Originally posted by Cleffy

Not really supporting the war, just pointing to the facts that after the War in Iraq the amount of civilian deaths in the country decreased.  You are trying to paint George W. Bush on the same level as Stalin or Hitler, yet he is a much larger humanitarian then any Democrat in Congress right now.  The way I see it, it happened might as well make a positive outcome out of a negative.

First, the highlighted portion.  Do you have any proof to back that up that statement?  Or, are you just pulling this saintification of good ol' GW while spewing more Democrat hate from your arse?  I'm leading for the latter.

Second, this further validates my statement that Bush supporters will do and/or say anything to defend their failed savior.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Cleffy

Not really supporting the war, just pointing to the facts that after the War in Iraq the amount of civilian deaths in the country decreased.  You are trying to paint George W. Bush on the same level as Stalin or Hitler, yet he is a much larger humanitarian then any Democrat in Congress right now.  The way I see it, it happened might as well make a positive outcome out of a negative.

First, the highlighted portion.  Do you have any proof to back that up that statement?  Or, are you just pulling this saintification of good ol' GW while spewing more Democrat hate from your arse?  I'm leading for the latter.

 

Second, this further validates my statement that Bush supporters will do and/or say anything to defend their failed savior.

I personally thought Bush was to far to the left with his no child left behind and medicare part D crap (both entitelment programs you lefities should have loved), but in this case I would have to agree with Cleffy. Most of you lefties that compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin have no clue what kind of body count those gents generated (you should try reading more).Hitler was good for about 20 million, and Stalin was good for upwards of 80 million. Bush? He might have been good for like 30k. The math just doesn't add up. Lincoln was good for over a million just because he ran and got elected. How evil do you think he is? Roosevelt was good for several million, and JFK/LBJ easily tops Bush's body count with Vietnam. Now you can excuse Roosevelt's bodycount by saying his actions also liberated tens of millions, but then so did Bush's. Each decision a President is forced to make has both positive and negative ramifications if the positive outweighs the negative they are hailed as brilliant heroes if the other away around then they become failures. Unfortunately in Bush's case the heavly biased media has tried to twist a low number of casulties (as far a war goes, or if you want another comparision more people were murdered in D.C. each year than were every lost in Bush's wars) into a horror that simply doesn't exist. This was done to try to sway the American public to their point of view so that we would elect more leftists. Even today I watched a dem strategiest trying to blame Bush for the failure of Obama's porkuluss to keep unemployment under 10%. Bush has been gone almost a year now, and Obama promised us Porkuluss would keep unemployment under 8%. At what point does Obama and his followers take responsibility for their own failures?

In closing Bush the evil one himself scorge of the planet earth and the greatest satan (just ask hugo chavez)  to walk this earth since Hitler/Stalin was one of the best friends Africa ever had.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm

www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004621.html

Impeach, eh?

Remind me, what laws did he break?

Bush has called for increasing aid to Africa from $3 billion to $30 billion during his Presidency that has saved millions of people from Malaria.  He has changed education to increase competition in public education, and has increased the level of public education the US now recieves.  He was successful in preventing any terrorist on American Soil, something that happened several times in the previous administration killing thousands.  He also went after 2 corrupt regimes that had been responsible for much larger death tolls then were attributed to being casualties in the Iraq Rebuilding.  You can't forget nearly all the casualties were caused by terrorist activities, not from US soldiers or operations.  Can you imagine what the casualties would have been if Bush just ditched Iraq?

Originally posted by Cleffy

Bush has called for increasing aid to Africa from $3 billion to $30 billion during his Presidency that has saved millions of people from Malaria.  He has changed education to increase competition in public education, and has increased the level of public education the US now recieves.  He was successful in preventing any terrorist on American Soil, something that happened several times in the previous administration killing thousands.  He also went after 2 corrupt regimes that had been responsible for much larger death tolls then were attributed to being casualties in the Iraq Rebuilding.  You can't forget nearly all the casualties were caused by terrorist activities, not from US soldiers or operations.  Can you imagine what the casualties would have been if Bush just ditched Iraq?

Ha yeah that's one way to look at Iraq and the education system. I'm sure many people would disagree about education level being increased. Also, the US soldiers being there indirectly cause pressure and possible harm to civilians.

