Obama for Small Business

[Danzig]

coakley herself said that the christmas terrorist hurt her, that her polls started tanking because of that and the rush vote on health care before the holiday break.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

coakley herself said that the christmas terrorist hurt her, that her polls started tanking because of that and the rush vote on health care before the holiday break.

exactly, its been on the news. Mass citizens worried about terrorists getting the same rights as American citizens.

Terrorists should be treated like the scum they are! Guy tries to blow up a PLANE and kill hundreds of us and we want to read him his miranda.. unreal.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

exactly, its been on the news. Mass citizens worried about terrorists getting the same rights as American citizens.

Terrorists should be treated like the scum they are! Guy tries to blow up a PLANE and kill hundreds of us and we want to read him his miranda.. unreal.

....hopes this trickles over to Capitol Hill

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

riot, you are unbelievably stubborn! You wont even listen to the reasons stated by a Mass citizen herself! She knows a million times more than you do when it comes to the election in her own state! you never cease to amaze me!

What in the world are you talking about? Fear of how the terrorist will be tried isn't coming up high in the post-election "why I voted why I did" polls and discussion. Got anything different or more specific on that?

[Riot]

GOP Criticism Of Obama On Underwear Bomber Is Way Off-Base, Says JAG

If Republican critics of President Obama are to be believed, the administration made one of the biggest blunders in national security history when it placed the accused underwear bomber in the criminal justice system as opposed to the military alternative.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was about to spill the beans on all of al Qaeda, the argument goes, before the White House tied both hands behind its back -- unilaterally limiting the type of interrogation procedures it could use on the suspect and then providing him unnecessarily with an attorney.

It's simply not true, say legal experts, including officials who formerly served in the military tribunal system.

James Cullen, a retired brigadier general who served as a JAG officer, tells the Huffington Post that there are narrow differences between the legal and interrogation proceedings Abdulmutallab was subjected to and those which would have happened in a military commission.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the suspect would have been granted access to a lawyer if he had been put in a military system. In fact, he may have had easier access to an attorney.

"The military is not some type of Soviet show-trial kangaroo court," said Cullen. "Absolutely he would have gotten a lawyer."

Indeed, a study completed by The Century Foundation, a non-partisan research foundation, noted that under Defense Department rules, "regardless of a defendant's wishes, he will have a military lawyer appointed to him at government expense. However, he may have a regular criminal defense attorney only if he arranges and pays for it himself."

But, the next question goes: isn't there a difference -- with regard to the civilian and military systems -- in the time that can elapse between when a suspect is captured and when he or she has to be granted legal representation? Not all that much, says Cullen. Abdulmutallab, for starters, was questioned for 30 hours before requesting a lawyer. Military personnel might have had more time. But not all that much.

More broadly, even in a civil system, authorities can question a suspect without reading them their Miranda rights for a limited amount of time as long as there is "no intention to try the person" and it is "purely for intelligence purposes."

This is little different then in a military setting, where -- if the detaining authority wants to prosecute the detainee -- the impetus is on bringing legal counsel into the equation early on. "If you want to prosecute you can't foul up the process," explained Cullen.

Nonetheless, conservative circles are howling about Obama's grievous misstep, insisting that valuable information was basically left secret.

"When you indict him, you immediately read him his Miranda rights, you give him a lawyer and he stops talking," Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Sunday. "You can pursue a court action against this person later on if you want to, but right now the key thing is intelligence." There was, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said on Fox News, a "failure to get information that we might have gotten."

There is a similar mischaracterization over what can be done in terms of interrogating the detainee, claim Cullen and others. Republican critics of the president insist that Obama forfeited effective interrogation measures by declining to go the route of a military commission. But there are limitations to what even military interrogators could do with Abdulmutallab. Under the Military Commissions Act, the army field manual has come to dictate the scope of interrogations. This means that tough measures are now out of bounds even if prolonged isolation and sleep deprivation are still permissible. It has also compelled the military to adopt the techniques used by their civilian counterparts in the FBI (lest they risk lessening the chance of securing a conviction).

"In either case you are going to rub up, at some point, against a constitutional standard," said Cullen. "You have diminished the detainee's ability to participate in a defense... we know that people will have a marked deterioration of mental facilities when you combine isolation with other circumstances."

"There would be significant constraints if someone were placed immediately to the military justice system just as they are when placed into the civilian justice system," said Emily Berman, counsel in the liberty and national security project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

There is, as Berman notes, a third option that the Obama administration could have used with regards to Abdulmutallab. That would be to designate him an enemy combatant and send him either to Gitmo or a so-called black site. This would allow the administration to hold the detainee indefinitely with limitations on legal contact. But the White House is currently trying to close Gitmo and wind down indefinite detentions. And they would be essentially forfeiting a conviction by going this route.

Moreover, the message itself doesn't necessarily fit within the administration's broader goals in the fight against al Qaeda. As Stacy Sullivan, counterterrorism adviser at Human Rights Watch posits: "al Qaeda views itself as warriors... Our argument is you shouldn't elevate their status to that. They are criminals and you should treat them just like criminals."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What in the world are you talking about? Fear of how the terrorist will be tried isn't coming up high in the post-election "why I voted why I did" polls and discussion. Got anything different or more specific on that?

she's talking about your crazy belief this was a local thing that had nothing to do with Washington

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

she's talking about your crazy belief this was a local thing that had nothing to do with Washington

??? I don't believe that.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

riot, you are unbelievably stubborn! You wont even listen to the reasons stated by a Mass citizen herself! She knows a million times more than you do when it comes to the election in her own state! you never cease to amaze me!

For those interested, I'll post some websites you can go to in Ma.. Masslive.com is the internet version of the Springfield Republican newspaper. You may click on the map in the "election news" section to see how towns voted (in the 2008 presidential election, there were only 4 red towns). There are also comments after every story you might be interested in. For the record, the newspaper endorsed Coakley and overall, she won western Ma.. Springfield is the largest city in western Ma..
Wggb.com and Wwlp.com are our 2 local news stations in western Ma.. Wwlp.com has a poll running today about shelving the current healthcare package. Wggb.com has a full state map showing the red and blue votes.
Just thought these would give you a better view of the Ma. election than the Huffington Post or Rush Limbaugh.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

For those interested, I'll post some websites you can go to in Ma.. Masslive.com is the internet version of the Springfield Republican newspaper. You may click on the map in the "election news" section to see how towns voted (in the 2008 presidential election, there were only 4 red towns). There are also comments after every story you might be interested in. For the record, the newspaper endorsed Coakley and overall, she won western Ma.. Springfield is the largest city in western Ma..
Wggb.com and Wwlp.com are our 2 local news stations in western Ma.. Wwlp.com has a poll running today about shelving the current healthcare package. Wggb.com has a full state map showing the red and blue votes.
Just thought these would give you a better view of the Ma. election than the Huffington Post or Rush Limbaugh.

I haven't seen anybody here quote HuffPost or Rush on the results. How about Boston Globe? (which basically convened a panel that said she ran a bad campaign) Got any local exit polling results? (no formal exit polls were done by the big orgs, but they have been going back and telephoning people to find out why they voted as they did)

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Riot

I haven't seen anybody here quote HuffPost or Rush on the results. How about Boston Globe? (which basically convened a panel that said she ran a bad campaign) Got any local exit polling results? (no formal exit polls were done by the big orgs, but they have been going back and telephoning people to find out why they voted as they did)

The Boston Globe is well known as a liberal newspaper. For equality, try the Boston Herald.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

The Boston Globe is well known as a liberal newspaper. For equality, try the Boston Herald.

I don't know why they wasted the time convening the "experts", if that's all they could come up with.

Boston Herald front page above the fold:
- Scott Brown: A man’s man with girlie dogs
- Scott Brown is hotter than hot

[SOREHOOF]

Curt Schilling put Brown over the top. I might stop rooting for the Yankees and become a Red Sox fan! Naaa!

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't know why they wasted the time convening the "experts", if that's all they could come up with.

Boston Herald front page above the fold:
- Scott Brown: A man’s man with girlie dogs
- Scott Brown is hotter than hot

Just for the record, you left out:
Mass Dems fueled anger helping GOP's Brown

Sorry but I'm not going to play the "post a link" game with you. I think the people on here are intelligent and can do their own homework. They will come to their own decisions. Antitrust and Danzig seemed interested in hearing from the Ma. voters and I primarily posted those websites for them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Just for the record, you left out:
Mass Dems fueled anger helping GOP's Brown

Sorry but I'm not going to play the "post a link" game with you. I think the people on here are intelligent and can do their own homework. They will come to their own decisions. Antitrust and Danzig seemed interested in hearing from the Ma. voters and I primarily posted those websites for them.

Good, because I'm not playing "post a link".

What you say is funny, I posted something about what local Mass political people said, and I got creamed for it.

Seriously - as I've said, I've seen no pundits - or interviews - exit polls - nothing - talk about how a good number of independents were upset with how the terrorist was treated. Lots about the economy first, jobs second, some health.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

??? I don't believe that.

I hope Obama & Co. are with you and as ignorant as to what is happening

Some are seeing this man has no clothes on and hope may work in Kenya but not here!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good, because I'm not playing "post a link".

What you say is funny, I posted something about what local Mass political people said, and I got creamed for it.Seriously - as I've said, I've seen no pundits - or interviews - exit polls - nothing - talk about how a good number of independents were upset with how the terrorist was treated. Lots about the economy first, jobs second, some health.

so you just make shiat up and get mad for being creamed?

Take a couple yellow ones or at least bright color pills and see how that works.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

so you just make shiat up and get mad for being creamed?

Take a couple yellow ones or at least bright color pills and see how that works.

????? You most obviously don't have a clue what is being talked about, nor have you apparently even bothered to read and follow any of the threads. Come back when you are straight.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I hope Obama & Co. are with you and as ignorant as to what is happening

Some are seeing this man has no clothes on and hope may work in Kenya but not here!

Obama still thinks people are just mad at Bush. So they vote for the Republican? These people are clueless. Ignore the Town Hall meetings, ignore the Tea Parties, and please ignore the Senate race in Mass. Just keep doing what you are doing.

[Antitrust32]

so, exactly one year ago President Obama signed and executive order stating Gitmo would be closed in one year. Well... has it?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so, exactly one year ago President Obama signed and executive order stating Gitmo would be closed in one year. Well... has it?

Nope, but most are gone, and it's well on it's way.