posted May 22, 2009 05:37 PM         

Article II USC
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

As for Fox News being wrong, it's you who are wrong acoustic. The plan to release some Gitmo detainees into the US has been known for almost a month..or more. The number appears to have grown from 7 to 17.

LA TIMES
U.S. plans to accept several Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo

The Uighurs would be the first detainees from the prison to settle in America. Challenges are expected from China and within the U.S.
By Julian E. Barnes
April 24, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- The Obama administration is preparing to admit into the United States as many as seven Chinese Muslims who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in the first release of any of the detainees into this country, according to current and former U.S. officials.

posted May 22, 2009 07:25 PM         

_____________________

posted May 22, 2009 08:10 PM         

O'Bomber was not forced to run for the Office of President. He did that as his own decision. He could have sat back and never brought the Natural Citizen clause of this paragraph of Article II into play. No one was prosecuting O'Bomber or forcing him to do anything at all.

O'Bomber put himself in the position of needing to prove his Constitutional eligibility for the Office of President of the United States by his own choice.

The burden of proof to prove he meets all the Constitutional qualification for the office he chose to run for rests squarely on O'Bomber. He acquired that burden of proof the instant he filed to run for President.

People all over America recognize they have free choice and they exercise that free choice. For instance, there are rules for flying commercial airlines. Submit to a search of your baggage and a scan. Same thing when you enter a baseball or football stadium to watch a game. Submit to a search of your bags. If you don't want to submit to having searches made, stay home. But, if you want to fly or want to watch a game in person then, you play by the rules.

Hahaha, now you won't even accept the word of one of the most fawning, drooling, in the bag for O'Bomber sources...the LA Times.

Simply incredible.

Yeah, O'Bomber will do nothing to endanger the public. Right, check, got it.

"Gates said today that Obama would do nothing with the detainees to endanger the public"

Those are "weasel words". There is no denial in that statement that O'Bomber intends to release detainees detained at Gitmo into the general population of the United States.

posted May 22, 2009 09:32 PM         

What don't you get about Obama's eligibility having been challenged, and having been put down in court on multiple occasions? You say you get "burden of proof," and yet in the wire-tapping thread you claimed that the accused doesn't have to do anything. There's no requirement that they defend themselves. You remember that, right? That was your excuse for why you didn't have to prove on the administration's behalf that they didn't wire-tap innocent civilians. Is it coming back to you yet?

Yes, of course Obama decided to run for President. Of course, he decided that he was eligible to do so. Other people tried to make cases against his eligibility, and they lost multiple times at multiple levels. If YOU want to claim Obama was ineligible to run, then it is on YOU to prove your claim. Thus far you're just embarrassing yourself by contradicting yourself.

quote:

---

For instance, there are rules for flying commercial airlines. Submit to a search of your baggage and a scan. Same thing when you enter a baseball or football stadium to watch a game. Submit to a search of your bags. If you don't want to submit to having searches made, stay home. But, if you want to fly or want to watch a game in person then, you play by the rules.

---

So now you're trying to make the case that a candidate must show YOU their eligibility. Nevermind the courts. Nevermind that his eligibility was likely checked when he entered the election as a candidate.

quote:

---

Hahaha, now you won't even accept the word of one of the most fawning, drooling, in the bag for O'Bomber sources...the LA Times.

---

I notice that lately you don't address the pertinent points in a post (namely the Supreme Court ordering the detainees listed in the LA Times released). Instead, you search for some way to create a dig. I read the LA Times article. Did you? Do you think you did a "fair" job representing that article in this thread? Did you note Homeland Security's objection to the idea that they NOT be released here? No, you didn't. You seem to be on a mad quest for sensationalism these days.

quote:

---

So, O'Bomber declares these al-Qaeda camp terrorist trainees ARE NOT a danger to the public...and the problem is solved. If he goes forward and does release them, he better hope to hell he doesn't turn out to be wrong.

---

They aren't Al Qaeda. If you read up on them, you'd know that.

posted May 22, 2009 10:16 PM         

The merits of none of those cases were ever heard in court. The federal court ruled that the petitioner didn't have standing to bring the matter to court. No court ever ruled that O'Bomber is a natural born citizen of the United States.

So, O'Bomber has become President without ever providing the documentation he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

And no, O'Bomber doesn't have to show ME his proving documents. O'Bomber needs to release those documents so they can be vetted. O'Bomber's eligibility for the office was never checked by anyone at all.

Yes, I did an incredibly fair job of relating the kernel of truth in the Times story. That kernel of truth is that O'Bomber is going to release some of the Gitmo detainees into the United States..saying they are no danger to the public. Note, these are not citizens of the United States and there's no mechanism to grant them asylum or citizenship or any other kind of status permitting them to enter and stay in the United States. There is however law to release them in a foreign country or send them back to China or where ever else a government will take them.

Homeland security or not, O'Bomber's administration has said...and continues to say these detainees will be released in the United States.

posted May 23, 2009 01:22 AM         

quote:

---

No court ever ruled that O'Bomber is a natural born citizen of the United States.

---

No court has ever ruled that I'm a natural born citizen either. Does that mean that I'm not a natural born citizen? No. Evidence to the contrary is what would be required, and apparently the evidence has been so devoid of merit every single accusation of non-citizenship has been thrown out.

quote:

---

Yes, I did an incredibly fair job of relating the kernel of truth in the Times story.

---

No, what you put up was an incredibly convenient bit of the article as I stated. There were several kernals of truth in the piece, and you took the one that would best back your assumption without providing the context. Quite dishonest if you ask me.

quote:

---

Homeland security or not, O'Bomber's administration has said...and continues to say these detainees will be released in the United States.

---

posted May 23, 2009 10:01 AM         

You've never run for president either acoustic...but I'll bet you've had to produce a birth certificate more than once...or Mommy had to produce it for you. Kids all over America and adults too must prove their citizenship when they enroll in school..or apply for a drivers license.

Further, they've had to produce transcrips of their grades when they've made application for admission to universities...and birth certificates too AND had to produce birth certificates when they've applied for a Passport.

I understand it's just tooooo intrusive to ask O'Bomber to do what most of the rest of America doesn't bat an eyelash over.

Yeah, I picked the kernel of truth out of that Times piece. The kernel of truth which proved my point...and proved YOU wrong again.

I didn't see any point in going beyond that, though there were other lines in the article which show just what kind of in your face little authoritarian Marxist moron O'Bomber really is. Here's one now.

"U.S. officials said they expected any release of former Guantanamo Bay prisoners into the U.S. to generate opposition among Americans."

Imagine that. The administration EXPECTS Americans to oppose the release of these trained terrorists into the United States....but they're gonna do it anyway. UP THEIRS.

Now, here's my recipe for their release into the United States. There's 7 mentioned so 2 become the personal security guards of O'Bomber's 2 little girls AND 2 become the personal security guards for O'Bomber's wife AND 3 become the personal security for Barack Hussein O'Bomber. That's seven and I'd approve that release in a heartbeat.

How about you...and O'Bomber acoustic. You willing to put the lives of O'Bomber and his family in the hands of these trained terrorists?

posted May 23, 2009 10:44 AM         

quote:

---

They aren't Al Qaeda. If you read up on them, you'd know that.
-AG

---

posted May 24, 2009 12:39 PM         

quote:

---

You've never run for president either acoustic...but I'll bet you've had to produce a birth certificate more than once...or Mommy had to produce it for you. Kids all over America and adults too must prove their citizenship when they enroll in school..or apply for a drivers license.

---

You seem to be suggesting that he didn't.

quote:

---

The kernel of truth which proved my point...and proved YOU wrong again.

---

posted May 24, 2009 02:36 PM         

I think it's funny when someone argues against something that wasn't even presented in the first place.

If you'll note, jwhop explicitly addressed the Uighurs as:

quote:

---

al-Qaeda camp terrorist trainees.

---

He didn't say that they "are al Qaeda". As far as we know, that may or may not be true.
However, anyone who has done the proper research into public knowledge knows that, in fact, the Uighurs were trained in a camp that had ties to al Qaeda. This camp was headed by the reportedly deceased Hassan Mahsum and Abdul Haq, who is still at large. Therefore, as far as facts go, the Uighurs were undoubtedly at some point, "al Qaeda camp terrorist trainees". We can say this not only through the evidence of their situation but through their confessions of these very facts as well.

So, for one, I think it's funny that you try to argue against something that jwhop didn't even write. Again, he stated a fact that is known, namely, that these detainees are "al Qaeda camp terrorist trainees".

Secondly, your response

quote:

---

They aren't Al Qaeda. If you read up on them, you'd know that.

---

made me laugh because you make a subjective statement without even realizing it. Not you or anyone can know the hearts of these men and whether or not they line up with al Qaeda ideology. The MSM sells everyone a story about the innocent Uighurs, how they are oppressed Muslims from China and all they wanted to do was to fight for their freedom and, now, the masses think they know they are not al Qaeda. Can I ask just one question? HOW THE **** DOES EVERYONE KNOW?

What I do know is that weaker wills have the tendency to become malleable in the presence of stronger conditions. In this case, the detained Uighurs could very well have aligned themselves with al Qaeda ideology and quickly changed their minds when they got caught and imprisoned. Only a select few know the answer to whether or not these prisoners are al Qaeda and that's the prisoners themselves. Reading up on them isn't going to prove anything. Anyone who makes the attempt to solve this by doing a bit of reading throws their own credibility out the window.

That's what was funny.

posted May 24, 2009 11:08 PM         

quote:

---

I think it's funny when someone argues against something that wasn't even presented in the first place.

---

You're thinking small picture. I'm thinking big picture. When Jwhop says that they're Al-Qaeda camp terrorist trainees, there are two implications. One is that they're associated with Al Qaeda. The other is that they should be treated as Al Qaeda. Now when the Supreme Court hears the case, and decides in favor of releasing them, you could say that the Supreme Court is making a subjective call and looking into the hearts of men, but they have FAR MORE information than either you or I have. It's not so much a subjective statement on my part as a statement that acknowledges that under the microscope of the American justice system the argument has been SO compelling as to prompt the dominantly conservative court to order their release.

quote:

---

The MSM sells everyone a story about the innocent Uighurs, how they are oppressed Muslims from China and all they wanted to do was to fight for their freedom and, now, the masses think they know they are not al Qaeda.

---

The MSM does not have a stake in the fate of the Uighurs. (In fact, if the MSM is as ultra-leftist as conservatives like to claim, then the MSM's interest would be in keeping Chinese terrorists from disrupting the Communist regime in China.) If you want to go ahead and poll the masses, you'll find that most people aren't even aware of the Uighurs.

quote:

---

Anyone who makes the attempt to solve this by doing a bit of reading throws their own credibility out the window.

---

I'm surprised that you're even trying to impugn my credibility. You'll have to let me know how that works out for you. I hope the next attempt at cocky humor is a bit more thought out than this.

posted May 26, 2009 02:27 AM         

How could I have been so blind-sided before! I can't believe I've been stuck in this small picture all this time! Thanks for opening up my eyes, Mr. Big Picture! The world is so much more reasonable through these lenses full of ingenuous hypocrisy!

Your strict belief that a detainee has to be directly involved with al Qaeda in order for them to be lawfully detained outside of the courts' jurisdiction is in error. Even in the latest so-called "reversal" of U.S. policy, the President still "has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces." (quote comes from: cnn.com, the bold is mine)

In other words, the reversal is essentially a prohibition of the use of the word "enemy combatant" while still keeping the same definition used by the Bush administration as the parameters for detention policy.

If we were discussing the Boumediene v. Bush case, I wouldn't have responded. The Uighurs, however, seem to have quite a bit of compelling evidence going against them.

quote:

---

When Jwhop says that they're Al-Qaeda camp terrorist trainees, there are two implications. One is that they're associated with Al Qaeda. The other is that they should be treated as Al Qaeda.

---

These are the very implications supported by the Executive Branch in light of the evidence against the detainees. Just because they weren't directly involved with al Qaeda doesn't mean that they weren't involved with associated forces. You're point in saying that "they're not al Qaeda" really misses the crux of the issue. And when you follow that up with "If you read up on them, you'd know that", it makes it even worse.

quote:

---

Now when the Supreme Court hears the case, and decides in favor of releasing them, you could say that the Supreme Court is making a subjective call and looking into the hearts of men, but they have FAR MORE information than either you or I have.

---

If you could say that about the Supreme Court, then God help us. As far as the Justices having "FAR MORE" information available to them about these issues, I'm not so sure about that. The whole reason that the courts are using the writ of habeas corpus is because they don't have the information they desire. The Judicial branch is the least informed of the branches when it comes to the issue of National Security. That's why they're pulling strings. They want to ascertain the legality of the detainees' imprisonment despite the possibility of compromising the information they might uncover.

quote:

---

It's not so much a subjective statement on my part as a statement that acknowledges that under the microscope of the American justice system the argument has been SO compelling as to prompt the dominantly conservative court to order their release.

---

Wow, man. I'm impressed by how much denial you were able to pack into that sentence. I thought it would've been a lot easier (and more honest) to just admit to the subjective nature of your statement, but that's just me. I guess I'll just stick to the usual confusion that I suffer when I read your posts. I'm already used to it!

posted May 26, 2009 06:17 PM         

quote:

---

The Uighurs, however, seem to have quite a bit of compelling evidence going against them.

---

Are you sure about that?

Perhaps further reading is in order:
From 2005

quote:

---

Just because they weren't directly involved with al Qaeda doesn't mean that they weren't involved with associated forces.

