On day 1, Obama moves to reverse Bush...

On day 1, Obama moves to reverse Bush policies

There are 34 comments on the The Santa Fe New Mexican story from Jan 21, 2009, titled On day 1, Obama moves to reverse Bush policies. In it, The Santa Fe New Mexican reports that:

WASHINGTON a ' President Barack Obama moved swiftly Wednesday to begin rolling back eight years of his predecessor's policies, ordering tough new ethics rules and preparing to issue an order closing the ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Santa Fe New Mexican.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Jo Hansen

Santo Domingo Pueblo, NM

#21 Jan 22, 2009
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but Toucan Tango, that's the point. We don't know if these detainees were picked up because they are suspected terrorists or if they were just picked up. There is no code of law governing their imprisonment. Bush & Co. has held them with no further justification as to why.
That's not America. In America, you have every right to a fair and speedy trial and you have every right to face your accuser. The Constitution doesn't guarantee justice for only American citizens, it guarantees justice for everyone within the American judicial system.
These detainees have been held with no trial and no way of appealing their imprisonment. How would you like you or any of your family members to be locked up indefinitely because you're an "enemy of the state?"
There is precedent on how to deal the illegal combatants/ terrorists/ war criminals:

Nuremburg.

Military trials at the cessation of hostilities. And we had started trials without the end of fighting, and now Obama wants to shut it down, and give US rights to persons that really don't deserve US rights. They really deserve a bullet.

The unofficial rule on the battlefields in Afghanistan will now be: "Shoot first, and take no prisoners." Oops.

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#22 Jan 22, 2009
Jo Hansen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is precedent on how to deal the illegal combatants/ terrorists/ war criminals:
Nuremburg.
Military trials at the cessation of hostilities. And we had started trials without the end of fighting, and now Obama wants to shut it down, and give US rights to persons that really don't deserve US rights. They really deserve a bullet.
The unofficial rule on the battlefields in Afghanistan will now be: "Shoot first, and take no prisoners." Oops.
The Nuremberg trials were formal hearings with defense attorneys, rules of evidence, testimony and confrontation of witnesses. There was no admission of evidence obtained through torture.

I would welcome Nuremberg trials for people who committed war crimes. Unfortunately, most of the war crimes committed in the past decade have been committed by us and our allies. Fighting against an invading American invasion is not a war crime in anybody's book. Well, maybe in your book, but that's not what the Geneva Conventions define as a war crime.

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#24 Jan 22, 2009
Jo Hansen wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, that is an interesting perspective. Twisted.
In Lebanon, in 1983, our Marine Corps barracks, and our Embassy were both truck bombed.
In 1988, over Lockerbie Scotland, Libyan government agents blew up an airliner, killing all aboard.
In 1989, the Red Chinese killed thousands of democracy marchers at Tieneman Square. The world stood by.
In Rwanda, in 1994, hundreds of thousands of Hutus, and Tutsis were committing genocide.
WTC bombing, 1994, 6 killed. Islamic terrorists.
In Serbia, in the late 90s, ethnic cleansing and genocide were the official state policy.
OK, now this latest decade.
Chechnya was destroyed by the Russians, in the name of territorial control.
The USS Cole was rammed by an explosive laden boat, in Yemen, 17 US sailors killed. Clinton's watch, no retaliation.
Kenya, hundreds killed in terror attacks.
Saudi Arabia, US barracks attacked, US personnel killed.
Sudan has waged a war by their 'Arab' militia against pagans, and Christians. Genocide. Spillover into Chad.
9/11 attacks; WTC destroyed by Islamic terrorists hijacking airliners with passengers, and killing everyone. US Pentagon attacked, all passengers and US military personnel and civilian DoD workers killed. The flight that crashed in PA.
2001- US and NATO overthrow the Taliban, and chase the remnants of Al Quaadeh to the Pakistan border areas.
2004- Spanish subway bombings, hundreds killed.
2005- London bus attacks, by Islamic terrorists.
2006- Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and missiles to threaten their neighbors, Israel, and Europe. The world stands by.
2003-2009 US and UN coalition overthrow Iraq, and defeat an influx of Islamic terrorists, establish a new government.
2008- Zimbabwe, the former great nation of Rhodesia, is reduced to hyperinflation, tribal politics, police state, cholera, and starvation. The world stands by.
2008- Russians invade Georgia, commit war crimes, and the world stands by.
2008- Attacks in Mumbai, India by Pakistani Islamic terrorists. The world looks on.
2009- Guantanamo Bay terrorists are given a reprieve and unearned rights by the new President Barack Hussein Obama. The world stands by.
I guess my view of reality is different than yours, Steve. Please tell me what war crimes have been committed by the US and her allies?
In my house, the Koran is used page by page to line the cat litter box. That is how I pay my respects to Islam.
Inshallah.
Your litany of terrorism attacks is truly inspired. Unfortunately, few citations have anything to do with the prisoners ever held at Guantanamo. And absolutely none of the incidents had anything to do with Saddam Hussein or Iraq.