If we never were in Iraq none of these casualties would of happened. You paint Bush in a very good light, he wasn't that good at all.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

So you fear that our justice system isn't fair?

Does that mean they could be found innocent in one system and guilty in the other? Is this a Schrodinger's cat mystery, or is one or the other system flawed in some way?

When there's a difference between the justice of the military court and the justice of our civil courts, there is surely something wrong somewhere...

QFT!  A few additonal points, 1) They are not war criminals as the terrorist attack was againsts a civillian target, they are not a legitimate military power;  2) The terrorists who attacked the WTC in the mid-90's where tried in a federal court in NY.  3) How come it has taken so long for the "master-mind" and his four conspirators to see their day on court? 

We should stand by our Consitution - it is the conerstone of our legal system.  I think to try and side step our legal process to avoid the discomfort of our countrys mis-steps would be a critical mistake in the eyes of the world.

Bush and Cheney should be put on trial right next to this guy. Biggest disgrace this country has ever seen. Bush and his "they hate are freedoms" and Cheney's total lack and disrespect for American soldiers are war criminals as well.

Originally posted by Loricane

Impeach, eh?

 

Remind me, what laws did he break?

/thread

Originally posted by Cleffy

Bush has called for increasing aid to Africa from $3 billion to $30 billion during his Presidency that has saved millions of people from Malaria.  He has changed education to increase competition in public education, and has increased the level of public education the US now recieves.  He was successful in preventing any terrorist on American Soil, something that happened several times in the previous administration killing thousands.  He also went after 2 corrupt regimes that had been responsible for much larger death tolls then were attributed to being casualties in the Iraq Rebuilding.  You can't forget nearly all the casualties were caused by terrorist activities, not from US soldiers or operations.  Can you imagine what the casualties would have been if Bush just ditched Iraq?

1. $3 billion to $30 billion is a big difference.  Which means you're just guessing as to the exact amount.
2. Changed education?  You mean the "No Child Left Behind Act"?  Yeah.... no... that act actually did the opposite.  It made the school system teach to answer standardized tests rather than actually encourage thinking from students.  Something that actually hurt our education system rather than help it.
3. Was he successful in preventing any terrorism on American Soil?  What about 9/11?  That happened during his presidency.  You epicly failed on that statement.
4. No.  He went after Osama Bin Laden (Afghanistan) because Laden took full claim over 9/11.  That war was just.  However, he used fear-mongering tactics to claim that Sadam Husein was amassing WMD's.  THAT was what Bush used to support the Iraq invasion.  And, it was completely false!  It doesn't matter if Sadam was corrupt or not... Bush never used that as the basis for invading Iraq.  A war we should have never had to endure while we were still fighting in Afghanistan.  Now, Afghanistan is a loosing war all thanks to good ol' GW taking his eye off the ball.
5. Yes I can imagine... a lot less.  Specifically, in the loss of American and allied soldiers' lives.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Cleffy

Not really supporting the war, just pointing to the facts that after the War in Iraq the amount of civilian deaths in the country decreased.  You are trying to paint George W. Bush on the same level as Stalin or Hitler, yet he is a much larger humanitarian then any Democrat in Congress right now.  The way I see it, it happened might as well make a positive outcome out of a negative.

First, the highlighted portion.  Do you have any proof to back that up that statement?  Or, are you just pulling this saintification of good ol' GW while spewing more Democrat hate from your arse?  I'm leading for the latter.

 

Second, this further validates my statement that Bush supporters will do and/or say anything to defend their failed savior.

