"But insisting on it later in the calm of a prison camp betrays only a failure of perspective."

bHo is making it up as he goes along. That indicates not a failure of perspective, but a total lack of ANY perspective. Long term success is not built on decisions made for immediate and short-term gains. The "Beware of Thin Ice" sign doesn't show up on his Blackberry.

These same zealous proponents of 'non-torture' laws, to the point where sleep deprivation, no tv, no air condioning, etc. comprise torture, have no problem at all turning a blind eye when someone is euthanized, aborted, or for that matter, hauled before a HRC hearing in the flimsiest of excuses.

However, dare to question an illegal combatant without his lawyer or his mother present, and all hell breaks loose.

Hearing of the less than coddling nature of some of the regimes to which these prisoners may be deported to it wouldn't surprise me if they plead not be sent back. Maybe we'll see some 'sit ins'.

Sunny Cuba may not be such a bad deal after all!

The liberal mind -- now fully restored to power in the United States -- is in love with symbolic gestures. It is not much enamoured of the hard prudential reasoning that is involved in choosing between two or more evils. The mystery, to me, is the consistency with which it chooses to ignore the greater evil, in order to address the lesser.

It's a mystery worthy of study/investigation.

It's apparently a human failure, this behavior of Leftists.

Leftists are failing to be properly human, to use logic, reason, respect ethics, morality and to understand that there exists the polarities of good/evil, right/wrong... For some reason they choose to ignore inconvenient truth and fabricate alternate, and false, ones to effect false comfort for themselves. And the longer they're like this, the more it will take to make them snap out of it and open their eyes and minds to reality. Some are so far gone that not even 9/11 could make them snap out of their state of dissociation, delusionality and denial.

I'm astonished at how Leftists apparently either are unaware of so many facts, or are in denial of them. This is how they have come to think that Israel is always bad and guilty of wrongdoing and "Palestine" is always innocent and good. Such ignorance, such denial, such prejudice... it astonishes me to no end.

"However, dare to question an illegal combatant without his lawyer or his mother present, and all hell breaks loose."

Most constitutional democracies believe that the appropriate attitude to take is "Innocent until proven guilty", not "Guilty until proven innocent". If the illegal combatants are guilty, the presence of their mother or lawyer is not going to change much.

It really boils down to how much respect you have for your own constitution. There is a right way to do things, and then there is a pragmatic way to do things. The right way is dictated by the Constitution, the pragmatic way is dictated by reality. Obama's chosen the Constitutional way. Either which way, it isn't going to change much.

On a separate note, shocking though it may be to some of you, the US military is actually AGAINST the use of torture. If you use these methods, you open yourself to similar methods if your troops are caught. If an American soldier ever falls into the hands of a foreign nation, the last thing the military wants is for the poor fellow to go through the same methods attributed to the US in Guantanamo. The anti-torture conventions are based on all nations following them - if you violate them, you won't get sympathy if someone else violates them against you.

Obama knows that. So does the US military.

Canadian Sentinel, you stole these particular words of David Warren's right out of my mouse!!

Not half an hour ago, I read this astute article, grateful, not for the first time, for Mr. Warren's hyper-articulateness. Moonbats seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. They're happy to only pee around the intentionally small perimetre they want to inhabit and comment on -- and to ignore the wolves that are closing in.

I too am at a loss in the face of the socialist thought process:

-It is a symbollic victory if we free the prisoners in GB yet we ignore the rights of their future victims.

-We support vacuum fluorescent bulbs because they use less energy even though we cannot read by their light, they emit dangerous uv rays, and require expensive environmental cleanup if broken.
We require ethanol in our fuel even though the resultant high fuel prices may starve millions.

-We condemn the Bush administration for Iraq even though he has deposed a vicious dictator who tortured and killed hundreds of thousands and in the process 40 or 50 million people have a chance for freedom.

My congratulations to David Warren for the column. When he is good Mr. Warren is amongst our very best writers.

Posted by: kandle at January 25, 2009 12:02 PM

"If you use these methods, you open yourself to similar methods if your troops are caught. If an American soldier ever falls into the hands of a foreign nation, the last thing the military wants is for the poor fellow to go through the same methods attributed to the US in Guantanamo. The anti-torture conventions are based on all nations following them - if you violate them, you won't get sympathy if someone else violates them against you."

John McCain is the poster child for how the North Vietnamese followed the Geneva Conventions. The muslim jihadists simply cut off heads while alive, after prolonged torture. The North Koreans used torture with pleasure. The Nazis and Japanese, in WWII, simply used execution after torture, in numerous instances. These cases are similar to "the same methods attributed to the US in Guantanamo" in what way.

That is not a rhetorical question. I am curious as to how the "Guantanamo" methods compare to what other nations or terrorists have ACTUALLY done, not MIGHT do.

A very well written article, factual and to the point.

in 'unholy alliance' horowitz goes some distance in parsing the 'progressive' thinking processes....
but one is STILL left goggle eyed...stupefied at their short term effectively suicidal 'reasoning'

speaking for myself...as anodyne....i often refer to Winston Churchill's definition of a Liberal...it is as true today as it was 100 years ago...

"much of modern Liberalism is after the ideology of a narcissistic teen-aged(pacem diana west)sensibility that chafes at the limits reality places on the utopian idealism and inflated expectations typical of most left leaning thought."

knowing all this i still regard them as traitors worthy of the strictest severest surveillance and sequestration.

The treatment of prisoners has been a problem since the start of our war against the Islamists. There are three classes of people under the Geneva conventions. Soldiers, non combatants and illegal combatants. Soldiers and non combatants are subject to protection under the convention. If you capture an enemy soldier you cannot put him on trial because he hasn't done anything wrong, but you can't put him in prison and interrogate him either. You can, however detain him until the end of hostilities.

illegal combatants have no protection and if you don't take them prisoner you have done nothing wrong. The problem is, if you catch terrorists, but they aren't in the act of committing an act, how do you treat them? We are in an area that law does not cover, so to pretend that we are violating their rights is just wrong.