---

They were detained with the excuse that they belonged to groups associated with Al Qaeda, but that appears to be a tenuous, and not well substantiated claim.

quote:

---

The whole reason that the courts are using the writ of habeas corpus is because they don't have the information they desire. The Judicial branch is the least informed of the branches when it comes to the issue of National Security.

---

Do you think the Pentagon had enough national security information when they determined the Uighurs were low risk detainees in 2003?

quote:

---

I thought it would've been a lot easier (and more honest) to just admit to the subjective nature of your statement, but that's just me.

---

I would have thought it would be much easier to educate yourself on the Uighurs before trying to make rash claims about their supposed associations.

After this court held the government had failed to present evidence to support a finding that one of the petitioners was an enemy combatant, Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 854(D.C. Cir. 2008), the government advised the district court that the other petitioners also were not enemy combatants. Pet’rs’ Opp’n to Stay, Ex. G. The government also advised the district court that although it had made diplomatic efforts over several years to identify a country willing to receive these petitioners, its efforts had been in vain, and it could not state when petitioners could be released to another country.

________________

The court’s release order was based on findings that are either uncontested by the government or clearly supported by the record. The government had filed no returns to the writs filed by ten of the petitioners, and the returns in response to the remainder consisted only of the hearing records from Combatant Status Review Tribunals (“CSRTs”), the type of record the court found wanting in Parhat. Although expressly offered the opportunity by the district court, the government presented no evidence that the petitioners pose a threat to the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person. Mot. Status Hr’g Tr. at 10-11 (Oct. 7, 2008); see 8 U.S.C. § 1226a(a)(6); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 387 (2005)
(O’Connor, J., concurring).
Kiyemba v. Bush

posted May 26, 2009 07:25 PM         

I think it's great acoustic sees the BIGGGGGG picture. But I often wonder if those aren't hemorrhoids he's seeing considering where his head always is.

The Court ordered these trained terrorists released on procedural grounds having nothing whatsoever to do with their guilt or innocence.

posted May 26, 2009 09:46 PM         

Although expressly offered the opportunity by the district court, the government presented no evidence that the petitioners pose a threat to the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person. Mot. Status Hr’g Tr. at 10-11 (Oct. 7, 2008); see 8 U.S.C. § 1226a(a)(6); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 387 (2005)(O’Connor, J., concurring).
Kiyemba v. Bush

posted May 26, 2009 10:18 PM         

You don't have a clue as to why the government didn't move heaven and earth to hold them. It could be and probably is a fact that presenting evidence in a show cause hearing would reveal intelligence in court that the US doesn't want known...or perhaps it involved witnesses/informants who the US didn't want outed. The fact is, these trained terrorists should never have be allowed access to the US criminal courts system in the first place.

posted May 26, 2009 10:24 PM         

I'm going to go ahead and save face because I'm pretty close to flippin' my lid. I have such little tolerance for people who go on about things over which they have little to no knowledge. Perhaps the reason is because it's a character flaw that's too close to my own experience.

'Til next time, fellas.

posted May 26, 2009 11:18 PM         

quote:

---

Now, having said that, there is absolutely no possible justification for releasing trained terrorists in the United States.

---

We are not in possession of any conclusive evidence that these are "trained terrorists."

quote:

---

I have such little tolerance for people who go on about things over which they have little to no knowledge.

---

posted May 27, 2009 08:36 AM         

quote:

---

It's flies in the face of logic to assume that the government wouldn't protect national security by providing compelling evidence to keep these detainees locked up if they were thought to be credible threats to United States' national security...acoustic

---

It makes perfect sense acoustic...when you consider there are no star chamber legal proceedings in the United States. Our courts are a matter of public record. We don't know why the US didn't want to produce evidence at the show cause hearing..."Show Cause" why these detainees should be held. But we do know the press picks up everything they can and blasts the information all over the pages of major newspapers...those also read by al-Qaeda and every other terrorist organization.

So, what US measures were used to identify these guys? And what methods were used to capture them? And, was there an informant involved? The prosecutors wouldn't want any of that information blasted all over the newspapers and television.

We do all remember when your pals at the NY Times blasted the top secret NSA program to track terrorists by their cell phones all over the pages of the NY Times and that program had to be scraped...don't we acoustic.

These guys sure weren't Chinese goat herders who accidentally strayed out of China and ended up in Afghanistan guarding their goat herd by night.

By the way acoustic; 17% of those released from detention at Gitmo...you know acoustic..."those who do not pose any threat to the United States or US military personnel"....yeah acoustic, those; well 17% of those innocent terrorists who mean the US no harm went back to their terrorist activities attacking and attempting to kill US military forces. That's 17% that we know of and the percentage is probably higher than that because we haven't recaptured or killed some of the others...yet.