Obama, Protecting the Rights of Terrorists Everywhere

He’s certainly faithful to his constituency.

On Monday in Michigan, Obama became exercised when talking about the need to give even suspected terrorists legal rights.

“We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist,’’ he said at a campaign rally, but “it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it’s Barack the bomb-thrower. But it might be Barack the guy running for president.’’

Continuing, he got more heated, his voice booming. Referring to the Constitution, he said: “Don’t mock the Constitution! Don’t make fun of it! Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the founding fathers set up! It’s worked pretty well for 200 years!’’

He finished with a sigh: “These people.”


Mohammad the cab driver could have explosives in the trunk.

Barack the bomb thrower or Barack the candidate. What a choice.

And, that’s We the People  to you, Obamessiah.

Don’t mock the Constitution? Has he ever read  it? I must have missed the amendment which gives rights to foreign terrorists and enemy combatants. Maybe he plans on adding one in addition to the ’57 states’.

I’m one of those people who served this country as a Soldier for 30 years and was sworn to uphold the Constitution. I don’t need a lecture from a socialist who cares more for the ‘rights’ of Islamic terrorists than law-abiding American citizens.

While we’re on that subject, according to a recent Rasmussen Poll:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

So if a judge’s ‘sense of fairness’ doesn’t jive with the Constitution, that’s okay? Obama’s minions display such a good facade of concern over Constitutional rights. Too bad they wouldn’t know a real violation if it walked up with a bomb strapped to it.

5 thoughts on “Obama, Protecting the Rights of Terrorists Everywhere”

  1. Futureman,

    Release is not a choice I’d have made.

    From a previous post:


    Three years ago, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti soldier who deserted to fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban, sat in a detention cell at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while lawyers argued whether he was an “enemy combatant.”

    Last week, a Dubai-based television channel reported that al-Ajmi was killed carrying out a homicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.

    While the report did not specify which attack Abdullah carried out, Iraqi officials reported that Mosul was hit on April 26 by three homicide attacks, killing seven people.

    CBS News reported that al-Ajmi carried out an attack on Wednesday, April 30, according to an unconfirmed report posted on a jihadist Web site.

    Al-Ajmi’s cousin, Salem, reportedly told Al-Arabiya television that , “We were shocked by the painful news we received … from one of the friends of martyr Abdullah in Iraq.”

    Salem al-Ajmi reportedly said a friend told his cousin’s family that the 30-year-old former detainee had fled Kuwait about two weeks ago.

    Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, who was repatriated to Kuwait in November, 2005, was free on bail there awaiting trial on charges he helped to raise money for Al Qaeda.

    U.S. counterterrorism analysts argued in a review of al-Ajmi’s activities that he should not be released or returned to Kuwait based on the following:

    — That he deserted from the Kuwaiti army to participate in a jihad in Afghanistan;

    — The Taliban supplied him with arms, including grenades;

    — He admitted fighting with the Taliban, including engaging in two or three firefights;

    — He was captured by coalition forces in the Tora Bora region, an area once thought to be a hideout of Usama bin Laden;

    — That upon his arrival at Guantanamo he demonstrated “aggressive” behavior; and,

    — Based on a review of classified and unclassified documents, al-Ajmi was declared a threat to the United States and its allies.

    Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354209,00.html

    Guess who helped him out? The same law firm who represented the Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners taken after the bloody battle at the Qala-I-Jangi fortress in Afghanistan.

    ……12 Kuwaitis picked up in Afghanistan and detained at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. Their families retained Tom Wilner and the prestigious law firm of Shearman & Sterling early that same year. Arguably, it is Mr. Wilner’s aggressive representation, along with the determined efforts of the Kuwait government, that has had the greatest influence in the outcome of all the enemy combatant cases, in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. The lawsuit filed on their behalf, renamed Rasul v. Bush when three cases were joined, is credited with opening the door for the blizzard of litigation that followed.