The best solution would be to have declared them POWs and detained them until the end of the conflict, which is probably forever, the down side of that is you can't use them to gather intelligence.

One thing that should be done is to state that the legal protection that the constitution defines only protect citizens, not everyone on the planet, but al least here in Canada, we have blurred that line and we call what are really citizen rights, human rights, which they may or may not be , but if they are we are the only people on the planet who look at them as such.

I say kill them all and let God sort it out, its not like they would hate us any more if we did that, and they might actually have more respect for us if we did.

Sentinel said:
"It's apparently a human failure, this behavior of Leftists."

Evidence? But, remember it's anecdotal.
...-

"Woman bites driver over non-hybrid bus

Going green was a cause she could really sink her teeth into.

The frantic passenger who bit a veteran driver's arm was upset that his bus wasn't a hybrid, he said Thursday.

"She came on the bus, and she said she waited more than an hour for a hybrid," said MTA driver Peter Williams, 42. "I said, 'I'm not in control of what bus is assigned to me.'"

Williams, a dad of two who is in the Navy Reserves, plans to take a little time off after Wednesday's bizarre attack on an uptown M104 bus.

The woman, Shelia Bolar, 49, started hollering at Williams soon after she boarded the Broadway bus on the upper West Side.

When her rant was done, she she grabbed his arm."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2171395/posts

‘…shocking though it may be to some of you, the US military is actually AGAINST the use of torture. If you use these methods, you open yourself to similar methods if your troops are caught. If an American soldier ever falls into the hands of a foreign nation, the last thing the military wants is for the poor fellow to go through the same methods attributed to the US in Guantanamo. The anti-torture conventions are based on all nations following them…’

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not nations. If you were to put their prisoners up at the Banff Springs and give them manicures you can bet that they would still torture their Western prisoners much worse than anything that goes on at Guantanamo. To believe otherwise is being naive.

As to us being ‘shocked’. Stick to your argument and don’t put words in our mouths.

This has been another edition of Sour Grapes from Sore Losers here at SDA.

I always like reading David Warren.
The people who want to close Guantanimo and want the inmates to be given constitutional rights are ok with suspending trials for a length of time (120 days)? So no swift justice.
My opinion is that Obama has created a good panic situation for some bureaucrats. They have a year to figure out what to do with these people. They are not just ordinary folks in a refugee camp. David does point out the real situation with respect to the Geneva convention,which I am sure most of the outraged people are not aware of.
One thing that is a change here: Obama has overturned a long standing policy of government by applying a deadline to when a problem will be solved. Can we use that on some other govenment departments? If the problem is not solved in a certain time, shut down the program.

Good!
Now those on the front line will fel free to put a bullet in the knees of their wouldbe prisoners, wishing them well in their new lives: as cripples in Afghanistan...have a nice life!

Those lefty plans, never quite thought out to their possible conclusions.....

Posted by: real at January 25, 2009 12:43 PM

"This has been another edition of Sour Grapes from Sore Losers here at SDA."

What would be your reaction if the first thing a freed jihadist did was to, all odds being astronomical, run into you and bust a cap in YOUR a$$. The results would be so... well...em, ah, uh... real.

Real,

No one is childishly lamenting the election like you leftist did for the entire eight years of Mr. Bush.

What is being discussed here is the fear we are all in at the stupidity and incompetence with which our security is going to be handled for the next four.

The Obama is a two dimensional cardboard cutout with no real job experience of any kind. He has no military experience, his friends all hate America and he is an obvious pacifist.

This is not about sour grapes. But you see things through jejune eyes and therefore your conclusions are predictable.

Why not just say what you want to say which would be something like ...

na nana na na!

Real dropped the fake Arab typing accent again , what gives?

Posted by: cal2 at January 25, 2009 1:17 PM

"Real dropped the fake Arab typing accent again , what gives?"

Are you really asking which is the real real? Really?

The real real is that one who really believes that the real reality is one that a real lib could really ...

Need. More. Coffee. My. Brain. Hurts.

Out of this liberal stupidity there may yet come some good. As I mentioned here ages ago if these prisoners were released there probably would not be a lot captured from that point on. The only prisoners captured would be by coalition forces, read Afghan troops, the rest would be shot on the battlefield.

Damn liberals won the debate and the moral high ground again, we on the other hand get to shoot the bastards from here on in or turn them over to the Afghans to be tortured and live in horrid conditions. If my scenario is correct, I say, not a bad trade off.

How many prisoners have Canadian troops “captured” and to date still have under their control?

Has it actually been established that toture has been employed by US interogators?

Admittedly, I haven't been following things closely. But, as I understand it, there have never been any alegations of electric-wire-brush/appendage-removing/flogging-style beatings. Even at Abhu-Gharib, it was all about putting womens' underwear on the heads of the inmates, posing them in humiliating positions, and threatening them with torture.

Then, it seemed, that water-boarding and sleep deprivation were admitted to by the administration, there was about a week of debate about whether or not those things constituted torture, and then the leftists and media magically decided that they were.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

There's no chance that all the detainees are going to be set free. They will have to be moved somewhere.

Where?

The executive order is an empty, self-congratulatory, selfish gesture. It's all about him.

simple solution for terrorist exit out of gitmo,one terrorist , one bullet

seeing as past guests of gitmo are now poster children on terrorist web sites, simple exicussion is a honest guarantee that innocent lives will be saved

From Fox News.there is a website keeping track of Obama's 510 campaign promises.Just for fun,check out www.politifact.com

Agent Smith,

"As to us being ‘shocked’. Stick to your argument and don’t put words in our mouths."

What makes you think my post was addressed to you specifically.I pointedly said it only applied to "some of you".

"The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not nations. If you were to put their prisoners up at the Banff Springs and give them manicures you can bet that they would still torture their Western prisoners much worse than anything that goes on at Guantanamo. To believe otherwise is being naive."

The US is not just concerned about Taliban and Al Qaeda. Either you are deliberately obfuscating the issue by limiting it to Taliban/Al Qaeda, or you simply know no better.

Let me spell it out in simple words. If a US military person is taking prisoner by Iran/Syria/North Korea/China (remember that little incident early in the first Bush presidency), then those nations can torture US military personnel using the same methods used by US military personnel. No nation other than the US and some of its Canadian fans, care about the classification the US uses to detain these guys. At the end of the day, they are citizens of some nation and the US military is torturing them.

Here, I will leave you with words taken directly from JAG memo dated Jan 5 2003. If you don't know what JAG is, go look it up yourself.

"Treating the detainees inconsistently with the convention arguably 'lowers the bar' for the treatment of US POW's in future conflicts."

And, more explicitly, in a memo dated 27Feb 2003:

"We nonetheless recommend that the Working Group product accurately represent the services' concerns that the authorization of aggressive counter-resistance techniques by servicemembers will adversely affect treatment of US servicemembers by captors."

"In addition, consideration should be given to whether implementation of such techniques is likely to result in adverse impacts for DoD personnel who are captured or detained, including possible perceptions by other nations that the US is lowering standards related to the treatment of prisoners and other detainees, generally"

I can go on, but you get the gist.

They don't mention Taliban/Al Qaeda. They mention nations - ALL nations. Comprendez?

It never ceases to amaze me that leftists like 'real' continually agitate for a political system that would surely illiminate his ilk first.

Awww cummon Kate have some patience eh! He's still learning "the craft"...even Harry Potter didn't hit his stride til the 3rd movie.

In honor of Chairman O's first media debacle, I'm going to light up a Macanudo Maduro, a la Rush.

*
well, he sure talks pretty... but apparently, the new american president...
is just as megalomaniacal & bloodthirsty as the last guy...

*

"Let me spell it out in simple words. If a US military person is taking prisoner by Iran/Syria/North Korea/China (remember that little incident early in the first Bush presidency), then those nations can torture US military personnel using the same methods used by US military personnel. No nation other than the US and some of its Canadian fans, care about the classification the US uses to detain these guys. At the end of the day, they are citizens of some nation and the US military is torturing them."

Yours (and most of the left's) confusion stems from the fact that you don't understand the Geneva Conventions. This is a little strange since an earlier poster summed it up pretty well. Your hypothetical with Iran/China/etc is ridiculous because any US soldier captured would be a lawful combatant (ie wearing a uniform and obviously distinguishable from a civilian). The whole point of the Geneva conventions is to separate soldiers from civilians, and the reward for doing that is that captured soldiers are required to be treated under humane conditions. Terrorists are the EXACT opposite of the type of people that the Geneva conventions seek to protect. They purposely disguise themselves as civilians for the very purpose of elevating civilian casualties (often to their own people!). So if China, etc. wanted to know how to deal with US prisoners they would have to look at how the US deals with lawful combatants - by following the rules of war set forth in the Geneva conventions.

This is all fairly moot however because, since the fall of the USSR, anyone the US is likely to fight against is not likely to ever follow the Geneva conventions regardless of what they state.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal and rather believe that governments should never be allowed to detain people without trial. Unless we stand up for our convictions on liberty and freedom we become the people we are fighting. Let the bastards go.

Obama vs Limbaugh? It's funny to see the great unifier pointing his finger.

I look forward to more of this.

If some of them are released, I wonder if they can implant GPS devices into their bodies (either without their knowledge, or in a way that cannot be neutralized), as this might lead them to interesting locations in the terrorist sponsoring countries.

I've felt for some while now that they should have divided the Gitmo herd into two types, the hard core and major figures who should continue to face life imprisonment if not execution, kept alive only for information of value; and as for the rest, the lower level types as determined after interrogation, they should have been dispersed with the GPS devices if possible, to cut down on the negative publicity.

My point is that you want to punish the more effectual terrorists, whereas the lower grade foot soldiers are actually hurting us more by being at Gitmo than they could in any other way. As another poster suggests, if released, many would go on to die on the battlefield. Others might just take themselves out of the battle having had time to consider the whole business.

There does sometimes come a period near the end of a terrorist campaign when the momentum is dwindling, as with the IRA, when it's necessary to proceed with great restraint, in order to allow moderation to spread. I don't think we are anywhere near that point in this campaign, but if they take a liberal stance and terrorism continues at the same intensity, then some liberal voters will draw the appropriate conclusions and so there is always that silver lining to consider. Right now, Bush and Cheney seem to be "wrong" to many because alternative theories have yet to be tested in practice. When they are, it will be like global warming all over again, the liberal theory only looks good before counter-evidence appears. Then it starts to look very suspect.

I really like Obama. He's certainly inspiring. I think he's going to see more criticism from the Left than the Right. He's smart, and when the Left sees that he's not all they hoped for, they're going to be disappointed. I see him as more Centre, maybe Centre-Right, which is closer to my position.

I'm going to wait and see what he actually does before I start up with the wholesale attacks or praise.

Guantanamo was very damaging to the American rep worldwide - rightly or wrongly. As a symbolic gesture, closing it is huge for his credibility and America's popularity and influence. I'm with him on this one.

