Quantcast

Categorized | News

You Lie! Yet Another Obama Lie

In 2006, then Senator Barack Obama said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other Guantanamo Bay detainees would receive a “full military trial.”

Now, the Liar-In-Chief plans to put the detainees on trial with the full benefit of constitutional protections enjoyed by the same citizens these terrorists would kill.

This is proof positive that we can believe NOTHING that this man says. He is a serial liar.

Shameful!

About Tom White

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog.Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

4 Responses to “You Lie! Yet Another Obama Lie”

  1. Why do you suppose that so many, self-professed, “small-government conservatives” are so quick to have someone accused of a terrorist act, to be handed over to government agents, often without trial or formal charges, for torture, or rendering to other countries to be tortured and murdered?

    It seems that a consistent position would be to insist that the government be required to prove its case in a public court. This process is presumed by Americans to prevent the government from simply fabricating charges (although it clearly does not).

    At least a public trial provides a modicum of assurance that any of us can not be swept-up off of the streets at any moment, then tortured and killed, without anyone even giving notice.

    What you are advocating, hands over to government (a government that you insist is led by a, “serial liar”) the power to seize, torture and murder ANY person who is designated an enemy of the state. That is East German policy, and should NEVER be US policy.

    Think this is far fetched? The Bush Administration created a DOJ “Enemies List” that grew to over 1.2 MILLION citizens by the end of his regime. If you read the DOJ Audit 9-25 of May 2009, you will learn that the auditors admitted that over one hundred thousand names appeared on the list with either no documentation or without proper documentation.

    So far, the Obama administration has not made the list public, nor has it provided citizens any way to seek removal of their names from the enemies list, so you don’t know why you are on the list, or if you are on the list, but you will be denied employment, or harassed by law enforcement, while you remain clueless as to why.

    So why on earth would you want to have government have the power to declare that we are at war by Presidential fiat, rather than Congressional declaration, thereby giving bureaucrats expanded powers to jail, torture and murder people without having to prove their case in a public trial?

  2. Tom White says:

    You seem to confuse the use of a Military trial and a Civilian trial. The military trial can be open, but the rules are designed to prevent the media circus Obama desires. This president does not want to simply put the terrorists on trial, he wants to put Bush on trial.

    It is absolutely ludicrous to give foreign terrorists full Constitutional rights. These people were captured on foreign soil (for the most part). On a battlefield.

    Why would you deem it appropriate to put them on trial as if they robbed a liquor store?

  3. Bigvinu says:

    Tom,

    Because I believe the War on Terror was/is to DEFEND the rights we hold dear to us. If we sacrifice those to beat the enemy, we’ve essentially become our own worst enemy. The type of trial they should get should not be conditional on the location of their seizure. I believe that the frame-work of the American Justice system is good (we won’t go into all the ins and outs of why it has practical limitations). It is fair. It is just.

    We need to beat these guys the right way. It might be easy to use the scummy tactics circa-1984 (the book, not the actual year) of putting a man on trial without being able to view the evidence against, without the proper legal rights ensuring no innocent man should have to be behind bars.

    We can’t just win this war in the conventional sense. We’re fighting a war against an enemy that will say/do anything to bring about our downfall. We need to be careful and avoid a situation in which we beat them, but turned to their style of fighting as a consequence.

  4. Tom White says:

    Venu;

    I was subject to the same courts as a sailor. There is nothing unfair or improper about the Military Court System. It is NOT a kangaroo court. The left simply distrusts the military or anything connected to it.

    These people were caught on foreign soil, not in the US. They were treated and processed as Military detainees, not police suspects. They were not “read” their rights. That in and of itself is enough to allow these people to have all charges dropped. They were denied an attorney, because enemy combatants are not – or never have been – treated like an apprehended suspect in the US.

    So, if these people are tried in US court, we must either let them go because they were not Mirandized, granted an attorney, speedy trial, etc. or alter our rules to actually bring them to trial. Which I suppose is what they are planning. Which blows your theory away.

    Our laws and courts are not set up to try battlefield affairs. Military courts are.

    And then we have the second huge issue. And this is the reason Obama and the far left want the US Court trials. The defense is allowed to ask for and examine data without regard to it’s classification – Top Secret, etc. Obama wants a lot of the secrets that kept us safe to be divulged. It is his desire that this information be disclosed in order to make it a political issue against Republicans. So, the Military Brass will have to choose between allowing secrets to become public, or allowing the defendant to walk.

    Military courts can allow the information to be disclosed to trial participants, but keep the information secure.

    Now, this will not all be bad information that will be embarrassing. Most will be of a nature that discloses US capabilities to our enemies.

    Bin Laden has already benefited from the first World Trade Center bombing trial (under Clinton). The defense was forced to disclose our ability to intercept Inmarsat Satellite phone conversations in order to prove the link that led to the arrest of the suspects. This could have been released in a Military court and still remained secret.

    These phones were thought to be safe. Bin Laden threw his away and has not used one since. Leaving us in the dark.

    There were more disclosures.

    As there will be this time around.

    The proper forum is a Military Tribunal where we can divulge the information safely and still maintain a fair trial.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CommentLuv badge

    Tom White Says:

    Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

    Check out NewsMax!

    Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

    No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
    * = required field

    Submit a Blog Post!

    Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

    Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

    Google Ad

    Google Ad

    Follow Us Anywhere!

    Google Ad

    Archives

    Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
    %d bloggers like this: