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

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:30:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. And once again, you display an astounding inability either to read simple English, or to understand what you have read. Or, uh... did you read the relevant articles? If you did - and compared them - can you explain the reasoning by which you have determined that they barely have anything to do with each other... or are you just going by Firm's post in which he (correctly) points out that there are some differences?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:34:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. And once again, you display an astounding inability either to read simple English, or to understand what you have read. Or, uh... did you read the relevant articles? If you did - and compared them - can you explain the reasoning by which you have determined that they barely have anything to do with each other... or are you just going by Firm's post in which he (correctly) points out that there are some differences? Articles? I scanned the thread and Firms participation in it, barely anything to do with this discussion.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:34:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u 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. The administration is asserting the authority to detain terrorist suspects permanently, without trial, or even if they have been tried and found not guilty. People who, according to our Constitution, are innocent, could be imprisoned for life by presidential decree. How is that not "starting down the same road"?

TheHeretic -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:43:59 AM)
If we really want to get snarky and persnickety, Panda, (and we know how much some people around here love to do that) then the threads are actually not redundant at all. The older thread, where I posted the OP, asked if President Obama was going to be able to win back those who were consistent in their values. Firm seems to be wondering if those who are not consistent have the stones to say why.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:45:58 AM)
And yet so far not one detainee in such a classification has been identified....Are you denying a President holds the power to hold a suspected terrorist indefinitely Panda? The difference as I said in an earlier post is in the implementation.This Administration is committed to trying or releasing all those detainees it can possibly safely put on trial.......but is asserting the ultimate right of the President ,consistent with fulfilling the Oath of Office(to protect and defend)to detain a suspect deemed too dangerous to release.....tell me Panda would you have it any other way?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:48:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If we really want to get snarky and persnickety, Panda, (and we know how much some people around here love to do that) then the threads are actually not redundant at all. The older thread, where I posted the OP, asked if President Obama was going to be able to win back those who were consistent in their values. Firm seems to be wondering if those who are not consistent have the stones to say why. And find all sorts of reasons to not address the issue including "redundancy" that doesnt exist.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 11:51:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. And once again, you display an astounding inability either to read simple English, or to understand what you have read. Or, uh... did you read the relevant articles? If you did - and compared them - can you explain the reasoning by which you have determined that they barely have anything to do with each other... or are you just going by Firm's post in which he (correctly) points out that there are some differences? Articles? I scanned the thread and Firms participation in it, barely anything to do with this discussion. Yeah. "Articles." I'm sure you've heard the term. Those are news stories, containing the basic information regarding the subjects we're discussing. You can find them by clicking on what are called "links" that people include in their posts, both in this thread and the other one. Those "links" will then lead you to these things called "articles," and you can read those articles. And then you'll (maybe) have some idea what the rest of us are all talking about. Which, as you have just acknowledged, you clearly do not. Or, if that's too complicated for you, you can just continue making yourself look foolish by skimming the discussion and making inaccurate, sarcastic remarks based on your misinterpretations of what people who have made the effort to read the source material are talking about. Whatever you find most satisfying. I know which choice my money's on...

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 12:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If we really want to get snarky and persnickety, Panda, (and we know how much some people around here love to do that) then the threads are actually not redundant at all. The older thread, where I posted the OP, asked if President Obama was going to be able to win back those who were consistent in their values. Firm seems to be wondering if those who are not consistent have the stones to say why. Redundant? No. I'll grant him that yeah, this is a more egregious example of the same issue that we talked about last month, but it's still the same issue. And there's no reason to expect it to have any different outcome, so why pretend that you do? My main issue with it is the presentation. It's just another one of Firm's baiting threads, posted for no other reason than to stir up another one of the shitstorms that he constantly provokes as some sort of bizarre intellectual exercise. He's not "wondering" anything, except how many people he can rile if he pokes them with the right stick. I've just gotten really weary of it. You want to bait people, have the balls to admit that's what you're doing, instead of hiding behind this "I'm just trying to have an intellectually honest discussion" smokescreen. I don't respect that.

TheHeretic -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 12:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda You want to bait people, have the balls to admit that's what you're doing, instead of hiding behind this "I'm just trying to have an intellectually honest discussion" smokescreen. I don't respect that. And you've pointed this pet-peeve out in how many threads that were merely excuses for more attacks of the day on Sarah Palin? Speaking of things that some people don't respect...

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 12:31:25 PM)
quote: And you've pointed this pet-peeve out in how many threads that were merely excuses for more attacks of the day on Sarah Palin? Pointed out what pet peeve? I don't understand what you're saying.

