RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (Full Version)

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



Message

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 6:49:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Sanity it would be impossible to prove under civilian due process. Unless we expose all our agents working on Terrorism stuff, and expose all our methods of gathering intell (and allow them to be cross examined), and exposing every local who helped us in Afghanistan.

If they are getting civilian due process, which is what common criminals get, the 6th in all its glory applies.


Of course it has never been necessary to hold a trial to hold a combatant. In absolutly no wars ever fought has that been the process. It is something created by the anti american left, and picked up on by a bunch of "usefull idiots", who can not even make a cogent argument as to why.



Oh, the irony, the irony.

Ron




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 8:06:13 AM)

FR:

Eric Holder today before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"WE ARE AT WAR"

Case closed.



mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 8:16:16 AM)

Will,

Bush administration:

Torture is legal.


Case is not closed.

In any case though there are some legal distinctions between war and authorization of military force, none of these things have come into our purview, as of yet...

And FYI, I really say it is war as well, for all practical purposes, but am merely pointing out what the neocons euphemistically call unintended consequences, when they were using the 'not war' line as valid reasoning in every post back at the inception of this travesty.

Ron



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 8:23:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Will,

Bush administration:

Torture is legal.


Case is not closed.

In any case though there are some legal distinctions between war and authorization of military force, none of these things have come into our purview, as of yet...

And FYI, I really say it is war as well, for all practical purposes, but am merely pointing out what the neocons euphemistically call unintended consequences, when they were using the 'not war' line as valid reasoning in every post back at the inception of this travesty.

Ron



Holder's your guy, fight with him. Argue why they should have civilian trials if we are at war. That issue is now decided for purposes of the G-5.

And the Bush administration never said torture is legal, nice try though.

I dont respond to any quote that uses "neo-cons".



mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 8:44:19 AM)

well thats why you responded to me then, I didn't use it.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 8:46:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well thats why you responded to me then, I didn't use it.



quote:

what the neocons euphemistically call unintended consequences



Are you on drugs?
And I didnt respond to that quote (there is a difference between a quote and an entire post).

Now you can stop the deflection and address the issue. Your guy says we are at war, which you have denied since the Buchanan quote was posted. Why should there be a civil trial when their actions were those of an enemy in a time of war?



mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 8:52:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well thats why you responded to me then, I didn't use it.



quote:

what the neocons euphemistically call unintended consequences



Are you on drugs?




well, you responded twice, after saying that you don't respond, but I guess my point is, ucky makes ludicrous pronouncements as you do, without dint of any authority or expertise or collateral citation, that we are to take in awe as prima facie evidence.

So, as teabag or tea bag cannot be related to teabagger or tea bagger, neocon cannot be related to neo-con.

Will you respond to neocon in thrice?



LOL.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 8:57:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well thats why you responded to me then, I didn't use it.



quote:

what the neocons euphemistically call unintended consequences



Are you on drugs?




well, you responded twice, after saying that you don't respond, but I guess my point is, ucky makes ludicrous pronouncements as you do, without dint of any authority or expertise or collateral citation, that we are to take in awe as prima facie evidence.

So, as teabag or tea bag cannot be related to teabagger or tea bagger, neocon cannot be related to neo-con.

Will you respond to neocon in thrice?



LOL.


I was under the misapprehension that you had actually grown up and wanted to debate issues. Back on ignore.



mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 9:02:14 AM)

LOL.

Case closed. (your line)

No debating issues here. ignore works, you hold rights dear to you but deny them to others.

Ron



popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 9:59:32 AM)

