RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial

RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Loki45 -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 5:10:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u While none of this makes me happy...I have never cast a vote expecting to agree in all things at all times with the man I'm voting for.So that deals with the betrayal of my vote issue Now for the main issue....the seemingly Bush policies being continued....First off they are going to hold trial...whether thy be military tribunals or civilian criminal proceedings.....what they won't be is secret star chamber affairs. Second is anyone willing to say the President doesn't have the authority to indefinitely detain any foreign National during a conflict considered too dangerous to release? We who voted for this President fully expected that if he won he would become the possessor of all the power of that office.us So ,why should we now be upset.Has any President not had the power to detain indefinitely foreign Nationals deemed dangerous in a time of war....of course not...so what it comes down to....for most on the left anyway is in how the power of the Presidency is used....to be blunt there wasn't a whole lot of trust on this score invested in Bush/Cheney...and rightly so. For me it will all turn on how this power is implemented...I have much more faith with the new Administration than ever I held in the last one. They were the ultimate unilateral players on the world stage. [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif] Well said.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 5:12:32 PM)
What's the point of starting another thread to stir the same shit that was stirred a month ago when we talked about the same issue? And especially, what's the point of specifically calling out two posters who don't even appear to have logged on since last month? I've seen better trolls from you than this, Firm.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 6:29:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u While none of this makes me happy...I have never cast a vote expecting to agree in all things at all times with the man I'm voting for.So that deals with the betrayal of my vote issue Now for the main issue....the seemingly Bush policies being continued....First off they are going to hold trial...whether thy be military tribunals or civilian criminal proceedings.....what they won't be is secret star chamber affairs. Second is anyone willing to say the President doesn't have the authority to indefinitely detain any foreign National during a conflict considered too dangerous to release? We who voted for this President fully expected that if he won he would become the possessor of all the power of that office.us So ,why should we now be upset.Has any President not had the power to detain indefinitely foreign Nationals deemed dangerous in a time of war....of course not...so what it comes down to....for most on the left anyway is in how the power of the Presidency is used....to be blunt there wasn't a whole lot of trust on this score invested in Bush/Cheney...and rightly so. For me it will all turn on how this power is implemented...I have much more faith with the new Administration than ever I held in the last one. They were the ultimate unilateral players on the world stage. [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif] Well said. Glad you liked it,....I still think I should have worked in a "hockey mom joke" or two.......yanno punch it up a little.

Loki45 -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 6:46:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif] Well said. Glad you liked it,....I still think I should have worked in a "hockey mom joke" or two.......yanno punch it up a little. [sm=LMAO.gif]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 9:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda What's the point of starting another thread to stir the same shit that was stirred a month ago when we talked about the same issue? And especially, what's the point of specifically calling out two posters who don't even appear to have logged on since last month? I've seen better trolls from you than this, Firm. Do you have a link to the thread you are talking about? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 9:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u While none of this makes me happy...I have never cast a vote expecting to agree in all things at all times with the man I'm voting for.So that deals with the betrayal of my vote issue Now for the main issue....the seemingly Bush policies being continued....First off they are going to hold trial...whether thy be military tribunals or civilian criminal proceedings.....what they won't be is secret star chamber affairs. Second is anyone willing to say the President doesn't have the authority to indefinitely detain any foreign National during a conflict considered too dangerous to release? We who voted for this President fully expected that if he won he would become the possessor of all the power of that office.us So ,why should we now be upset.Has any President not had the power to detain indefinitely foreign Nationals deemed dangerous in a time of war....of course not...so what it comes down to....for most on the left anyway is in how the power of the Presidency is used....to be blunt there wasn't a whole lot of trust on this score invested in Bush/Cheney...and rightly so. For me it will all turn on how this power is implemented...I have much more faith with the new Administration than ever I held in the last one. They were the ultimate unilateral players on the world stage. I'm sorry Mike, but this sounds like a lot of rationalization, and not much reasoning. Did you read the article I cited in the OP? What is the purpose of "holding a trial" and coming to a verdict - if you are going to simply ignore the verdict? What message does THAT send about American justice, due process and the Constitution? You do know that what would meet all your criteria is a military tribunal. Which the left screamed their friggin' heads off about. And, I'd also point out (if you, or some of your friends have a hard time saying it) that in effect, you are acknowledging the argument that so many on the left have belittled and lambasted. Namely, that "if you knew all the facts, you would change your mind about Bush's policies". And THAT, my friend, leads to the obvious corollary: that Bush was right all along. Can you say that? Can anyone of the left? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 9:51:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I will point out that leftists are pretty upset about it as even a simplistic search on DailyKos would show. So where are the public protest? Where are the chanting crowds? Where are the constant threads here on CM talking about it? Why, when someone on "this side" of the aisle even mentions it, we are "trolling"! I would have plenty of respect for anyone on the left who at least was consistent enough in their principles and beliefs that they said a mea culpa, but ... I haven't heard it (maybe you can point me in the right direction?) My question is simple: Why haven't I heard it? Firm

TheHeretic -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 10:16:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Bush was right all along. Can you say that? Can anyone of the left? Well, I'm not generally considered all that left, but I would disagree, anyway. I don't think the US should have ever admitted capturing any of them, much less announced where the prison was. He didn't get that part right. [;)]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 10:28:34 PM)
quote: ve a link to the thread you are talking about? quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda What's the point of starting another thread to stir the same shit that was stirred a month ago when we talked about the same issue? And especially, what's the point of specifically calling out two posters who don't even appear to have logged on since last month? I've seen better trolls from you than this, Firm. Do you have a link to the thread you are talking about? Firm http://www.collarchat.com/m_2640835/mpage_1/tm.htm

TheHeretic -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 11:24:16 PM)
How many Palin threads have you participated in during the last month without expressing a smiliar concern, Panda? Two separate threads on a particular topic within a month??? The HORROR!!!