I don't think terrorists are a catch and release type of game. Gitmo was the best solution possible. They have some international rights but all of that has to be sorted out. Some were out in a month and some are monsters and should never be free. Some previous releasees have returned to their errant ways sometimes quite successfully. Think of what the monsters would do. Maybe turn them over to the country they were picked up from and they can do as they please. Khadr can swim back.

Don Uthole:

I am also sympathetic to the idea that civilized societies must, at all times, be better than the barbarians they must constantly be on guard against. And I believe in the idea of a fair speedy trial for any who are accused.

But the problem here is that there simply aren't any laws - either in the US or under the UN - under which the Guantanamo detainees can face a trial.

All laws are based on the idea that the accused was acting as a citizen of some country. When that person is a civilian committing a crime in a foreign country - the laws of that foreign nation prevail. When partaking in a military engagement, all international laws (such as the Geneva Convention that liberals like to whine about) assume that the combatant was acting as a soldier.

This means that he is expected to be wearing the uniform from one of the branches of the military of his "master" country. He'll have a rank and serial number, a chain of command, and a current set of orders that he was under at the time of the engagement. Most importantly, the military force he is fighting for should also have prisoner of war camps ready for the proper housing of American POWs that might be taken as the result of one of these engagements.

Of course, all of this is laughable. These people do not have a country under whose orders they were acting...and they would certainly never reciprocate and keep American POWs in any way...they'd just behead them and post the footage on the Internet.

That's why I laugh every time I hear about lefties petitioning the Canadian government for the "return" of Khadr. Canada didn't send him there, he wasn't under orders from the Canadian military. Thus, he certainly isn't a "soldier" - let alone a child soldier. Canada isn't asking for his "return" because he wasn't "sent to" (or captured and taken to) the battlefield on which he chose to be part of an engagement with US forces.

Notice how no other countries are asking for the return of the Guantanamo prisoners who might be their citizens. It's because they want it to be clear that these people have been essentially disowned by their countries of citizenship.

I will grant you that, maybe, the US should move to create some new sort of classification for combatants of this type so that we can at least come up with a way to have them properly tried. But, how could this possibly be done without a new UN charter - or at least some sort of international agreement? And how many years would that take? And do you really think a consensus could ever be arrived at among all countries of the world?

International laws governing the handling of REAL soldiers are based on the premise that combatants are not out in the field because they want to be there. Rather, it is presumed that they are just people who want to be home with their families but are on the battlefield because they are under orders...and they are just waiting for the word to come down that says, "Lay down your weapons - we're not at war anymore."

Because those at Gitmo are not these types of people, they are not soldiers...and there are no laws available to deal with them.

Real
are you not supposed to be protesting somewhere about the lack of readily available halal?
Peter..I was wondering the same thing,a well placed tracking device and a couple of drones later and voila,no more need for Gitmo.The problem is,where to place them where they won't be discovered,hmmmm,oh,I know,under their soap,they'll never find them there.

Jimbo, closing Gitmo without a plan—see Obama's embarrassing*, weak-kneed, live performance about the detainees last week—is style over substance, which seems to be about par for the course for this man.

* Obama kept looking over his shoulder to ask Greg Craig, his counsel, what was supposed to be happening:

OBAMA: We will be... uhhh.... ummm.... Is there a separate executive order, Greg, with respect to how we're going to dispose of the detainees? Is that it, eh, uh, what we're doing?

CRAIG: We'll set up a process!

OBAMA: We will be, uh, setting up a process whereby this is going to be taking place.

and

OBAMA: What we're doing here is to set up a special interagency task force on detainee disposition . . . So this task force is going to provide us with, uh, a series of recommendations on, uh, that. Is that correct, Greg?

CRAIG: That's right. And detainee policy going forward.

OBAMA: And detainee policy going forward so that we don't find ourselves in these kinds of situations, uh, in the future.

CRAIG: And there is clear guidance for the military as well.

OBAMA: And that we are providing clear guidance to our military in terms of having to do with it. [Now, isn’t that crystal clear and well expressed?]

This Charlie McCarthy routine, because Obama doesn’t know what his plan is, is not very encouraging—to say the least. Why would he get any credit at all for such a performance?

Frankly, it's only in the small minds of bleeding heart lefties, who don't have a clue about the Geneva Convention, human nature, or the survival (what's supposed to be an) instinct, that Gitmo has damaged the USA's reputation. And these are the same moral and intellectual pygmies who are giving Obama kudos for not knowing what the h*ll he's doing.

Typical, altogether typical . . .

Great post, bryceman. Thanks.

Re Khadr, here's a great, recent quote from PMSH: "My understanding of international law is, to be a child soldier, you have to be in an army"! He's got that right.

How about the Canadians, who want Khadr back, take turns letting him stay at their place?

No prisoners, no problem.

Know what i mean?

This is going to drive the leftoids up here around the bend;

Obama intends to make the Bush tax cuts for individuals permanent.

EBD:

The executive order is an empty, self-congratulatory, selfish gesture. It's all about him.

Exactly. Its that old narcissistic messianic impulse at work. All the glory must go to Obama. No matter the consequences to America or individuals. Including the families of 9/11. History only began last week don't yeah know. BHO year 0.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at January 25, 2009 6:22 PM

"History only began last week don't yeah know. BHO year 0."

So now all measure of history will be "in the years before BHO" (BBHO), "in the years of BHO" (OBHO) and "in the years after BHO (ABHO)?

Of course the commonality is that he be a HO. Where's Don Imus when you really need him?

Quote Posted by: lookout at January 25, 2009 4:45 PM
"Frankly, it's only in the small minds of bleeding heart lefties, who don't have a clue about the Geneva Convention, human nature, or the survival (what's supposed to be an) instinct, that Gitmo has damaged the USA's reputation. And these are the same moral and intellectual pygmies who are giving Obama kudos for not knowing what the h*ll he's doing.