I personally thought Bush was to far to the left with his no child left behind and medicare part D crap (both entitelment programs you lefities should have loved), but in this case I would have to agree with Cleffy. Most of you lefties that compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin have no clue what kind of body count those gents generated (you should try reading more).Hitler was good for about 20 million, and Stalin was good for upwards of 80 million. Bush? He might have been good for like 30k. The math just doesn't add up. Lincoln was good for over a million just because he ran and got elected. How evil do you think he is? Roosevelt was good for several million, and JFK/LBJ easily tops Bush's body count with Vietnam. Now you can excuse Roosevelt's bodycount by saying his actions also liberated tens of millions, but then so did Bush's. Each decision a President is forced to make has both positive and negative ramifications if the positive outweighs the negative they are hailed as brilliant heroes if the other away around then they become failures. Unfortunately in Bush's case the heavly biased media has tried to twist a low number of casulties (as far a war goes, or if you want another comparision more people were murdered in D.C. each year than were every lost in Bush's wars) into a horror that simply doesn't exist. This was done to try to sway the American public to their point of view so that we would elect more leftists. Even today I watched a dem strategiest trying to blame Bush for the failure of Obama's porkuluss to keep unemployment under 10%. Bush has been gone almost a year now, and Obama promised us Porkuluss would keep unemployment under 8%. At what point does Obama and his followers take responsibility for their own failures?

In closing Bush the evil one himself scorge of the planet earth and the greatest satan (just ask hugo chavez)  to walk this earth since Hitler/Stalin was one of the best friends Africa ever had.

 

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm

www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004621.html

1. Stop putting words in my mouth.  I NEVER stated that Bush was equivalent of Hitler or Stalin.  You just ASS-U-med I did.  Therefore your tirade on the subject is just more sensationalist bull crap.
2. I have never stated I was a "lefty".  Again, more ASS-U-mptions from you.  I am a centrist that slightly leans to the left.  However, I already know you'll categorize me as a "lefty" because anyone that doesn't breathe Christianity, guns, and low government is automatically considered a "lefty" in your eyes.
3. There's two major problems with your Bush argument.
   1. All of the president's you listed had wars where someone instigated the war.  Lincoln, many states succeeding from the union.  Roosevelt had where the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to initiate America to go to war.  And Vietnam was based on the threat of Communism.  With Bush's Iraq invasion, we were the instigators not Iraq... major difference there.
   2. The "lower number of casualties" for the Iraq war means very little in this discussion.  This is due to all the previous wars were based off of retaliation from a second party.  Iraq invasion was based off of no such retaliation.  9/11 was done by Osama Bin Laden, which was suspected to be in Afghanistan (hence the war there).  He was not suspected to be in Iraq, and Iraq had done nothing against the US to warrant an invasion.  Thus, Bush initiated this unnecessary invasion, which caused many of thousands of Human lives
4. Please keep your paranoia of the media out of these discussions.
5. The stuff about Bush vs. Obama's stimulus package has NOTHING to do with this discussion of the Iraq invasion.  Unless you want to focus on the total dollar cost of the Iraq invasion.  Money, which was wasted on an unnecessary war.  Otherwise, keep on track.
6. K... so he attempted to help Africa.  Yet screwed the US and Iraq royally.  Go fig.

Originally posted by Vato26

1. Stop putting words in my mouth.  I NEVER stated that Bush was equivalent of Hitler or Stalin.  You just ASS-U-med I did.  Therefore your tirade on the subject is just more sensationalist bull crap.
2. I have never stated I was a "lefty".  Again, more ASS-U-mptions from you.  I am a centrist that slightly leans to the left.  However, I already know you'll categorize me as a "lefty" because anyone that doesn't breathe Christianity, guns, and low government is automatically considered a "lefty" in your eyes.
3. There's two major problems with your Bush argument.
   1. All of the president's you listed had wars where someone instigated the war.  Lincoln, many states succeeding from the union.  Roosevelt had where the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to initiate America to go to war.  And Vietnam was based on the threat of Communism.  With Bush's Iraq invasion, we were the instigators not Iraq... major difference there.
   2. The "lower number of casualties" for the Iraq war means very little in this discussion.  This is due to all the previous wars were based off of retaliation from a second party.  Iraq invasion was based off of no such retaliation.  9/11 was done by Osama Bin Laden, which was suspected to be in Afghanistan (hence the war there).  He was not suspected to be in Iraq, and Iraq had done nothing against the US to warrant an invasion.  Thus, Bush initiated this unnecessary invasion, which caused many of thousands of Human lives
4. Please keep your paranoia of the media out of these discussions.
5. The stuff about Bush vs. Obama's stimulus package has NOTHING to do with this discussion of the Iraq invasion.  Unless you want to focus on the total dollar cost of the Iraq invasion.  Money, which was wasted on an unnecessary war.  Otherwise, keep on track.
6. K... so he attempted to help Africa.  Yet screwed the US and Iraq royally.  Go fig.

