Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
Neither is Tower
...he is a "free-man" ...on the land.
|
Oh God. I had no idea that there was one of "those" posting on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
Paul Craig Roberts clears this up in his article;
"I checked the URLs that Lithwick supplied. It is clear that the Obama regime objects to military detention, and I mistook this objection for constitutional scruples.
However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war . As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”"
http://www.infowars.com/misreading-t...onal-scruples/
Obama would rather arrest citizens under the Patriot Act, where the Geneva Conventions do not apply.
Anyways ....nothing to see here folks...  |
On this point, I'm not sure that the "further reflection" of a partisan conservative like Paul Craig Roberts is cogent evidence of much of anything. This looks like pure speculation to me.