Typical, altogether typical . . . "

Apparently most of the world are "small minded", "bleeding heart lefties" or "intellectual pygmies", because just about anyone I know of, including most world leaders, believes Gitmo has damaged the USA's reputation, whether they agree with the policy or not. Regardless whether you disagree with his policies, do you seriously believe Obama is a "moral and intellectual pygmy"? Or that you know the Geneva Convention better than he does - that he doesn't have a clue about it? Or that people are giving him kudos for not knowing what he's doing?

Or is this just more utterly empty rhetoric well beneath standards of any reasonable debate - an insult to the many intelligent posters on this forum who I'm sure would rather not be associated with those kinds of assertions?

Or maybe it's you. Typical.

I know you're not an idiot, or a fool, but this kind of post makes you seem like it, and reflects poorly on those who might otherwise share your views.

jimbo

the only reason the USA's reputation has been damaged by gitmo is because "Apparently most of the world are "small minded", "bleeding heart lefties" or "intellectual pygmies",

yes that's correct. do you think that Rwanda happened because of "intellect", or that "most" UN resolutions are directed at Israel because of "large minds"

maybe Lookout erred in forgetting to mention liars

Jimbo, I appreciate your overall civility.

I repeat that I think bleeding heart lefties are moral and intellectual pygmies—usually brainwashed too. If that's most of the world, so be it. That doesn't mean, de facto, that I'm wrong. (And, if Obama’s a bleeding heart liberal, which he seems to be, I guess he’s included. Did you read the transcript I included? Obama doesn’t seem very clued in, does he?)

Bleeding heart liberals are dangerous: civilization hangs in the balance and they're worried about the sensibilities and comforts of our barbarian enemies—who both slaughter us when they can and give not a fig for our rights—rather than protecting our lives and freedoms.

And, I repeat, the Geneva Convention does NOT include the Gitmo inmates. What do you, Jimbo, think should happen to them when Gitmo’s closed? As you may know, some of the released detainees have returned to their terrorist cells to kill again.

(And how what I say reflects poorly on those who share my views is, indeed, empty rhetoric.)

Thanks, GYM, good one.

Yes, I'll add that, in my experience, bleeding heart liberals are usually liars too!

Jimbo wrote: He's smart, and when the Left sees that he's not all they hoped for, they're going to be disappointed.

Sure, is that with or without the teleprompter.

I think Bush will get the last laugh. He obviously knew the deal and was barely able to contain the HUGE financial bubble that is now starting the collapse of the financial system as we know it.

Bush allowed the real estate bubble to increase in size instead of allowing a recession after the dot.com bubble bust. This has allowed the US to get themselves into debt to the tune of about $53 Trillion dollars. Their annual GDP is only about $8 Trillion. Can you say insolvency??

Bush made it out by the skin of his teeth and left the mess with some guy who hasn't a clue what he is doing.

Can you guess the outcome?

But as Canadians, we aren't in much better shape. Our debt is about 70% of our GDP, and Harper is about to increase that with his wild spending ideas in order to keep his job.

The next 10 years will be nothing like we have ever experienced before ... of that I am absolutely sure.

What is it with Obamba and Abraham Lincoln????

Abe Lincoln would never have accepted him in the Whitehouse other than serving him tea, and as a matter of fact would most probably have him deported to Liberia.

Very typical leftist rewritting of history me thinks.

"Yours (and most of the left's) confusion stems from the fact that you don't understand the Geneva Conventions."

My confusion? I believe the same confusion extends to the JAG, which, incidentally, is not a left wing organization. The JAG memos were written by military personnel of flag-ranking - Brigadier Generals, Rear Admirals and the like. I suspect they know a thing or two about the Geneva conventions. I also know a thing or two about it. And let me assure you - very few nations accept the American tags in this case. Including China. Hell, even the British dragged their boys out of there as soon as they could.

"This is all fairly moot however because, since the fall of the USSR, anyone the US is likely to fight against is not likely to ever follow the Geneva conventions regardless of what they state."

Yeah, just ask the British troops were arrested by the Iranians for "trespassing" Iranian waters. Guess how they were treated.

If I represent Leftist confusion, you represent Rightwing confusion. Nobody cares about what these jokers are called - all they care about is about the methods used to get information. If America can use certain methods to get information from others, then so can they use the same methods to get information from American troops. Its pretty straightforward.

bryceman,

"But the problem here is that there simply aren't any laws - either in the US or under the UN - under which the Guantanamo detainees can face a trial."

That made me laugh. Laws can be made by elected representatives. America has elected representatives. What exactly is the issue here? Instead the detainees are just left in limbo, with nobody achieving anything, and the "civilization" and "freedoms" we claim to protect, being systematically battered.

"Notice how no other countries are asking for the return of the Guantanamo prisoners who might be their citizens."

Not true. The British started the trend. China is currently demanding that its citizens be sent home. Please don't project inaccurate information as fact. If you don't know or are too lazy to do research, ask.

lookout

"I repeat that I think bleeding heart lefties are moral and intellectual pygmies—usually brainwashed too."

Talk about open-minded intelligent statements. I suppose you are one of the few people in the world with the brains and intellect that at least half of America does not possess. Humility be damned. Hey, why don't you run for president. With your brains and intellect, you ought to be a shoo-in.

"And, I repeat, the Geneva Convention does NOT include the Gitmo inmates."

Hitting the target and missing the point. It doesn't matter what they are classified as. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, there are certain methods that can and cannot be used to extrat information. If the US military uses them on the basis of national security, then other nations will feel that they can justify treating US troops in the same manner in the name of national security.

The classifications are pointless for the rest of the world. They are watching how America treats its enemies. And senior American military figures feel that they may use the same methods against American troops.