 

 

Amen brother!  Send lawyers, guns and money!!!
 

Originally posted by Vemoi

Every day there is another disaster Obama and his team are creating. Putting 911 terrorist on trial in NY is just the latest. What happens if they get off on technicality. How many years is this going to drag on?!  What a circus this is going to be. God I can't wait till the grownups are back in charge.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AC1S720091113

obama is commander in chief and he knows what is best the american people voted for him

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Cleffy

Not really supporting the war, just pointing to the facts that after the War in Iraq the amount of civilian deaths in the country decreased.  You are trying to paint George W. Bush on the same level as Stalin or Hitler, yet he is a much larger humanitarian then any Democrat in Congress right now.  The way I see it, it happened might as well make a positive outcome out of a negative.

First, the highlighted portion.  Do you have any proof to back that up that statement?  Or, are you just pulling this saintification of good ol' GW while spewing more Democrat hate from your arse?  I'm leading for the latter.

 

Second, this further validates my statement that Bush supporters will do and/or say anything to defend their failed savior.

I personally thought Bush was to far to the left with his no child left behind and medicare part D crap (both entitelment programs you lefities should have loved), but in this case I would have to agree with Cleffy. Most of you lefties that compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin have no clue what kind of body count those gents generated (you should try reading more).Hitler was good for about 20 million, and Stalin was good for upwards of 80 million. Bush? He might have been good for like 30k. The math just doesn't add up. Lincoln was good for over a million just because he ran and got elected. How evil do you think he is? Roosevelt was good for several million, and JFK/LBJ easily tops Bush's body count with Vietnam. Now you can excuse Roosevelt's bodycount by saying his actions also liberated tens of millions, but then so did Bush's. Each decision a President is forced to make has both positive and negative ramifications if the positive outweighs the negative they are hailed as brilliant heroes if the other away around then they become failures. Unfortunately in Bush's case the heavly biased media has tried to twist a low number of casulties (as far a war goes, or if you want another comparision more people were murdered in D.C. each year than were every lost in Bush's wars) into a horror that simply doesn't exist. This was done to try to sway the American public to their point of view so that we would elect more leftists. Even today I watched a dem strategiest trying to blame Bush for the failure of Obama's porkuluss to keep unemployment under 10%. Bush has been gone almost a year now, and Obama promised us Porkuluss would keep unemployment under 8%. At what point does Obama and his followers take responsibility for their own failures?

In closing Bush the evil one himself scorge of the planet earth and the greatest satan (just ask hugo chavez)  to walk this earth since Hitler/Stalin was one of the best friends Africa ever had.

 

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm

www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004621.html

1. Stop putting words in my mouth.  I NEVER stated that Bush was equivalent of Hitler or Stalin.  You just ASS-U-med I did.  Therefore your tirade on the subject is just more sensationalist bull crap.
2. I have never stated I was a "lefty".  Again, more ASS-U-mptions from you.  I am a centrist that slightly leans to the left.  However, I already know you'll categorize me as a "lefty" because anyone that doesn't breathe Christianity, guns, and low government is automatically considered a "lefty" in your eyes.
3. There's two major problems with your Bush argument.
   1. All of the president's you listed had wars where someone instigated the war.  Lincoln, many states succeeding from the union.  Roosevelt had where the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to initiate America to go to war.  And Vietnam was based on the threat of Communism.  With Bush's Iraq invasion, we were the instigators not Iraq... major difference there.
   2. The "lower number of casualties" for the Iraq war means very little in this discussion.  This is due to all the previous wars were based off of retaliation from a second party.  Iraq invasion was based off of no such retaliation.  9/11 was done by Osama Bin Laden, which was suspected to be in Afghanistan (hence the war there).  He was not suspected to be in Iraq, and Iraq had done nothing against the US to warrant an invasion.  Thus, Bush initiated this unnecessary invasion, which caused many of thousands of Human lives
4. Please keep your paranoia of the media out of these discussions.
5. The stuff about Bush vs. Obama's stimulus package has NOTHING to do with this discussion of the Iraq invasion.  Unless you want to focus on the total dollar cost of the Iraq invasion.  Money, which was wasted on an unnecessary war.  Otherwise, keep on track.
6. K... so he attempted to help Africa.  Yet screwed the US and Iraq royally.  Go fig.