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/11/2009 11:42:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic How many Palin threads have you participated in during the last month without expressing a smiliar concern, Panda? Two separate threads on a particular topic within a month??? The HORROR!!! Different issues each time, though. Palin pops up once or twice a week because she does some new stupid human trick once or twice a week. This was just the same story, nothing new. Everybody who was going to comment probably already had; there isn't anything new to talk about. Not that I can see. And hell - if you remember, I'm one of the ones who spoke out the most strongly against Obama in that thread, so it's not like I want to defend the guy. But why drag out a dead horse, stick your tongue out, and taunt people to help you beat on it again?

slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 7:02:13 AM)
Pete Williams on The Chris Matthews Show claims the Obama Administration has so far only identified 2 classifications of prisoners at Guantanamo.Those who will be placed on trial and those to be released(pending I would guess finding somewhere to send them)and that so far no detainees have been identified that would fall into the indefinite detention category The devil is in the details ...and in this case in who is implementing the policy.....as I said Firm,I have no problem conceding my President has the option ,during times of war,of indefinitely holding foreign nationals who have been determined to be dangerous

FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 7:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic How many Palin threads have you participated in during the last month without expressing a smiliar concern, Panda? Two separate threads on a particular topic within a month??? The HORROR!!! Different issues each time, though. Palin pops up once or twice a week because she does some new stupid human trick once or twice a week. This was just the same story, nothing new. Everybody who was going to comment probably already had; there isn't anything new to talk about. Not that I can see. And hell - if you remember, I'm one of the ones who spoke out the most strongly against Obama in that thread, so it's not like I want to defend the guy. But why drag out a dead horse, stick your tongue out, and taunt people to help you beat on it again? Panda, I went back and reviewed the thread you quoted above. While there are similarities, I do think think there are several differences. First, there is new information, and the news which sparked my OP: namely the concept that legal verdicts can be ignored brought out in the questioning of Obama officials. Heretics thread was about possible indefinite detention, but the concept of doing so even after an "innocent" verdict wasn't part of the discussion. A second difference is the thrust of my question: where are all of those people - especially on CM - who were so incensed over the "injustice" of the Bush policies? The ones who either started or posted in any thread about Bush and the war, quoted sections of the Geneva Convention, federal law, the Constitution, et al? The ones who called Bush some form of Hitler? You know, if you hold a principle, and it's violated, and you speak up - that's fine, even if I disagree. But when you say you hold a principle, and it's violated and you speak up, and then "one of your own" builds on that violation, and one-ups it, and you are totally silent ... I have to wonder about whether or not you actually held that principal at all. You - personally? I don't know if you made those kind of wild claims that I'm talking about, so I don't include you in my condemnation. That are others who didn't like it, but didn't go over the top in hyperbole and alarm-ism. I don't include them either (there is a difference between recognizing a problem, and claiming the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it) But damn if many other leftist posters don't come across as hypocritical, and their creditability is something I'm certainly going to question in any discussion about principles and values. That was always my bias, but I try to keep an open mind. Consider this thread my future proof of their insincerity. And yes, I'll use it as a metaphysical club when I do so. Because I think it goes to the very core of the entire ideological argument against the left in general, and "leftism" in particular. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 7:32:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Pete Williams on The Chris Matthews Show claims the Obama Administration has so far only identified 2 classifications of prisoners at Guantanamo.Those who will be placed on trial and those to be released(pending I would guess finding somewhere to send them)and that so far no detainees have been identified that would fall into the indefinite detention category 1. Did the Bush administration release any Gitmo prisoners? 2. "placed on trial" is not a mutually exclusive category to "indefinite detention" according to the testimony of Obama officials. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The devil is in the details ...and in this case in who is implementing the policy.....as I said Firm What details? The detail that Obama has taken the position which - in my opinion - further hurts the concept of justice? (holding a trial, finding someone innocent - yet keeping them in prison). Why hold a trial at all? What is its purpose? quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u ,I have no problem conceding my President has the option ,during times of war,of indefinitely holding foreign nationals who have been determined to be dangerous Neither do I. Neither did Bush. I take it that you never complained about this during Bush's tenure? Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 8:28:35 AM)
Firm I can't figure out whether you are being purposely obtuse or not.....if no detainees have been identified as too dangerous to hold ,sans a trial....how can you assume the administration would hold any found not guilty as a result of a trial? As far as complaining during Bush's term....yes I did complain and most vehemently...I complained about torture,I complained about creating a whole new classification for prisoners...."non-combatant personnel"...none of these decisions led any one with any appreciation for transparency and justice to trust that President. Trust me Firm if this President starts down the same road I will complain again.

DomKen -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 9:17:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY But damn if many other leftist posters don't come across as hypocritical, and their creditability is something I'm certainly going to question in any discussion about principles and values. Says the guy who cannot do basic math and who runs away from a thread rather than simply admit he's wrong. Stones ands glass houses.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:15:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic How many Palin threads have you participated in during the last month without expressing a smiliar concern, Panda? Two separate threads on a particular topic within a month??? The HORROR!!! Not to mention that the thread he linked barely had anything to do with this topic.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY But damn if many other leftist posters don't come across as hypocritical, and their creditability is something I'm certainly going to question in any discussion about principles and values. Says the guy who cannot do basic math and who runs away from a thread rather than simply admit he's wrong. Stones ands glass houses. LMAO.

TheHeretic -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:20:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy LMAO. Probably the broken clock thing, but I'm right with you on this, Wilbur.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy LMAO. Probably the broken clock thing, but I'm right with you on this, Wilbur. I'd be real careful about the company I keep Rich...especially in this case.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875