Why is it so hard to understand that the classifications serve no useful or practical purpose. They are great for debates such as these, but beyond that, they are pointless.

Re: Jimbo wrote: He's smart, and when the Left sees that he's not all they hoped for, they're going to be disappointed.

Sure, is that with or without the teleprompter.

Posted by: A Storm is coming at January 25, 2009 9:16 PM

Either way. The guy is as sharp as a tack. Whether he said "um" is of no consequence. What he did is of great consequence. I'm focussing on the important things, and tuning out the meaningless.

There's no shortage of "bleeding heart lefties" out there, unfortunately (and I don't characterize Obama that way), but it's not just them that understand that the ongoing situation at Guantanamo is continuing to damage the USA's reputation at home and abroad and diminishes their influence in some important arenas. The ultra-slow pace of the trials is unacceptible.

I feel for the victims of 9/11, the US Cole, etc, but there's nothing that could really assuage the pain they feel, and there is no real justice for them. And as EBD pointed out, the "enemy combatants" will have to go somewhere. Personally, I have no sympathy for them, and I hope there is some justice.

And regarding Obama and Lincoln, they do both belong to a pretty exclusive group of 44. It's an interesting question though.

It's obvious Obama recognizes Lincoln's great achievements, particularly involving race, and while you do have a point re: the treatment of Blacks in that day's Whitehouse, it's easy to forget the context of the period. For example, if we imagine Obama was indeed around in the Whitehouse during that same time, is he still a charismatic well-spoken highly educated man worth millions?

kandle: Level 1 out of 4--grade 6 level.

Let me see if I understand Obama correctly. It is not OK to imprison or torture psychopathic terrorists bent on killing Americans, but it is OK to abort American babies by any means possible, including partial birth abortion which is torturing a virtually 100% innocent human being to the point of death. Most of the abortions performed in the USA are for black or Latino women. The ones Margret Sanger (founder Planned Parenthood)referred to as the "weeds of society that must be pulled" so what does that make the terrorists - garden flowers that must be saved. Utterly twisted thinking in my opinion.

lookout,

That explains so much. You are a middle school teacher?

Well I guess I can understand the bitterness aimed at people you concieve as having an "inferior" intelligence. Those kids don't pay much attention, and they somehow always succeed at outwitting their intellectually superior teachers with inane pranks. Bet you've fallen to a few.

There is a very simple rule in life. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

It's a pity you can't put your money where your mouth is.

Have fun at school tomorrow.

Reopen Alcatraz - give them some seeds and a shovel a rake.

Posted by: Jimbo at January 25, 2009 10:22 PM>

“It's obvious Obama recognizes Lincoln's great achievements, particularly involving race”

I suppose that’s one theory……..

I find this an extremely curious oddity – Why would the first black president of the USA pick an obvious black “bigot” who was whole heartedly interested in repatriating the newly freed slaves in Africa (Liberia)?

Let’s hear what old Ab really had to say about blacks in America

Speech at Columbus, Ohio, September 16, 1859

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position, the negro should be denied everything.”

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=81&subjectID=2

Any additional ideas other than pandering to America’s historical ignorance or admiring the man's (Lincolns) racial achievements?

I also find the "second" swearing in of Obamba a little odd, any conspiracy theories?

Knight 99

It's notable that you ascribe Obama the motive of 'pandering to historical ignorance' in his mentions of Lincoln, since you exhibit all the tendencies of that particular malady.

Lincoln received several distinguished black visitors at his White House, including Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, who remarked that Lincoln showed the same kindness and generosity to the 'coloured people' as he did to the whites.

There is no record of Lincoln asking them to 'serve him tea'.

In Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley he notes that ending slavery was not his guiding mission but rather to preserve the union; if he could have preserved it without freeing the slaves he would have done so.

But he notes at the end of the letter that this is his official position. He states that his personal position is that all men everywhere should be free.

Pardon me from injecting facts into the conversation. I realize they are as Kryptonite to your ideology.

Posted by: real at January 26, 2009 12:16 AM >

"Pardon me from injecting facts into the conversation"

Not at all, you've supported mine, thank you.

It’s nice to see that you’ve used some facts for a change…………:)

Posted by: Knight 99 at January 25, 2009 11:34 PM
"Posted by: Jimbo at January 25, 2009 10:22 PM>

“It's obvious Obama recognizes Lincoln's great achievements, particularly involving race”

Knight 99 - "I suppose that’s one theory……..any additional ideas other than pandering to America’s historical ignorance or admiring the man's (Lincolns) racial achievements?

I also find the "second" swearing in of Obamba a little odd, any conspiracy theories?"

Rather than maybe hinting at some possible conspiracy theory why don't you actually state what you are getting at? Are you suggesting his use of the Lincoln bible and the second swearing in is a part of some conspiracy, or not? Conspiring with who, to do what?

Sorry, I thought it said

"Confronted with Elvis".

Knight 99

The fact that Lincoln welcomed black people into the White House with kindness and generosity "supports" your statement that the only way he'd let Obama in there would to be to have him serve tea?

The fact that Lincoln's personal desire was to see all men everywhere free "supports" your assertion that Lincoln was a bigot?

Oh, yes, I understand now. In Backwards Cloud-Cuckoo Land your statements are supported by the facts!

Posted by: real at January 26, 2009 4:57 PM>

“The fact that Lincoln welcomed black people into the White House with kindness and generosity "supports" your statement that the only way he'd let Obama in there would to be to have him serve tea?”

No, your statement supports mine in several ways; I’ll actually take a little time out and explain it to you.

Here was your first statement.

#1) “Lincoln received several distinguished black visitors at his White House, including Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth,”

If YOU knew your history “lefty dude” you would know that Sojourner Truth was refused admittance to the Whitehouse, but later was able to meet Lincoln there.