 

 

Yep your right. I think Bush is too far left so my views tend to be very unpalatable to anyone left of the republicans (who are too far left btw). Your avatar did cause me to make an assumption that you were in the group that compared Bush to Hitler. We liberated Iraq from a known mass murderer and did it with rather light casulties in comparitive terms to other wars. Do I think we should have invaded Iraq no it was too expensive. You originally asked if Bush did anything nice for anybody he did.  Africa & Seniors. I  brought up Porkuluss because it is a classic example of the left still blaming Bush for something that was completly out of his hands. Basically I think Bush is a medoicore to poor President I think Obama is worse.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Cleffy

Not really supporting the war, just pointing to the facts that after the War in Iraq the amount of civilian deaths in the country decreased.  You are trying to paint George W. Bush on the same level as Stalin or Hitler, yet he is a much larger humanitarian then any Democrat in Congress right now.  The way I see it, it happened might as well make a positive outcome out of a negative.

First, the highlighted portion.  Do you have any proof to back that up that statement?  Or, are you just pulling this saintification of good ol' GW while spewing more Democrat hate from your arse?  I'm leading for the latter.

 

Second, this further validates my statement that Bush supporters will do and/or say anything to defend their failed savior.

I personally thought Bush was to far to the left with his no child left behind and medicare part D crap (both entitelment programs you lefities should have loved), but in this case I would have to agree with Cleffy. Most of you lefties that compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin have no clue what kind of body count those gents generated (you should try reading more).Hitler was good for about 20 million, and Stalin was good for upwards of 80 million. Bush? He might have been good for like 30k. The math just doesn't add up. Lincoln was good for over a million just because he ran and got elected. How evil do you think he is? Roosevelt was good for several million, and JFK/LBJ easily tops Bush's body count with Vietnam. Now you can excuse Roosevelt's bodycount by saying his actions also liberated tens of millions, but then so did Bush's. Each decision a President is forced to make has both positive and negative ramifications if the positive outweighs the negative they are hailed as brilliant heroes if the other away around then they become failures. Unfortunately in Bush's case the heavly biased media has tried to twist a low number of casulties (as far a war goes, or if you want another comparision more people were murdered in D.C. each year than were every lost in Bush's wars) into a horror that simply doesn't exist. This was done to try to sway the American public to their point of view so that we would elect more leftists. Even today I watched a dem strategiest trying to blame Bush for the failure of Obama's porkuluss to keep unemployment under 10%. Bush has been gone almost a year now, and Obama promised us Porkuluss would keep unemployment under 8%. At what point does Obama and his followers take responsibility for their own failures?

In closing Bush the evil one himself scorge of the planet earth and the greatest satan (just ask hugo chavez)  to walk this earth since Hitler/Stalin was one of the best friends Africa ever had.

 

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm

www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004621.html

1. Stop putting words in my mouth.  I NEVER stated that Bush was equivalent of Hitler or Stalin.  You just ASS-U-med I did.  Therefore your tirade on the subject is just more sensationalist bull crap.
2. I have never stated I was a "lefty".  Again, more ASS-U-mptions from you.  I am a centrist that slightly leans to the left.  However, I already know you'll categorize me as a "lefty" because anyone that doesn't breathe Christianity, guns, and low government is automatically considered a "lefty" in your eyes.
3. There's two major problems with your Bush argument.
   1. All of the president's you listed had wars where someone instigated the war.  Lincoln, many states succeeding from the union.  Roosevelt had where the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to initiate America to go to war.  And Vietnam was based on the threat of Communism.  With Bush's Iraq invasion, we were the instigators not Iraq... major difference there.
   2. The "lower number of casualties" for the Iraq war means very little in this discussion.  This is due to all the previous wars were based off of retaliation from a second party.  Iraq invasion was based off of no such retaliation.  9/11 was done by Osama Bin Laden, which was suspected to be in Afghanistan (hence the war there).  He was not suspected to be in Iraq, and Iraq had done nothing against the US to warrant an invasion.  Thus, Bush initiated this unnecessary invasion, which caused many of thousands of Human lives
4. Please keep your paranoia of the media out of these discussions.
5. The stuff about Bush vs. Obama's stimulus package has NOTHING to do with this discussion of the Iraq invasion.  Unless you want to focus on the total dollar cost of the Iraq invasion.  Money, which was wasted on an unnecessary war.  Otherwise, keep on track.
6. K... so he attempted to help Africa.  Yet screwed the US and Iraq royally.  Go fig.

