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

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



Message

kittinSol -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 3:20:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Where's kittinsol? Owner59? DomKen? Farglebargle, and all the rest of the crowd ....? [:D]

Firm




Oh man... I think I could start to love fame... oh boy oh boy [:)] .

In all seriousness now: GET RID OF WAR.



Politesub53 -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 3:58:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

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.



I agree with this Panda, it is what I have been saying all along. One thing that is being overlooked is that Gitmo was full of people held for many years with no trial. Whatever excuse given, thats just wrong.




slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 4:13:04 PM)

Well I've started three post's in response to Panda and others and erased all three of them.This thread and its questions give me a fucking liberal headache.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 4:15:32 PM)

Shit. Now I'm going to be dying of curiosity. You bastard! [sm=tantrum.gif]



slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 4:44:31 PM)

No,Panda your the bastard....if it wasn't for you and some others.....I wouldn't have this damm headache!



rulemylife -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 8:47:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

No,Panda your the bastard....if it wasn't for you and some others.....I wouldn't have this damm headache!


Yeah right!

More likely attributable to your avatar.  [:D]





slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/12/2009 8:53:47 PM)

Haven't had a drop Rule .....honest.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 8:02:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

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?

Then you'll never want to post in another Palin thread either, I guess, no matter what she says.

After all, you and the other Palin bashers have made your point already, haven't you? Why expect it to have any different outcome?


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

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.

I don't post that many threads, Panda. Perhaps a few in the last couple of weeks, but if you'll review my posting history, I think you'll find very few in the politics forum, since it's founding.

Have you called rulemylife out on his "shitstorms"? Why not? Maybe because your confirmation bias is at work?

I guess your definition of "baiting" is "disagree with"?

I also find it interesting that you didn't have any problems with me until I took on some of the "Palin myths" and screwed up some of the "well considered, balanced, friendly" posters little party. Hell, I didn't do that until what ... the 15th or 16th page?

I'd suggest you'd back up, and deliberate a little about your own "shitstorms" before pulling that card out of the deck. Read your posts with a outsider's frame of reference, and compare them to mine, and see if your conclusions about who is using confrontational, emotional language intended to insult and belittle is different between your posts and my post.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 8:04:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

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.


Great post Arpig.

As an aside, I read most of your post expecting good logic, and with emotions in perspective. You rarely disappoint, even if I disagree.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 8:13:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

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.

I think this is where the disconnect between to the two camps is.

I do not believe that terrorist are criminals. At best, they are POW's, but do not fit even that legal definition.

Because we don't have a good categorization for them, we are in conflict about what their rights are, and how to handle them.

If you believe that they are criminals, then they are subject to criminal law, a trial, and if found innocent: release.

If you believe that they are POW's, then they have the right to be treated humanely in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and held indefinitely until the conflict is over, then released.

If you believe that they are not POW's, but something else (which I believe), then you do not have a clear path and procedures to deal with them.

Roosevelt (and then Bush, based on Roosevelt's precedence) decided that they were "other" and subject to Military Tribunal, and held until it was "safe" to release them. "Safe" of course, equaled indefinite detention.

Mixing these three sets of definitions and procedures is why we are currently in a mess between the left and the right. Obama has done the worst possible thing: defining them as criminals, and treating them like "others".

This makes a mockery of our criminal justice system, and our rule of law.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 8:16:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Where's kittinsol? Owner59? DomKen? Farglebargle, and all the rest of the crowd ....? [:D]


Oh man... I think I could start to love fame... oh boy oh boy [:)] .

In all seriousness now: GET RID OF WAR.

With the second coming, maybe.

Or after the end of all human life on earth.

But, in the meantime ...

What is your position on the Obama's administrations "catch, find innocent, and don't release"?

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 8:23:55 AM)

double post



slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 9:53:01 AM)

Sorry Firm,but there is no "catch,find innocent,and don't release" policy.Talk about putting a slant on things.....is this what you do on vacation?



FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 10:45:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Sorry Firm,but there is no "catch,find innocent,and don't release" policy.Talk about putting a slant on things.....is this what you do on vacation?


That is exactly the policy we are talking about. Read the OP, and the article I linked to. The administration admitting that they hold the right to do exactly as you said "catch, find innocent and don't release".

Firm



slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 11:31:56 AM)

I read the article Firm,(a good half dozen times,its that troubling)a few points.1) a hell of a lot of ifs in this General Counsel's statement..
2)Pete Williams in commentary on the Chris Mathews show says so far there have been only 2 classifications of detainees identified,those to be released(where to, is probably yet to be determined in most of these cases)and those to be tried.
Now your article has a Defense Dept.General Counsel claiming President Obama reserves the right to ignore the verdict if its not to the gov.'s liking .
A few problems come to mind with this statement....a)Those cases that don't lend themselves to successful criminal prosecutions....ie: can't be prosecuted in a civilian court due to evidentiary(sp?) problems ,whether from improper interrogations(thank you President Bush) , national security issues  or a hundred other possible reasons inherent in building a criminal case where there has been no actual criminal investigation(well none that a civilian court would recognise) ......will never see the inside of a civilian court house
Those cases,and beleive me Firm all of those cases where the White House and the Intelligence Committee believes is absolutely essential ,will wind up before military tribunals.The Obama Administration will never allow any detainee,deemed so dangerous as to be held despite an innocent verdict,in front of a civilian jury.
b)most of these case will by necessity,and not convenience wind up in front of tribunals....for the simple reason that ,for the most part,they were never criminal cases.The evidence gathered(what there is of it) will not meet the burden of proof,witnesses against or compromised by bounty or otherwise unavailable....forensic evidence,what there is of it,would never meet a civilians court standard.....chain of evidence and what not........The only forum the government can get a fair trial....is the Military Tribunal route....and for the most part that is where this will play out.
Its the only trial most of these men will get.....its the only trial possible where most of this evidence can be heard.
Call that opinion,or call it blind faith....but if you are going to call it faith understand this...it isn't faith in Obama-mania...it is faith borne of watching a smoothly run campaign...and a consumate politician....Do you really think,despite what this General Counsel says that these guys are going to be this stupid.....and place themselves in the untenable position of having to either defy a court ruling....or actually release a really dangerous terrorist?



rulemylife -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 12:00:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Then you'll never want to post in another Palin thread either, I guess, no matter what she says.

After all, you and the other Palin bashers have made your point already, haven't you? Why expect it to have any different outcome?


Except no one is trying to make a point.  As long as she keeps putting herself in the news then I'm going to post articles detailing that news.

So, if you find your delicate feelings hurt because someone is criticizing her I think your only two options are to ignore the thread or call up Sarah and ask her to keep a lower profile.

quote:


Have you called rulemylife out on his "shitstorms"? Why not? Maybe because your confirmation bias is at work?



My "shitstorms"?

I think if you look at most of my threads I generally only post straight news articles without comment. 

Of course, they are from the "liberal mainstream media" instead of Joe Bob's Conservative Corner blog if that's what's bothering you.

By the way, I would really appreciate if you have something to say to me that you would address me directly, instead of  taking potshots in posts to other people. 



Arpig -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 12:33:04 PM)

Thanks Firm, now I am going to be selfconcious when I post. And i must return the favour as well, I find the vast majority of your posts to be reasonable and well thought out, even if they are usually wrong[;)] (Hey I'm a leftie at heart, I can't admit you are right, you are on the right....errr hold on....hey its unfair!! how can I be be right when I am left, and you are never wrong, since you are right....ooooh its so confusing[&o])

OK, back to the topic, mainly the "catch,find innocent,and don't release" policy. Yes I find that to be a very accurate summing up of the policy, at least my understanding of it. If a detainee is to be tried, either in a civilian court or a military tribunal, then the verdict of that court MUST be upheld, even if the detainee is found innocent and ordered released. To do anything else would indeed make a mockery of the judicial system. I agree that Obama is making a right royal mess of it by taking the worst possible course of action.

Personally I think the US made a grave error when they decided to not treat the detainees as POWs. Clearly those captured fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be considered criminals under US law, since US law has no validity in either of those countries. Taking the 3rd option (that they are "other") was a mistake, since their were and are no guidelines as to what to do with them. That is why the US is now faced with this moral headache, and the ramifications of how it is handled will affect the US and its position in the world for a good many years. The whole Torture/Enhanced Interrogation mess has already damaged America's reputation in the eyes of many of its citizens and people around the world.

The US was often very much disliked around the world, but it had a lot of good will in the popular mind, simply because the US was generally viewed as a well-intentioned bumbler rather than an outright bully. That good will has been seriously eroded over the last few years, and Obama is doing nothing to help at the moment. The US, for its own sake, and for the sake of its reputation in the world simply MUST follow the rules.