I think we (The U.S.) need to get out of the Geneva Accords.
Why be "in" something if it's only going to tie your hands behind you and not benefit you?
The savages get korans and three hots and a cot in tropical climes while our guys get tortured and get their heads cut off. The savages didn't sign the Geneva Accords and have no obligation to treat our guys accordingly but we have to?
And I really don't like it when savages get the same rights and priviledges as American citizens.
I think that if you have to go to war you want to kill as many bad guys as fast as you can until you win or totally wipe out any opposition.
I don't believe in "taking prisoners."
We almost had bin laden but two lawyers at the C.I.A. botched it because, "it "could" be someone else.
What the hell are we doing having "lawyers" at the CIA or Pentagon? We're going to have "lawyers" running wars now instead of Generals and Admirals? Washington is infested with "lawyers"
In this area you can no longer watch t.v. for an hour without at least one commercial about "your rights" after an "accident or worker's comp case."
What's going to happen ten or twenty years from now, we order our Troops to try to capture instead of shoot so we can have another "trial?"
As a Taxpayer I don't want to pay for any trials for savages.
And we should have a new law that no more than 3% of any job title or profession be employed in the civilian workforce in Washington.
What kind of "laws" would we have if 40% of the congress were Plumbers or Carpenters? Laws that are favorable to *them* of course.
Our govt. is real good at getting us *involved* in things but when it comes time to get out of them, (the "U.N.", "NATO", "NAFTA", etc) they're M.I.A.!
Before we get *involved* in anything else we need to get out of a whole bunch of things!



servantforuse -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 10:59:46 AM)

They all should have been 'capped' on the battlefield where we captured them in the first place. Problem solved.



mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 11:01:54 AM)

we did not capture them on the battlefield. the image is of soaring eagles and tearful green green grass of home songs, but the reality is that the notion is pigshit.

besides which, we are not legally at war, we can't just take them out and shoot them.

Unintended consequences.

Ron



Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 11:17:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

They all should have been 'capped' on the battlefield where we captured them in the first place. Problem solved.


How many more times do I have to say it. Many of those at Gitmo were not captured on the battlefield, or even in Afghanistan. No doubt you overlook that as it pulls apart your coherent argument.





Marc2b -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 12:02:18 PM)

quote:

I think we (The U.S.) need to get out of the Geneva Accords.


Countries no longer declare war on each other (it's passé, it's sooooo nineteenth century) and as recent history has shown us, you don't have to be a country to wage a war - an organization can get it's hands on military equipment and wage war quite effectively. So, I've been wondering - perhaps it is time to update the Geneva Convention (as well as the Hague Convention and the Geneva Protocol) to accommodate current realities?



mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 12:06:54 PM)

InvisibleBlack made some very cogent points on this very issue not so far up the thread, I was sure he was going to get alot more reaction to his extremely intelligent and insightful post, but it may be he didn't because he is invisible, (I would hate for it to be because he is black....LOLOLOLOL)

Ron



Irishknight -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 12:07:15 PM)

Marc, that would make as much sense as modifying NAFTA to make it less one sided. THAT is why our government will never be a part of it. It makes too much sense.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 12:08:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I think we (The U.S.) need to get out of the Geneva Accords.


Countries no longer declare war on each other (it's passé, it's sooooo nineteenth century) and as recent history has shown us, you don't have to be a country to wage a war - an organization can get it's hands on military equipment and wage war quite effectively. So, I've been wondering - perhaps it is time to update the Geneva Convention (as well as the Hague Convention and the Geneva Protocol) to accommodate current realities?


Easier just to kill them when you find them.



slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 1:30:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Easier just to kill them when you find them.
Another fine example of your level of patriotism....you would have our country take the "easy" and expediant path....while rejecting the very path the Founding fathers laid out for us......hint it is to be found in the Constitution.
Servant suggests we simply "cap" them where we find them....are you guys for real....do you realise we are supposed to be a Nation-State....not a branch of the Gambino crime family.
I'm really starting to wonder which side some of you people are on....



mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 1:37:31 PM)

the neo-cons are running scared, they are howling at the moon.

again, this is a complete reversal by the neocons from the inception of this fucking travesty where they argued vehmently that this is not a 'war' (and in the legal sense it isnt) so that they could chose certain expediencies at that time, now that it no longer is convenient to do so, they want to lie and pretend it is a war, so they can shoot motherfuckers out of hand.

The constitution and the legal body of law and precedent that surrounds it, does not allow convenience of shallow dogma as a legal instrument, a 'not at war'/'at war' ideology.

LOLOLOLOL who coined the phrase 'unintended consequences'?

Ron



Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 1:52:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

the neo-cons are running scared

LOLOLOLOL who coined the phrase 'unintended consequences'?

Ron


Psssttt, if you keep using the term neocons you will be ignored, dont you know the rules. Failing that you will be labled a leftie.
[8D]



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875