 

 

Yep your right. I think Bush is too far left so my views tend to be very unpalatable to anyone left of the republicans (who are too far left btw). Your avatar did cause me to make an assumption that you were in the group that compared Bush to Hitler. We liberated Iraq from a known mass murderer and did it with rather light casulties in comparitive terms to other wars. Do I think we should have invaded Iraq no it was too expensive. You originally asked if Bush did anything nice for anybody he did.  Africa & Seniors. I  brought up Porkuluss because it is a classic example of the left still blaming Bush for something that was completly out of his hands. Basically I think Bush is a medoicore to poor President I think Obama is worse.

Wow.... You assumed that I was comparing "Bush to Hitler" because I have an avatar of Bush holding a phone receiver upside down that says "Fail"?  That is probably the biggest leaps of epic fail I have ever heard in a long time.

That's all fine and dandy that we liberated Iraq.  HOWEVER, that is not the reason that Bush and Powell gave us as to why we should go to war with Iraq.  It was all about their supposed stockpiling of WMD's.  That's all that was heard about... Iraq stockpiling WMD.  Which, after the fact of our invasion, was found to be completely false.

Anyways, what gives us the right to invade another country when we were already fighting another war that was more tactically challenging than Iraq (Afghanistan is a much, much more mountainous terrain).  We were doing well in Afghanistan before Iraq.  Now we're loosing that war.  All thanks to Bush and his fearmongering and warmongering tactics.

Now we're on Bush's economic policy... which is completely off-topic of this thread.  Please keep-up and stop trying to derail these discussions.

For Iraq and Afghanistan funding, you need to have the approval of Congress.  In the last 2 years Congress has been denying those funds which coincides with the time frame Afghanistan started to become more unstable.

The problem in Afghanistan doesn't really have to do with the terrain although it contributes.  If anything the terrain works to our advantage since we can hide on the high ground while our enemies can be tracked from space.  The real problem is on the counter-terrorism front.  What was attributed to helping reduce violence in Iraq and supressing the civil war between Suni and Shia won't work in Afghanistan.  Afghanistan is still in a feudal culture which means that in each of the many communities there are many sides against each other.  It isn't as simple as making the Kurds, Suni, and Shia cooperate.  Its more like you have to bring peace to a certain village, then have those villages make peace with each other until the whole country is united.  The harder part is that things are more local so the reasons for the dispute aren't just about the labels they give each other, but also from actual personal experiences that make the distrust personal instead of generalized.

I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up but the 14th amendments Equal Protection Clause states that

---

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

---

We are a republic, this means that we are a nation of laws. Your opinion doesn't really matter because we follow the law, not the whimsical emotions of people. The law states that these people are allowed equal protection under the law. In a democracy the 51% can oppress the 49%, but our republic protects the 1% from the 99%. The rights of the individual are not subject to the majority.

Furthermore, these are not war criminals. Even the Bush administration was unable to classify these people as war criminals because war was never declared; and cannot actually be declared against a group but only a nation.

Judge Andrew Napolitano hits the nail on the head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBrfql3pnU

The US government doesn't have the authority to just abduct citizens of foreign countries and hold them indefinitely without a trial. People do have basic human rights, we can't just treat them like animals because we're emotionally upset.

EDIT:
To quote Rachel Dawes,

---

You're not talking about justice, you're talking about revenge... Justice is about harmony, revenge is about making yourself feel better. That's why we have an impartial system.

---

Lets put Bush and Cheney on trial right now, then let Obama have free reign for 8 years in a row like Bush did to fuck up the country. At the end of the 8 years we can put Obama on trial. Would this be fair?