easy.  Talk is cheap.  Talk is easy.  Actually taking that high road is much more difficult.  It takes guts, fortitude, a view to a higher, larger purpose & commitment.  The Supreme Court took a step in that direction even though it was unpopular in the view of many.  I hope that they don't have many more decisions like that ahead of them.  JATFUR.

RichK

Mike,

Thanks for great thoughts.  I was hoping that I would not be the only one out here without blood in my eyes & revenge in my heart while mindlessly throwing out morals, ethical behavior & respect for the law.  JATFUR.

RichK

Getting back on point.

The liberal press is backing Obama. You will see a very lopsided press coverage in this election. You will see any goofs or misspoken words glossed over. You will see any verifiable information that is true regulated to the back page, maybe.

I have heard "change, change, change". Change what? More taxes, more restrictions of our liberty, More of our tax money going down the rat hole for bridges to nowhere, more of our money for people who will not take care of themselves ect?

You have already seen what the Dem's and environmentalists have done in the case of drilling for oil. We knew back in 1972 that we needed more oil. More oil wells and more refineries. Oh no we cannot do that some animal or fish "might" be harmed. So now we have to lower our lifestyles and eat more rice and beans to get gas to go to work. 

That kind of change we do not need. Think of Nancy P. in the White House. that is what kind of a change you will see.

 Frankly I was hoping for a better slection of people to vote for. There are so many good Democrats and Republicians out there, it is a shame they will not get involved.

 Clint Eastwood for President. "Go ahead make my day"

Those who give up Freedom for Security have neither. 

Thanks for steering back from my tangent, WW.  I fully agree that the national media has been treating Obama and McCain differently, although I think it's a temporary situation.  As the election draws nearer, Obama's newness on the American psyche will wear off.  By November, he'll be treated more like a politician than a star.

Frankly, I could care less about what his preacher says and I'm not too concerned about his wife's philosophies.  But by Election Day, I expect the media to have me much more informed about Obama himself and how he feels about the issues that really affect the presidency.  And the same goes for McCain.

That's the media's job.  I hope they do it.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Solo,

You say that there is no war (declared by Congress). If that is so, why are U.S. Troops held to the Geneva Convention?

FR88,

I'm not the one who says there is no war.  The US Constitution says that Congress is the only body of government authorised to declare war.  A war like condition may exist, as it was during Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia & the Middle East I & II with no actual difference in the danger, wounds or body count.  The difference is that of legal status, I would think.  I also think it a weakness in the Constitution that armed forces can be placed in harms way, for an extended period of time, without Congressional oversight & approval.  But that is only my opinion.  If approval is given, declare it a war & get on with business.  Of course, if an emergency condition comes to the fore, the president must be, and has been, given authority to act immediately without notification of congress, at that moment.  But by law, he must still notify Congress in a timely manner. 

As far as the Geneva convention rules apply, if I ever heard an explanation, I forgot.  I would have to assume, however, that it is covered by some law &/or regulation of the armed forces during any kind of occupation, at least pro forma.  If you are looking for an accurate explanation, I'm afraid that we would have to get an expert in the particular field of law covering this kind of situation.  This is one of those questions which I'll throw out to our fellow bloggers.  One of them may know.  JATFUR.

RichK