Arpig -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 12:40:21 PM)
I am sure the president has the power to detain people indefinately, as long as you go by the assumption that the Constitution does not apply to those detainees. I may have misunderstood the rulings, but my impression is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the detainees are indeed entitled to constitutional protection. If that is the case, then no the Presidenthas neither the authority or the right to detain people indefinately, or even temporarily for that matter. That power is vested in the courts.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 12:42:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If we really want to get snarky and persnickety, Panda, (and we know how much some people around here love to do that) then the threads are actually not redundant at all. The older thread, where I posted the OP, asked if President Obama was going to be able to win back those who were consistent in their values. Firm seems to be wondering if those who are not consistent have the stones to say why. And find all sorts of reasons to not address the issue including "redundancy" that doesnt exist. When I cut and paste this into Babblefish, what language do I select in order to translate it into English?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 12:46:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And yet so far not one detainee in such a classification has been identified....Are you denying a President holds the power to hold a suspected terrorist indefinitely Panda? The difference as I said in an earlier post is in the implementation.This Administration is committed to trying or releasing all those detainees it can possibly safely put on trial.......but is asserting the ultimate right of the President ,consistent with fulfilling the Oath of Office(to protect and defend)to detain a suspect deemed too dangerous to release.....tell me Panda would you have it any other way? You're damned right I would. I would have a president who follows the fucking Constitution. Terrorists are criminals. If there is not enough evidence to charge them, or if they are tried in a court of law and found not guilty, they have to be released. And i don't give a damn who the president happens to be this year.

rulemylife -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 12:48:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda You want to bait people, have the balls to admit that's what you're doing, instead of hiding behind this "I'm just trying to have an intellectually honest discussion" smokescreen. I don't respect that. And you've pointed this pet-peeve out in how many threads that were merely excuses for more attacks of the day on Sarah Palin? Speaking of things that some people don't respect... Now, now Heretic, you're just upset because you proclaimed what a brilliant choice she was when McCain chose her and how this was sure to push him over the top. Then she opened her mouth, and you suddenly realized you had put your foot in yours.

TheHeretic -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 1:13:50 PM)
Let's be accurate. RML. I proclaimed her as the choice a week BEFORE McCain made the announcement. [:D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 1:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. And once again, you display an astounding inability either to read simple English, or to understand what you have read. Or, uh... did you read the relevant articles? If you did - and compared them - can you explain the reasoning by which you have determined that they barely have anything to do with each other... or are you just going by Firm's post in which he (correctly) points out that there are some differences? Articles? I scanned the thread and Firms participation in it, barely anything to do with this discussion. Yeah. "Articles." I'm sure you've heard the term. Those are news stories, containing the basic information regarding the subjects we're discussing. You can find them by clicking on what are called "links" that people include in their posts, both in this thread and the other one. Those "links" will then lead you to these things called "articles," and you can read those articles. And then you'll (maybe) have some idea what the rest of us are all talking about. Which, as you have just acknowledged, you clearly do not. Or, if that's too complicated for you, you can just continue making yourself look foolish by skimming the discussion and making inaccurate, sarcastic remarks based on your misinterpretations of what people who have made the effort to read the source material are talking about. Whatever you find most satisfying. I know which choice my money's on... If I need to read the original source articles to know that the two threads are the same and that isnt clear from the threads themselves, then youre wrong on the face of it. Youve also been told explictly why they arent the same. So get of the smarmy tone that you usually manage to avoid, unlike some of your friendly koolaid drinkers

blacksword404 -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 1:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u 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. The administration is asserting the authority to detain terrorist suspects permanently, without trial, or even if they have been tried and found not guilty. People who, according to our Constitution, are innocent, could be imprisoned for life by presidential decree. How is that not "starting down the same road"? The question is, is it the thing or just the person doing the thing that is the problem? If it was not the thing and just the person, then with the change of persons is the thing now okay to do? Some time after 9-11 me and my girlfriend at the time were talking about some of the new laws being passed. This whole enemy combatant thing came up. She was cool with it because they said it would not be used against American citizens. I told her to look at the wording of it. That even if they say it won't, the wording says they can. I told her that eventually it would be used against Americans. Then the whole Padilla case came up.

blacksword404 -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 1:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And yet so far not one detainee in such a classification has been identified....Are you denying a President holds the power to hold a suspected terrorist indefinitely Panda? The difference as I said in an earlier post is in the implementation.This Administration is committed to trying or releasing all those detainees it can possibly safely put on trial.......but is asserting the ultimate right of the President ,consistent with fulfilling the Oath of Office(to protect and defend)to detain a suspect deemed too dangerous to release.....tell me Panda would you have it any other way? No animal shall sleep in a bed... with sheets. No animal shall drink alcohol... to excess. No animal shall kill any other animal... without cause.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 2:28:36 PM)
Ah...an Animal Farm reference,what thread about misuse of governmental power would be complete without one. Points well taken...

TheHeretic -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 2:39:23 PM)
Four legs goo-oood, two legs betterrr.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875