Frederick Douglass – had to bolt past two sets of guards “who were going to remove him on a plank” to eventually get through and catch Lincoln unaware, who graciously accepted him and who was polite but blew him off.

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=38&subjectID=2

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=671&subjectID=2

If you honestly believe that based on these reports Lincoln embraced black people you are truly not worth debating.
You (real) then state in support of my argument (no mention of my direct bigoted quotes by Lincoln himself of course)
#2)”In Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley he notes that ending slavery was not his guiding mission but rather to preserve the union; if he could have preserved it without freeing the slaves he would have done so.”

You “real” seem to live in a bit of a fantasy world of wishing. You wish Lincoln was not a racist, so you attempt to twist history with an attempt to make it not so. I suppose you are in good company, because it seems that millions of your ilk conducts the same bastardization of the truth. A real patriot of the cause of mankind, hide what doesn’t feel good and it’ll all go away.
Even the grand wizard of the kkk has probably had dinner with a black man in his lifetime.

You haven’t impressed anyone.

Posted by: Jimbo at January 26, 2009 8:29 AM>

“Rather than maybe hinting at some possible conspiracy theory………”

I wasn’t trying to be cryptic, I honesty feel it was an oddity and was wondering if there was any conspiracy theories.

I find it odd that the so called “perfect ¾ billion dollar” presidential campaign or “stage show” would mess up the actual inaugural swearing in before millions then have a second sacred oath sworn in later in relative privacy. That’s all.

Gotcha.

It was odd, but I doubt anything other than a screw up. I'm sure somebody, somewhere has read a lot more into it.

Knight 99

You claimed Obama would only have been allowed to interact with Lincoln as a servant because of the colour of his skin.

I cited two examples where black people met with Lincoln not in subservient positions but as equals - or at least as equal as the times would permit.

Therefore, your statement was proven incorrect and baseless.

I can't imagine why you would then include links that undermine rather than bolster your dishonest statements. In the case of Douglass, Lincoln said he valued his opinion on his Inaugural address more than any other. In the case of Truth and Douglass, they were initially kept away fom Lincoln by guards and underlings rather than by Lincoln himself. Both spoke of the warm acceptance of Lincoln's personal attitude towards them - which is what we're discussing here.

As far as Lincoln's racism is concerned, I am sure you will agree that it is foolhardy to judge one generation's morals by the standards of another. To a degree, everyone in Lincoln's time was racist by the standards of 2009, and in the statement you cited we see Lincoln positing that as long as one or the other race would have to be in the superior position, he was in favour of the white man retaining that position.

He wasn't an abolitionist; he was a moderate. In his time he took hs stand against slavery primarily to save ithe union. Yet he also stated that he 'hated' slavery and said he believed all men should be free. To claim he was 'racist' is superfluous because that claim could be made about virtually everyone of his time - by the standards of 2009.

By the standards of his own time, however, he was considerably more progressive than many of his countrymen - as shown in his personal acceptance of Douglass, Truth, and others, and in his signing the Emancipation Proclamation - which was done to preserve the union, but which would not have been done if he had the personal animus to black people that you claim - and for which he paid the ultimate price.

Knight 99

In terms of Obama's oath, you seem a little confused.

The "mess up" was on the part of Roberts. He stated that "I...swear to execute the office of the President...faithully..." when the "faithfully" should have appeared before the "execute". Obama paused to let Roberts correct himself - that's where the flub was.

Roberts also, strangely, said "the President TO the United States" the first time around as well.

Sorry; facts again.

Posted by: real at January 26, 2009 11:08 PM>

“I can't imagine why you would then include links that undermine rather than bolster your dishonest statements”

That’s because I didn’t. I basically knew you would get your panties in a bunch thinking you had an argument with the articles and then miss the whole point entirely. So again I proved a point. Two historical black people visiting the whitehouse once each “under less than regal” circumstances does not make a pro black presidential administration, regardless with how you would wish it were so. At best it was baby kissing. Why would you not take the time if interested to reasearce more speeches and debates by Abraham Lincoln to hear what he thought in his own words? Fear I would suspect.

“As far as Lincoln's racism is concerned, I am sure you will agree that it is foolhardy to judge one generation's morals by the standards of another”

Wow I’m glad to know that since Lincoln is a favored bigot by the left in 2008 we can now dismiss racism as “generational morals”. That’s great “real” because that’s exactly what I’ve been saying about the whole “white guilt” phenomena with black slavery in the early southern US. Hence there is no moral obligation to blacks in America and no reason for affirmative action. You have just vouched for my rational yet again.

“In his time he took his stand against slavery primarily to save ithe union”

Which is oddly enough a complete turnaround of your previous factual statement:

“he notes that ending slavery was not his guiding mission but rather to preserve the union; if he could have preserved it without freeing the slaves he would have done so.”

So which “factual statement” of yours is the correct one this time?

What is so funny about your “arguments” real is that they are simply typical lefty spin on the real argument. It’s called misdirection because you are “not seeing the forest for the trees”.

You deliberately began your argument based on my flyby trope “would never have accepted him in the Whitehouse other than serving him tea” and then attempted to mislead the direction of my original argument with the non consequential haphazard meetings of two historical black figures with Lincoln. By doing so you completely bypassed volumes of historically recorded racist rhetoric by Ab Lincoln showcasing his personal views of black people.

You quote Lincoln yourself then, proclaiming that he “freed” black slaves in America in order to save the Union without any regard to whether they remained slaves or not. The only defense inconveniently offered is that Lincoln factually claimed that he “believed all men should be free”. I would have included parrots and little fishes in bowls personally.