You should read the Geneva Conventions. You know what you don't like, but you obviously don't have a clue about what constitutes a war crime. For example, a military attack on a clearly military target, such as the Marine Barracks, the U.S.S. Cole, or the Pentagon, is not a war crime.(It may be a crime, but is not a war crime or a crime against humanity.)

Invasion of a sovereign state without a just cause for war could certainly be considered as a war crime, particularly since the initial "shock and awe" campaign targeted a civilian residential area.

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#26 Jan 22, 2009
Jo Hansen wrote:
Any despot can be taken down by a civilized nation at any time, and for any reason.
Now that is just about the stupidest comment I have read anywhere on any topic.

Who filled your mind with such strange thoughts? Where does it say anything like that in the United Nations Charter? Where does it say anything like that in the U.S. Constitution? Where does it say anything like that in the Geneva Conventions.

Maybe it says something like that in the Old Testament or the Koran? Pure b.s.
u really

Powhatan Point, OH

#27 Jan 23, 2009
Steve van Dresser wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is just about the stupidest comment I have read anywhere on any topic.
Who filled your mind with such strange thoughts? Where does it say anything like that in the United Nations Charter? Where does it say anything like that in the U.S. Constitution? Where does it say anything like that in the Geneva Conventions.
Maybe it says something like that in the Old Testament or the Koran? Pure b.s.
well Ms. Jo is obviously a big fan of the Bush doctrine. Good to see at least one neocon fascist knows what it is.

“What, Me Worry?”

Since: Sep 08

Santa Fe, NM

#28 Jan 23, 2009
Steve van Dresser wrote:
<quoted text>
Your litany of terrorism attacks is truly inspired. Unfortunately, few citations have anything to do with the prisoners ever held at Guantanamo. And absolutely none of the incidents had anything to do with Saddam Hussein or Iraq.
You should read the Geneva Conventions. You know what you don't like, but you obviously don't have a clue about what constitutes a war crime. For example, a military attack on a clearly military target, such as the Marine Barracks, the U.S.S. Cole, or the Pentagon, is not a war crime.(It may be a crime, but is not a war crime or a crime against humanity.)
Invasion of a sovereign state without a just cause for war could certainly be considered as a war crime, particularly since the initial "shock and awe" campaign targeted a civilian residential area.
And what uniformed army made those attacks SVD? None ... they are terrorists and they don't abide by nor are they protected by the Geneva Conventions. Different rules for different situations.
PlacitasRoy

Placitas, NM

#29 Jan 23, 2009
'Who filled your mind with such strange thoughts?" Proves the effectiveness of 30+ years of well funded Reich-wing 'think tanks' and their minions on hate talk radio doesn't it?

Had Goebbels & Goering had their expertise & funding, we'd all be talking German.
Tessa Que-en

Silver City, NM

#30 Jan 23, 2009
The people who want to kill all the Muslims are the biggest scaredy cats in the world. These scaredy cats are more likely to be hurt or killed in a car crash, or even crossing the street, than by any terrorist act anywhere in the world. These scaredy cats should build an underground bunker and stay put if they are so scared of life.

The scaredy cats call the Villanucci show everyday and cry about how scared they are of the dark-skinned men with beards and the funny religion and that they're gonna kill everyone who isn't Muslim.

Hey scaredy cats--see a counselor or take valium--get a grip, man!
PlacitasRoy

Fargo, ND

#31 Jan 23, 2009
Toucan Tango wrote:
<quoted text>
And what uniformed army made those attacks SVD? None ... they are terrorists and they don't abide by nor are they protected by the Geneva Conventions. Different rules for different situations.
So any one of us could be legally, morally, and ethically subjected to torture if we took arms to reple an invader in civies?

Or any one of us could be legally, morally, and ethically subjected to torture was falsely accused of being a terrorist by the neighbor we pissed off last week?

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#33 Jan 23, 2009
Jo Hansen wrote:
<quoted text>
Rights of Man.
"We the people...
"Four-score and seven years ago...
" And I won't consent to be ruled by a despot, nor foreign king...
Steve, you seem to think that an illegitimate government has the right to murder its own populace... and if you truly believe that, then you are truly sick and twisted.
Adieu.
Are you arguing that the American patriots were convinced that they had a right to go to England, overthrow King George III, and institute a different government there? That is truly deluded.

Our forefathers said that they had the right to form their own government, based on their own perceived needs, not to go half way around the world to impose a government on someone else. The idea that a foreign entity can tell anybody else exactly what form of government they may have, is exactly contrary to what the Declaration of Independence states. You really have a totally distorted perception of history.

The declaration says, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That does not mean governments are instituted among men as dictated by any outside would be do-gooder.

We had as much right to go into Iraq and tell the Iraqis what kind of government they should have, as Saddam Hussein had to come into the United States and tell Americans what kind of government we should have. Neither George W. Bush nor Saddam Hussein had any right to impose his will on some other country, and it is incredibly foolish and short sighted to think so.
not in Ill

United States

#34 Jan 24, 2009
Jo Hansen wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, that is an interesting perspective. Twisted.
In Lebanon, in 1983, our Marine Corps barracks, and our Embassy were both truck bombed.
In 1988, over Lockerbie Scotland, Libyan government agents blew up an airliner, killing all aboard.
In 1989, the Red Chinese killed thousands of democracy marchers at Tieneman Square. The world stood by.
In Rwanda, in 1994, hundreds of thousands of Hutus, and Tutsis were committing genocide.
WTC bombing, 1994, 6 killed. Islamic terrorists.
In Serbia, in the late 90s, ethnic cleansing and genocide were the official state policy.
OK, now this latest decade.
Chechnya was destroyed by the Russians, in the name of territorial control.
The USS Cole was rammed by an explosive laden boat, in Yemen, 17 US sailors killed. Clinton's watch, no retaliation.
Kenya, hundreds killed in terror attacks.
Saudi Arabia, US barracks attacked, US personnel killed.
Sudan has waged a war by their 'Arab' militia against pagans, and Christians. Genocide. Spillover into Chad.
9/11 attacks; WTC destroyed by Islamic terrorists hijacking airliners with passengers, and killing everyone. US Pentagon attacked, all passengers and US military personnel and civilian DoD workers killed. The flight that crashed in PA.
2001- US and NATO overthrow the Taliban, and chase the remnants of Al Quaadeh to the Pakistan border areas.
2004- Spanish subway bombings, hundreds killed.
2005- London bus attacks, by Islamic terrorists.
2006- Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and missiles to threaten their neighbors, Israel, and Europe. The world stands by.
2003-2009 US and UN coalition overthrow Iraq, and defeat an influx of Islamic terrorists, establish a new government.
2008- Zimbabwe, the former great nation of Rhodesia, is reduced to hyperinflation, tribal politics, police state, cholera, and starvation. The world stands by.
2008- Russians invade Georgia, commit war crimes, and the world stands by.
2008- Attacks in Mumbai, India by Pakistani Islamic terrorists. The world looks on.
2009- Guantanamo Bay terrorists are given a reprieve and unearned rights by the new President Barack Hussein Obama. The world stands by.
I guess my view of reality is different than yours, Steve. Please tell me what war crimes have been committed by the US and her allies?
In my house, the Koran is used page by page to line the cat litter box. That is how I pay my respects to Islam.
Inshallah.
You are scary sick. don't go anywhere.

Since: Sep 08

Portales, NM

#35 Jan 26, 2009
"and I have been on the side of palestinian statehood."

They have been offered statehood many times and refused it. In the Hamas charter thier stated goal is to kill Jews.

Besides, as it is not Isreal suplies thier food, electricity, etc. Why would they give that up?

Since: Sep 08

Portales, NM

#36 Jan 26, 2009
"For example, a military attack on a clearly military target, such as the Marine Barracks, the U.S.S. Cole, or the Pentagon, is not a war crime."

It is a war crime when it's commited by anyone other than an organized military wich the terrorists are not. The Geneva Convention does not apply to them.
PlacitasRoy

Fargo, ND

#37 Jan 26, 2009
Babe Rainbow wrote:
"For example, a military attack on a clearly military target, such as the Marine Barracks, the U.S.S. Cole, or the Pentagon, is not a war crime."
It is a war crime when it's commited by anyone other than an organized military wich the terrorists are not. The Geneva Convention does not apply to them.
Proving once again you are a friggin' ignorant m0ron!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bill Young Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Election Day Rituals: Movies, Meals and Mass (Nov '14) Nov '14 Le Jimbo 32
News Police remove Sheehan from Bush speech (Feb '06) Oct '14 Swedenforever 6
News Park Boulevard may become the latest memorial t... (Mar '14) May '14 broke 3
News A fight in Fla. for national bragging rights (Feb '14) May '14 Penny 14
News Republicans won the Florida special election. H... (Mar '14) Mar '14 about that 33
News Florida Election Tests Midterm Messaging (Mar '14) Mar '14 wild child 1
News Florida election a bellwether for fall U.S. mid... (Mar '14) Mar '14 Cat74 20
More from around the web