Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Republicans hit Obama on terror war

World Jan. 31, 2010 - 06:24AM JST ( 26 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

26 Comments

0

RomeoRamenIIJan. 31, 2010 - 09:22AM JST

The Obama administration needs go after Islamoterrorism with the same vengeance it goes after Wall Street. It's in a reactionary mode when it comes to terrorism, when it should be in a preventative mode.
0

dontknockitJan. 31, 2010 - 09:48AM JST

RomeoRamenII: It's in a reactionary mode when it comes to terrorism, when it should be in a preventative mode.

Not sure what you mean. The only prevention opportunity the U.S. had here was for the people at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria to deny this dude a visa. The only warning they had was when the man's own father went to the embassy to warn them. The father's warnings were not heeded. The only people who messed up were the people at the embassy, although I must point out there is no proceedure for such a thing at this time. Expecting Obama's administration to have prevented this is akin to expecting Obama to have a crystal ball in the Oval Office.

By contrast, the 9/11 terrorists were actually being investigated by the FBI before the fact. Its a world of difference.
0

amerijapJan. 31, 2010 - 11:41AM JST

When he was later advised of his rights, Abdulmutallab refused to speak further with investigators. He was treated as a criminal defendant, not as an “enemy combatant,” she said.

He can't be considered as "enemy combatant" unless 1)he had the accomplices or conspirators at the time of incident and 2)had the strong ties with Al Qaeda terrorists or Islamofascists. Oh, btw, what about holding the trial against 9/11 conspiracy at the civil court in NYC?
0
adaydreamJan. 31, 2010 - 12:17PM JST
I'm not sure Collins is complaining about:
1. Abdulmutallab was advised of his rights.
2. Abdulmutallab was advised of his rights 50 minutes late.
3. That Abdulmutallab was allowed to get attorney.
But even if he'd have been treated the way republicans would, cause they are perfect in every way, republicans would still be whining about something. < :-)
0

saintyukioJan. 31, 2010 - 12:57PM JST

If the trial at the civil court, it may give the accused too many rights - and, as enemy combatants, they don't deserve any rights; what rights did they give to their victinms?
0

dontknockitJan. 31, 2010 - 05:42PM JST

saintyukio: If the trial at the civil court, it may give the accused too many rights - and, as enemy combatants, they don't deserve any rights; what rights did they give to their victinms?

Apparently you have no faith in the system. If you did you would be happy to take away a person's rights after the trial, like we do here in the civilized world. See, all it takes to take away a person's rights and jail him or even execute him is a fair trial. I don't know why some of you people can't be bothered with such simple tests...maybe you failed tests a lot in school?
0

lostrune2Jan. 31, 2010 - 05:44PM JST

saintyukio,

Both criminals and enemy combatants don't care about rights to their victims.
0

realistJan. 31, 2010 - 06:25PM JST

Obama and his leftist administration of liberal scoundrels is on the way out. Later this year, the ;political tide will turn when they lose control of the House. People are seeing through this nonsense at last. "Yes, we can" - has become "Yes, we can, but we dont know how."
0

BadseyJan. 31, 2010 - 08:23PM JST

Obama needs to find more "terrorists" or else the funding (debt) for his wars can't continue. Everybody should be trying to help Obama find more terrorists. Maybe G-Mo "get out of jail free" cards, free lines of credit to terrorists.

Easier to strike oil that find a bona-fide terrorist these days.
0

cracaphatJan. 31, 2010 - 08:41PM JST

Repub supporters are suggesting that Obama goes after with the same one eyed zeal that Bush did and look what happened.You jokers.
0

SushiSake3Jan. 31, 2010 - 09:15PM JST

cracaphat - agreed.

Republicans/conservatives have about sa much street cred on fighting terror (I mean - 'winning,' not 'creating more' as they are fully responsible for) as Pol Pot had at citizen welfare.
0

SushiSake3Jan. 31, 2010 - 09:19PM JST

RomeoRamenII - "The Obama administration needs go after Islamoterrorism with the same vengeance it goes after Wall Street. It's in a reactionary mode when it comes to terrorism, when it should be in a preventative mode."

A ridiculous statement.
0

LIBERTASJan. 31, 2010 - 09:22PM JST

"Republicans hit Obama on terror war."

The War OF Terror, that should be. Feed and educate Americans at home first, then spend what's left on weapons. Talk about being bassakwards.
0

SargeJan. 31, 2010 - 09:28PM JST

dontknockit: "Expecting Obana's administration to have prevented this is akin to expecting Obama to have a crystal ball in the White House."

If Bush had been president when this happened, you wouldn't be saying this sort of thing, you'd be saying Bush wasn't on the ball, or worse.
0

SushiSake3Jan. 31, 2010 - 09:33PM JST

But Sarge, you still appear to adore Bush, the guy who took the so-called "war on terror" from local to global proportions and meant a whole host of countries are going to be fightin' terra forever where they weren't and didn't need to before.

You can't deny your (& many others') 2 votes for bush make you partially responsible for this.

I also know you're going to deny it since you simply can't face facts.
0

SargeJan. 31, 2010 - 09:36PM JST

Sushi at 9:19 PM - "Ridiculous statement"

How so?
0

SargeJan. 31, 2010 - 09:38PM JST

Sushi: "Bush, the guy who took the so-called "war on terror"

Sushi still doesn't believe these wackos are at war with us and that they would torture and kill him without hesitation or remorse.
0

SushiSake3Jan. 31, 2010 - 09:54PM JST

Sarge - "Sushi still doesn't believe these wackos are at war with us and that they would torture and kill him without hesitation or remorse."

Sarge, they weren't at war with 'us' (non-American countries) before America invaded Iraq.

Sarge - "torture and kill him without hesitation or remorse"

That's probably the 5,000th-odd time you have typed those exact words.

Moderator: SushiSake3 and Sarge, please focus your comments on what is in the story, instead of sniping at each other.
0

dontknockitJan. 31, 2010 - 10:22PM JST

Sarge: If Bush had been president when this happened, you wouldn't be saying this sort of thing, you'd be saying Bush wasn't on the ball,

No. On that score, I would be saying the same thing.

or worse.

On this one? No. I was not even suggesting that Bush was behind the shoe bomber either. So give us a break. Unlike some people, I look at the whats and the hows, rather that "who's side am I supposed to be on". I am on the side of truth and justice first and always. America's second. And I am not on the side of a political party at all except for one issue at a time. This is an order of things I scarcely think you will ever understand. You seem to run in the reverse order, just like so many Republicans.
0

sailwindJan. 31, 2010 - 11:01PM JST

When he was later advised of his rights, Abdulmutallab refused to speak further with investigators. He was treated as a criminal defendant, not as an “enemy combatant,”

Sushi, we gave him his undeserved American rights, gosh we ARE so nice is this war on terror thing after all.
0

adaydreamFeb. 01, 2010 - 04:33AM JST

saintyukio

If the trial at the civil court, it may give the accused too many rights - and, as enemy combatants, they don't deserve any rights; what rights did they give to their victinms?

What rights would Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab receive or not receive under military jurisdiction VS those of civilian jurisdiction. Or are you just repeating the drumbeats of other that don't know any differences either. < :-)