(And this goes even more so for Canada. We were nearly universally admired and liked, now not so much. And we are not treating our detainees the way we should, our Supreme Court has rulled in no uncertain terms that the moment we detain somebody they have the full protection of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, just as if they were a citizen arrested in Toronto...however our military and government are pretty much ignoring the ruling.)



rulemylife -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 12:58:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I think this is where the disconnect between to the two camps is.

I do not believe that terrorist are criminals. At best, they are POW's, but do not fit even that legal definition.

Because we don't have a good categorization for them, we are in conflict about what their rights are, and how to handle them.

If you believe that they are criminals, then they are subject to criminal law, a trial, and if found innocent: release.

If you believe that they are POW's, then they have the right to be treated humanely in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and held indefinitely until the conflict is over, then released.

If you believe that they are not POW's, but something else (which I believe), then you do not have a clear path and procedures to deal with them.

Roosevelt (and then Bush, based on Roosevelt's precedence) decided that they were "other" and subject to Military Tribunal, and held until it was "safe" to release them. "Safe" of course, equaled indefinite detention.

Mixing these three sets of definitions and procedures is why we are currently in a mess between the left and the right. Obama has done the worst possible thing: defining them as criminals, and treating them like "others".

This makes a mockery of our criminal justice system, and our rule of law.


Actually, I think the disconnect is between those who understand history and those whose understanding of it is based on Fox News and conservative blogs.

To try and compare the detention of American citizens of Japanese ancestry to the problem of those we have arrested as suspected terrorists is the height of conservative nonsense spouted by Hannity and Limbaugh and then faithfully parroted by you.

You do realize these were mostly American citizens, right?  And I'm also assuming you understand there was never proof of any wrongdoing, only the fear of the potential for it.  These people were simply held because of a knee-jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor.

In other words, there were no military tribunals or civilian trials because they were not charged with any crimes.

To say that what was done then is a justifiable precedent for Bush's actions is ludicrous.

Wikipedia gives a pretty concise summary:

Japanese American internment

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".  About $1.6 billion in reparations were later disbursed by the U.S. government to surviving internees and their heirs.







slvemike4u -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 1:06:32 PM)

Edited due to poster error.....sorry



FirmhandKY -> RE: Indefinite Detention With or Without Trial (7/13/2009 4:07:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I think this is where the disconnect between to the two camps is.

I do not believe that terrorist are criminals. At best, they are POW's, but do not fit even that legal definition.

Because we don't have a good categorization for them, we are in conflict about what their rights are, and how to handle them.

If you believe that they are criminals, then they are subject to criminal law, a trial, and if found innocent: release.

If you believe that they are POW's, then they have the right to be treated humanely in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and held indefinitely until the conflict is over, then released.

If you believe that they are not POW's, but something else (which I believe), then you do not have a clear path and procedures to deal with them.

Roosevelt (and then Bush, based on Roosevelt's precedence) decided that they were "other" and subject to Military Tribunal, and held until it was "safe" to release them. "Safe" of course, equaled indefinite detention.

Mixing these three sets of definitions and procedures is why we are currently in a mess between the left and the right. Obama has done the worst possible thing: defining them as criminals, and treating them like "others".

This makes a mockery of our criminal justice system, and our rule of law.


Actually, I think the disconnect is between those who understand history and those whose understanding of it is based on Fox News and conservative blogs.

To try and compare the detention of American citizens of Japanese ancestry to the problem of those we have arrested as suspected terrorists is the height of conservative nonsense spouted by Hannity and Limbaugh and then faithfully parroted by you.

You do realize these were mostly American citizens, right?  And I'm also assuming you understand there was never proof of any wrongdoing, only the fear of the potential for it.  These people were simply held because of a knee-jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor.

In other words, there were no military tribunals or civilian trials because they were not charged with any crimes.

To say that what was done then is a justifiable precedent for Bush's actions is ludicrous.

Wikipedia gives a pretty concise summary:

Japanese American internment

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".  About $1.6 billion in reparations were later disbursed by the U.S. government to surviving internees and their heirs.






rule,

I'll cut you some slack and not point out - in real snide terms - your misunderstanding about military tribunals and Roosevelt The Japanese internment is not connected, and therefore a perfect example of your comment about "those who do not understand history".

Here is a quick history in the subject. Please read it so that you can effectively join the conversation.

Military tribunal

A military tribunal is neither fish nor fowl in the US justice system, but seems to be the best way to handle the situation and WAS the way we were handling things until the Obama administration accepted terrorists as criminals, and therefore subject to the civilian court system.

Firm



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125