Gitmo detainees want to stay there

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

By virtue of the office, my friend. He can do things to influence public opinion, polarize issues, and draw attention like no other man can. The Cambridge incident perfectly illustrates how his interference can complicate things. I'm amazed that you're turning a blind eye to this power by hiding behind Glenn Beck. It's unseemly.

What, specifically, is he going to do to alter the outcome of the trial? THAT is your argument, at least the one you have been articulating. Nobody questions the president can sway public opinion, polarize issues, and draw attention. So, too, can Glenn Beck (even if on a smaller scale). But what can either do to change the outcome of the trial? The point with Glenn Beck (which I think you already get, even if you pretend otherwise), is that he clearly can impact public opinion. He has a huge microphone. If you are arguing that Obama shouldn't say anything because he can impact public opinion, then why shouldn't someone else refrain from making comments? You suggest it is because Obama has MORE ability to sway opinion. Does that mean a person can permissibly sway opinion in your mind so long as they don't reach Obama's level of effectiveness? Is there any level beneath Obama's level of effectiveness where swaying public opinion isn't acceptable to you, or is it only the presidential level? We are talking about degrees here. You say Obama's degree of effectiveness is too high. Is anyone else's? What makes it too high?

If you think hiding behind that weasel word is going to change the way other countries view what he said, you're kidding yourself. Go listen to the Gates clip from last Sunday. Listen to his tone in addition to his words. Everything he, Obama, and Holder have been saying communicates, "Don't worry, the outcome is already decided."

They are trying to have it both ways: offering the promise of American fairness while still guaranteeing the punishment that is so politically desirable. And it's not working. A lawyer may see the distinction by inserting one word in a sentence, but the public doesn't, I promise you.

You "promise me?" That's a promise you just can't keep, Tex. If you don't get it by now, you aren't going to with more discussion. I think you do get it and feel you can't back down now that you realize you overreacted. Fine. I will let you walk away gracefully. Take the last word.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What, specifically, is he going to do to alter the outcome of the trial? THAT is your argument, at least the one you have been articulating. Nobody questions the president can sway public opinion, polarize issues, and draw attention. So, too, can Glenn Beck (even if on a smaller scale). But what can either do to change the outcome of the trial? The point with Glenn Beck (which I think you already get, even if you pretend otherwise), is that he clearly can impact public opinion. He has a huge microphone. If you are arguing that Obama shouldn't say anything because he can impact public opinion, then why shouldn't someone else refrain from making comments? You suggest it is because Obama has MORE ability to sway opinion. Does that mean a person can permissibly sway opinion in your mind so long as they don't reach Obama's level of effectiveness? Is there any level beneath Obama's level of effectiveness where swaying public opinion isn't acceptable to you, or is it only the presidential level? We are talking about degrees here. You say Obama's degree of effectiveness is too high. Is anyone else's? What makes it too high?

Are you going to stop to take a breath, or would you like to add another 10-15 questions?

It has nothing to do with "effectiveness" or "degrees". It has to do with who holds high office and who doesn't. It's not complicated.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You "promise me?" That's a promise you just can't keep, Tex. If you don't get it by now, you aren't going to with more discussion. I think you do get it and feel you can't back down now that you realize you overreacted. Fine. I will let you walk away gracefully. Take the last word.

You sound like an East Anglian researcher.

I don't think any fair-minded person can listen to those quotes and hear anything other than guarantees. Certainly not foreigners who don't understand our system. When the President's spokesman says, "Yeah, we'll have a trial, but he's going to be convicted," that sounds like bogus jurisprudence. Here's the full quote:



"That you can be sure of."

As Krauthammer said, "It's like in the westerns where they say: Let's hang him but give him a fair trial first."