    ……It turns out that Shearman & Sterling, a 1,000-lawyer firm with offices in 19 cities all over the world, has substantial business dealings on six continents. Indeed, Shearman’s client care for Middle Eastern matters has established a new industry standard: The firm’s Abu Dhabi office states that it has pioneered the concept of “Shariah-compliant” financing. In Kuwait, the firm has represented the government on a wide variety of matters involving billions of dollars worth of assets. So the party underwriting the litigation on behalf of the Kuwaiti 12–from which all of the detainees have benefited–is one of Shearman & Sterling’s most lucrative OPEC accounts


    The focus of these shysters is to draw attention away from the muslim atrocities and portray them as “innocent victims of Islamophobia” following 9/11. Forget the fact that the fuckers were caught after firefights, planting IEDs, or during sweeps of terrorist hideouts and strongholds.

    The muslim shits like the “Kuwait 12” are poster boys for the ‘take no prisoners’ motto.

    We A-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring the war in the Pacific to a halt. The Japanese got the message. BTW: They never did suffer the full consequence of atrocities like the Bataan Death March. They got off pretty easy. Same for the Germans. We used tactics in Germany like fire-bombing Dresden for 10 days. The Germans were finally defeated after we pummeled enough of them, but in light of the Holocaust and the way they treated American prisoners, they too, got off light.

    You’re gonna have to divest yourself of the notion that we’re fighting an enemy that plays ‘fair’ or by the Marquis of Queensberry rules. They don’t have your liberal sensitivity and couldn’t care less about Geneva, much less find it on a map. Doesn’t do a whole lot of good when we’re the only ones expected to adhere to an obsolete, ineffectual ‘treaty’.

    Just compare the lack of outrage over the beheadings, use of children and mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, and indiscriminate killings on the part of the muslims you sympathize with, to the hyperbolic bullshit being leveled at GITMO Soldiers trying to do their jobs. How’d ya like to endure getting feces and urine getting thrown on you as well as false accusations of ‘abuse’? That’s part of what those little muslim fucksticks do on a daily basis. Use your sympathy for people who deserve it, like the victims of the ‘peaceful religion of Islam’, past and present.

    As for the Iraqis, (most of them are muslim) they should be grateful…that I wasn’t in charge.

    Today is the 7th anniversay of 9/11. Remember who was responsible.


  2. Futureman,
    Only a leftwing moonbat would assign the same rights to enemy combatants and terrorists where none exist, especially in the Constitution. As for spreading freedom, killing Islamofascists hell bent on world conquest is part of that. The freedom from Islamic-based brutality.

    Nah, Saddam put most of them in MASS GRAVES.

    Since you’ve got your panties in a wad comparing treatment of prisoners: American troops and civilians captured by those poor misunderstood terrorists are beaten, tortured and beheaded, without benefit of ‘legal representation’.

    Not a peep out of you liberal shitbags.

    The Islamic thugs who earned their way into GITMO by committing heinous acts, usually complain about the AC turned up too high, not getting a second helping of Falafel, not enough recreation time, or worn-out prayer mats.
    A lot of them don’t want to leave.

    Those that do, usually pick up where they left off.

    FUCK imprisoning them; take them out and shoot them. Then, we wouldn’t have to listen to the incessant whining from liberal shitbirds who care more about the ‘treatment’ of ruthless Islamic cutthroats than innocent victims. (READ: INFIDELS).

    Allah U Fuckbar.


  3. Yeah and they were all “Islamic thugs who earned their way into GITMO by commiting heinous acts”. That is why we have released hundreds of them with no charges. Many of them were just people picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The vast majority of them did not fire a shot at American troops.

    The Japanese and Germans, NV and Koreans abused our troops also. But we are better than them. Are you so ignorant that you would have us reduce ourselves to the level of the “savages” who you say we are opposing? (silly question, clearly you are) You would have us just shoot civilians? And then I bet you would accuse the Iraqis of being ungrateful for our “help” eh?

  4. Only an idiot would think that blindly imprisoning anyone for an indefinite period with no legal access and no charges brought is “spreading freedom”. You can’t talk about spreading freedom while you are behaving like a tyrant. You know who else just imprisoned people? Saddam Hussein.

    Amazing how much you rightard whack jobs hate the constitution.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial