Nixon doesn’t count, he was a liberal. Probably a communist, too. He negotiated with China, donchano.
Come to think of it, did Nixon ever provide a copy of his birth certificate?
I don’t see why the Head of State can’t bow. He’s just a man (or, a woman).
So Smiling Bandit, given the photographic evidence that has been proffered in this thread of other presidents bowing to heads of state, in particular Nixon bowing toward Hirohito, I look forward to your Mea Culpa.
Try to keep it brief and humble. No grovelling required.
That’s totally different. You see, only George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan were REAL Presidents.
Sure, Obama COULD have been . He could have earned the respect of the American GOP. But no, instead he has to go around surrendering to EVERYONE! That’s a bow MEANS! DON’T YOU KNOW THAT?/!!? Now I’ll have to learn to speak Mandarin or Tokyo or whatever.
-Joe
That would be fucking awesome.
Imagine Obama, bare chested with a giant fucking survival knife. Sweat or some sort of oil makes his skin glisten as he sits cross legged before a fire he has lit. He heats the knife in the fire until it is red hot, and then uses it to cauterize a wound. After he stoically endures the burn, he slowly and deliberately takes a strip of red cloth and ties it around his forehead, then steps forward to meet the Emperor.
THAT is how you demonstrate to asians that they shouldn’t fuck with the U.S.A.!
How did this escape notice? Are you saying that giving these people a fair trial is somehow wrong? Is it perhaps that we might be sort of embarrassed when it’s discovered that we don’t really have any proof of wrongdoing?
Since you’re obviously not the brightest bulb, lemme quote the relevant law for you:
Note the use of the word “person” and the word “citizen”? I guess those crazy fucked up hippies in the olden days screwed the pooch with their verbiage, 'cause that sort of indicates to any non-douchetard that everyone gets rights.
It wasn’t Obama that hid a bunch of prisoners in Cuba to try and avoid giving them constitutional protections (and hey, guess what? Gitmo is in the jurisdiction of the United States).
The only other option for those of us who aren’t greasy rednecks who hate brown people is to let them go with a “Hey, sorry we imprisoned you for several years with no good proof just because you didn’t have a government that would complain!”
Well, I read page 3 and 4. Sorry if this was on 1 or 2.
James Fallows is one of the nations (many) experts on Japan. He has -wait for it- knowledge of the country, mostly due to his on site reporting in the country (IIRC). In his blog at the Atlantic Monthly he wrote a series of posts on how the US press corps was almost uniformly clueless in their reporting of Obama’s Asian visit.
On the trivial matter of this Asian bow, he interviewed an anonymous US government official who was on the trip. This official’s remarks should be taken with a dose of salt: he/she wants her boss to look good after all. But serious people will have interest.
Others have noted the selective outrage of the modern populist conservative minority in this thread. When Obama does it, they cry. When shown a photo of Nixon doing the same, they don’t even feel worry. This behavior is cult-like.
Some of them likely are very bad people. We just don’t have any idea which ones are bloodthirsty terrists and which ones are just some dumb schmuck who got turned in by his brother-in-law.
So kill 'em all, and let Dick Cheney sort 'em out.
Well, I’ve been saying that for years about minorities… :rolleyes:
No, it doesn’t. But the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments do.
:eek:
Nope. They should be tried by a military tribunal. And since you seem to be quite the dunce, let me 'splain what those are:
(quoted from Wiki)
“A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial.”
I’m sure your ilk is embarrassed over everything the U.S. does, because the U.S. is always wrong to the likes of you.
Dear dumbass (and you call me a dim bulb! :rolleyes:), just where in the U.S. Constitution does it define foreign terrorists and/or combatants as “citizens?”
I don’t say this kind of thing often, but you truly are an imbecile. I can’t remember a more stupid post in all my time here.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Therefore
All persons not born or naturalized in the United States are not citizens of the United States or of the State wherein they reside.
All citizens are persons, not all persons are citizens.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person*, including but not limited to citizens,* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person*, including but not limited to citizens,* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Persons who are citizens have privileges and immunities that persons who are not citizens do not have. But no person, citizen or not, can be denied some minimal level of due process and the equal protection of the law.
Get it now?
It ain’t just Americans, right?
CMC fnord!
Let me emphasize for you:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Persons and citizens are not interchangeable terms. That’s why only citizens get privileges and immunities, but persons get due process. Citizens are, of course, a subset of “persons”. Of course, I’m probably using the text of the wrong constitution; can you provide a link to the teabagger constitution that replaces ‘persons’ with ‘citizens’? kthx.
Oh and how about our fifth amendment, in case you want to make a point about that only applying to states?
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
That’s right, you ugly gonorrheal tramp. Due process is for persons, not citizens.
Oh, and your little military tribunal idea? Unconsititutional. (Unless, of course, the person has due process during the tribunal, which makes your little tin-pot mouthbreathing kangaroo court idea harder to fit into your little fantasies about showin’ them fukin ragheads that these colors don’t run YEEE HAW)
I guess those bumbling dumbfucks at the Supreme Court of the United States of America just don’t get it, right? Fucking liberal douches.
Oh, excuse me, I was channeling some dildo (you) who likes the idea of guilty until proven innocent, at least in the case of godless foreigners who are kind of brown and often dirty looking.
(On edit: What the guy above me said too.)
Oh, and just because you get made fun of by kids with Down’s who score higher on intelligence tests:
I’m not embarrassed over what the U.S. does. After all, the U.S. agrees with me. I’m embarrassed that jackasses like you spout stupid shit that makes us all look like a bunch of gibbering savages indistinguishable from the dipshits of the past that said things like “we can’t trust the negroes and the women to vote”.
Yeah, I get that persons who are citizens have privileges and immunities that persons who are not citizens do not have…such as trials by American juries in American courts with all the privileges and immunities that Americans have. Foreign terrorists and enemy combatants are not American citizens. Thus they aren’t covered by the same rights and protections. (Nor is the Declaration of Independence equivalent to the Constitution, as you appear to think.)
Thus persons who are foreign terrorists and enemy combatants should get due process by way of military tribunals. I’ve never said otherwise.
Nope, wrong again. The Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo detainees have a right to habeus corpus. It did not rule that they had a right to things such as being informed of Miranda rights or being tried in U.S. civilian courts.
What [del]Carter[/del] Obama wants to do is try them in American courts with American juries and American judicial standards and protections. Sheer idiocy.(Well, not idiocy, exactly, more like pandering both to American liberals and the world at large – the latter of which seems to be one of the overriding concerns of his administration.) I can imagine the mocking laughter of our enemies and the rest of the world as once again we idealistically and stupidly go about cutting off our nose to spite our face in some lame, unrealistic, foolish, and ultimately self-defeating attempt to convince ourselves we’re better than everyone else.
Has any enemy combatant ever been tried in a U.S. civilian court? As far as I’m aware they have always been held under and accorded the safeguards and protections of the Geneva Convention.
It is my opinon that such should remain the case.
As to the rest of the nonsense you posted, I’m not gonna bother.
Do you even understand what habeus corpus is without having to look it up in wikipedia?
But you mention the Geneva convention:
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
© Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced **by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. **
Article 102
A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, and if, furthermore, the provisions of the present Chapter have been observed.
Article 103
Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months.
Hrm, I guess you didn’t really mean we should follow the Geneva convention. And who is the Protecting Power in this case? And hey, it rules out tribunals, since we don’t try our own troops by tribunal. (As you stated above, you don’t want courts martial. Whoops!)
You don’t understand the constitutional issue, and you spout garbage about “Geneva convention” and you don’t even know what’s in it. All you have is the bluster of a uneducated hanger-upon wrapping himself in a flag.
And yes, I misspelled it.
You have as little idea of what I know as you do of what I think.
The fact remains that this country has never afforded prisoners of war trial in U.S. civilian courts.
If the U.S. is behaving in ways not in accordance with the Geneva convention, then that is where the focus on forcing compliance should be directed.
The solution is not to try to engage in some idiotic cluster fuck of attempting to try foreign enemy combatants in civilian courts with all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens but with none of the same rules regarding evidence gathering, witness availability, testimony, etc.
How are witnesses to be subpeonaed? How is evidence gathered by foreign agencies or governments to be introduced? How can the truthfulness or untruthfulness of witnesses be shown when there is no suitable way to gather information about their history and past activities in their own countries…or even to compel them to appear? And if they do appear, for either the prosecution or defense, who’s going to pay to get them here, pay for their transportation and lodging, and pay to get them back home. And how are they to be bound by concerns regarding perjury when they’ll be out of our reach once they’re safely ensconced back in their home country or somewhere else around the world? Etc, etc, etc.
There is simply no way to properly prosecute trials of citizens or residents of other countries in U.S. courts with U.S. protections when they are being tried for offenses committed in other countries around the globe. This is so obvious that I can’t help but think that Obama and Holder just want to put on a phony show of being fair and then turn these schmucks loose to attack us again.
Just in time for the McCain campaign to make a surging comeback and win the White House!