Here’s another quote by Mr. Lincoln In his September 18, 1858 debate speech:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
To fit the 2009 leftosphere take on this inconvenient truth, you now claim that racism is a “generational moral” and thus stick your foot in your mouth again as a spokes person of the left by making “white guilt” today obsolete. The bread and butter argument for the special privileges awarded black Americans in the form of Affirmative Action including but not limited to special rights to non integrated black colleges, newspapers, radio, & television programming along with the privilege of never been considered a racist by birthright.
And the point to this – You never answered coherently why Obamba chose to honor Lincoln’s memory like his personal talisman when Lincoln was an obvious bigot and racist towards blacks in America. We didn’t even cover the fact that he actively tried to repatriate them back to Africa.

You entire argument is baseless and misleading but you argue it to embarrassing dead ends because it won’t fit your wishful view of history and you intend to make it fit one way or another. Again the typical flawed lefty mentality – “You will see it my way because it just feels right, whether we need to change or hide history to make it fit is inconsequential, because we just think this is better for all”.

Apologies for the lack of quotations “” on the Lincoln comments, I’m at work and get sidetracked with “real” issues sometimes. Ha ha – and no I don’t work nights with 3:30am postings, its afternoon on my side of the planet in one of those lovely third world sh*t holes the left wishes so much to import.

Knight 99

You claimed a black man would only be allowed to met with Lincoln if he was serving him tea.

I provided evidence that that wasn't the case. That's really all there is to that argument.

You can try to get out of your statement being exposed as false with weasel words. But you're just making yourself look stupid.

If you were arguing sincerely you would be able to accept the simple fact that the majority of people in society where slavery thrived in the 1800s were, by 2009 standards, racists - and that within the context of his time Lincoln was progressive. If you're sincerely trying to state that this means racism doesn't exist, then and now, well, that's just beyond stupid. I'll note that your bring in the subject of affirmative action, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Interesting way to distract from the arguments that you're losing...or are you just off your meds?

Your claim seems to be that because Linclon as touched with racism of his time that he was no different than those who fought and died to maintain slavery. Weird - and not borne out by the historical record.

You conclude by citing two statements of mine which you claim are contradictory but which are utterly congruent in meaning.

Yes,Lincoln took his stand against slavery to save the union. Yes, he said that if he could have saved the union without ending slavery, then he would have done so. Where's the contradiction?

I'll presume your mistake is due to poor reading comprehension. The alternative is to believe that you're trying incompetently to mislead; since the antidote to your deception is in plain sight on this board,that would speak to some sort of psychologial disorder on your part.

As well, the misogynism and homophobia of "get your panties in a twist" in a discussion totally unrelated to such subjects is revealing. Most sophisticated people are well aware of where the roots of such disorders lie.

Knight 99, again-

Why do you keep rehashing your original statement and my refuting ofit? You claimed Lincoln would only meet ablack person if the black person was serving him tea. I displayed that wasn't the case. You can weasel around and say the meeting were "haphazard and inconseuqential". Whether they were or not, you were wrong in your statement. Accept it.

I'm keeping to the facts here. It's you who are spinning and engaging in misdirection.

The extended quote you offer is substantively no different than theone you offered earlier. There's nothing new here - so what was your intent?Do you really not remember posting the earlier quote? Do you think this rehash proves something new about your argument?

You go off away from our discussion trying tomake it about affirmative action, trying to make me fit into some "lefty" stereotype. Why do you make such presumptions about me? Why are you unable to discuss simple historical fact without going into a sort of non-thinking political spiel with your usual us versus them mentality?

We were disussing actual historical fact; you go off on a partisan rant. Is this the only way you're able to discuss anything, or is it an elaborate misdirection to try and hide the fact that you've been proven wrong?

Lincoln was a transformationl president who took the reins of the country in a time of crisis. Most would agree the US is in a time of crisis right now. Perhaps Obama wishes to take inspiration from Lincoln's leadership. I didn't need to answer your statement as I originally began posting to counter your historical misstatements.

The typical lefty “assumption” as you put it is based on your posts over the last 6 months, not one. Your continuous name calling and use of “mental disorders” in your arguments put you clearly in the field of left. You cry what you fear the most about yourself.

I’ll say it again, because you are obviously not getting it. The serving tea part of my statement was clearly a flyby trope – but you continually fixate on the actual letter of the word as my attempt at fact. You are either unable to comprehend the point, or are misleading the point. Regardless it puts you past reasonable debate, and into your own fantasy babble, which is a waste of my time and anyone else arguing other than your point.

I like seeing your posts on SDA “real”, it’s amazing how night after night you come on like some bizarre masochist taking abuse from a 98% readership that truly believes your nuts. Talk about disorders he he. I’m actually embarrassed for you some of the time; you obviously have shed that little inconvenience from your life. Good on you, I suppose.

My apologies, Knight 99

You are right. I actually did "fixate on the actual letter of the word as your attempt at fact". I actually did think that your use of words was meant to have some relation, however tenuous, to fact. I now see that you simply throw words around for the fun of it, that they mean whatever you decide they should mean at any given time. Sorry for not realizing this from the beginning.

Likewise with your presumptions that I am in favour of affirmative action, or 'white guilt', or that I'm a "lefty". Of course, anyone who dares correct you on a misstatement of historical fact must have these attributes. That way, you can play your childish game of 'get the leftard'.

Again: sorry for presuming that your words have any relation to objective fact. I realize that I've hindered you from engaging in your continual game of "Let's Pretend". Yes, I know: your type "creates their own realities". Carry on!

There you go again adding quotations with the attempt to infer that is what I said.

My actual words:

“but you continually fixate on the actual letter of the word as my attempt at fact.”

Your purposeful misquotation of my words:

"fixate on the actual letter of the word as your attempt at fact".

Enough said for me – you are lacking far too much character for me to waste my time with.

I suppose I should have listened to other SDA commentors designation of you as a Troll. My mistake.