« Children Forced to Pledge to Obama | Main | Media Establishment Still Trashing Sarah Palin »
January 30, 2009
Judge Resists Obama's Anti-Anti-Terror Policy
Obamunism can only be imposed if the individual people who make up the system are weak enough to go along with it. Judge James Pohl apparently isn't:
A military judge has refused the Obama administration's request to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen, FOX News learned Thursday.
Judge James Pohl's ruling throws a wrench in President Obama's plans to suspend the military tribunal process for 120 days while the administration reviews how to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within the year.
Unfortunately this may be only token resistance:
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday that Pohl would soon be told to comply with Obama's executive order.
At least cable news programs will have no shortage material, when we hold O.J.-style civilian circus trials for the foreign terrorists at Club Gitmo.
On a tip from Chad.
Posted by Van Helsing at January 30, 2009 9:57 AM
Comments
His last name is ironic, seeing as how it is the first name of a comminuist killer Pol Pot.
Posted by: Big_Daddy at January 30, 2009 10:33 AM
I hope that the judge keeps on ignoring the "ONES"
bullshit executive orders. He is just following the law as written, not what it could become at some time in the future.
Posted by: Stephana at January 30, 2009 10:49 AM
This will come down to Constitution and rule of law. The final question is, does the judge have to abide by an executive order? If so, what powers yield the President if they can be above the judiciary?
Posted by: Pete at January 30, 2009 11:09 AM
It's an interesting question - what are the limits of an Executive Order? Could the President issue one directing a verdict? Pretty clearly not. So where's the line?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 30, 2009 11:35 AM
Just wait till the demacraps get to this judge for daring to resist the demands of the annoying one
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at January 30, 2009 3:13 PM
All right, since the Liberals demand that we give these FOREIGNERS their "constitutional rights", let's look at the Constitution:
The US constitution states that the trial must be held in the state where the crime occured.
The majority of the prisoners were taken on the battlefields of OTHER COUNTRYS.
The accused has the right to question the witnesses against him/her and examine the evidence.
Some of the solders who (SPIT!) "arrested" the terrorists may be dead, discharged, or on duty in a war zone or military camp where it would be hard to track them down for testimony in court. Also, when you capture someone durring or after a battle, you are not concerned with securing the "crime scene" or gathering evidence of a crime.
Aside from that, what about the famous "Miranda Rights"? Can the case be dismissed because no one read them "their rights"? This HAS happened before. What about the statute of limitations? This war is more than seven years old, so under American law, there may be some "crimes" we can no longer prosicute.
I'm n ot a lawyer, but even a dumb ol' Cracker like me can see the load of dog-S**T that the Liberals have gotten us into!
Posted by: KHarn at January 30, 2009 5:53 PM
KHarn, i've said it before, the irony of this is
when they blow up our buildings, cities, and people, the liberals call it "breaking the law", when they chop off someone head, for no information or reason, the perpetrators "have rights".
when WE blow up their buildings, cities, and people, the liberals call it "senseless war" and we're all "war mongers and baby killers". When we splash a bucket of water on them, for information, that's "torture".
oh, and Bush should go to jail immediately to, since he has no rights.
Posted by: Pete at January 30, 2009 7:00 PM
Defying the orders of the commander-in-chief...
Is that treason?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2009 1:55 AM
The Obamunists are not going to be happy until we have another 9/11.
But people will not rally behind them like they did with GWB if, God forbid, another one does happen.
They will call for his impeachment because he previously acted with reckless disregard to the national interest.
Posted by: SK at January 31, 2009 2:00 AM
"Anonymous at January 31, 2009 1:55 AM"
No. The definition of treason is in the Constitution. At worst, this is "disobeying a lawful order", but the order's validity is in question.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2009 8:19 AM
The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
Posted by: Ted at January 31, 2009 5:05 PM
How about instead of closin that GUATONAMO BAY lets close the UN instead
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 2, 2009 7:50 AM
At the least, the Col. could be ordered to put the trial on hold as "Ordered". He could be charged with failure to obey a lawful order. He could be relieved of duty and or forced to retire. The defendant could still be tried after the Administration Review. I think the Col. is treading on shaky ground for the purpose of making a name for himself.
Posted by: Ken in NC at February 5, 2009 7:56 PM
