About Me

Name: Armanius
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Obama: kill or give habeas corpus to terrorists?

As always, Obama loves to hold both sides of an issue at the same time. Pandering? Ignorance? Who knows! While speaking to a crowd in Michigan, Obama said that his position about the war on terror "has always been clear: If you've got a terrorist, take 'em out, take 'em out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take 'em out." In short, kill the terrorist. But then he goes on to criticize the Bush administration's suspension of the right of habeas corpus for suspected terrorists. He said that "Habeas corpus ... is the foundation of Anglo-American law, which says very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, `Why was I grabbed?' and say, `Maybe, you've got the wrong person.'"
 
If I may be so bold as to try to analyze what Obama is saying is that we, as a nation, have the right to kill terrorists. But, if we arrest the terrorists instead, the terrorists are then entitled to habeas corpus rights under American civilian jurisprudence. Isn't that an oxymoronic position to have? If terrorists are entitled to habeas corpus rights, why would we, as a nation, have a right to just "take 'em out?" I suppose, if I am a soldier or law enforcement agent, I should just kill terrorists on sight then, instead of trying to capture them. If someone can make sense out of this one, please let me know. Again, is this just pure Obama doublespeak, or just plain ignorance?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama not in class the day law was taught in law school

Obama told a crowd of his supporters in Duryea, Pennsylvania that he believes that the Second Amendment is an individual right. When some in the crowd appeared to be unconvinced by his record of supporting gun control legislation, Obama told the crowd "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress ..." Obama's remark is problematic on three fronts. First, if he really believes that bearing arms is an individual right, then why even make this hypothetical? As noted in one of my previous blogs discussing Obama's flip-flop on gun rights, Obama was probably surprised that the crowd was not taking his statement that he is a supporter of gun rights at its face value. So he thought that this remark would assuage their fears. Second, by making this statement, there is an implication that if Obama had enough votes in Congress, he would try to pass a law to take guns away. Third, Obama was/is a constitutional lawyer. He graduated from Harvard. If he truly believes that gun rights is an individual right under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, he ought to know that Congress cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution. So either Obama truly believes that gun rights is not an individual right under the Constitution (and is thus lying to people), or he just doesn't know his law. Sort of like the 57 states in our country. I am not sure which one is worse - a liar or someone that did not go to class when law was taught in law school. You decide.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »