RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five!

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

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

Message

Justme696 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 1:14:21 PM)
and civil wars are about men in uniforms and countries too?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 1:17:04 PM)
quote: Well gee, right off the top of my head how about the Nuremburg Trials? Now the Nazis wearn't terrorists? I wasn't aware that one had to be carrying a certain type of I.D. card on them to perpetrate an act of war. As for the I.R.A. the things they did were certainly acts of war! Ambushing uniformed soldiers, planting bombs in London killing innocent civilians, smuggling weapons to and from foreign countries, things like that have to be "sanctioned" by foreign countries to be considered "acts of war?" What do they do take a "vote" on it or something like that? First, the Neurembug trials were not an American internal opperation. It was a joint military tribunal conducted by the victorious allies. Second, those tried at Neuremburg were all officials of the Hitler government and/or military. The two situations have nothing in common with one another. Once again, though no one seems to want to address the matter: If these terrorists are soldiers, they must be treated as captured enemy soldiers and subject to the Geneva Convention. If they are not soldiers they must be treated as criminals and subject to our juctice system. It is ethically indefensible to treat them one way when it suits us and then another when it suits our convenience. That is not what a country that operates under the rule of law should do.

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 1:38:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: Well gee, right off the top of my head how about the Nuremburg Trials? Now the Nazis wearn't terrorists? I wasn't aware that one had to be carrying a certain type of I.D. card on them to perpetrate an act of war. As for the I.R.A. the things they did were certainly acts of war! Ambushing uniformed soldiers, planting bombs in London killing innocent civilians, smuggling weapons to and from foreign countries, things like that have to be "sanctioned" by foreign countries to be considered "acts of war?" What do they do take a "vote" on it or something like that? First, the Neurembug trials were not an American internal opperation. It was a joint military tribunal conducted by the victorious allies. Second, those tried at Neuremburg were all officials of the Hitler government and/or military. The two situations have nothing in common with one another. Once again, though no one seems to want to address the matter: If these terrorists are soldiers, they must be treated as captured enemy soldiers and subject to the Geneva Convention. If they are not soldiers they must be treated as criminals and subject to our juctice system. It is ethically indefensible to treat them one way when it suits us and then another when it suits our convenience. That is not what a country that operates under the rule of law should do. Spinner, agreed, but, they wearn't wearing uniforms and thus they can and should have been shot as spies. Just take them to Fort Dix or whatever and execute them! The nearest military base. What good is a "trial" going to do? It's not neccessary and it's going to put the 9/11 families through more pain that they shouldn't have to be subjected to. What are they going to do, have a "dog and pony show" to demonstrate to future terrorists how "fair" we are? Last time I checked al qeada wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions anyway. They certainly shouldn't be getting any "protections" from it! That was the whole idea behind it, to get everyone "onboard" by offering a "carrot" by way of "protections." If you don't sign, you don't get any "protections." Some people seem to think that "everyone" is protected under the G.C's. If that was so then why would they create it in the first place? It wouldn't make any sense to do it. You need to be, "a member of the club" to get the "benefits." Why should the I.R.A. be "covered" under the G.C's if they're not a "signatory?" Or any other country or organisation?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 2:58:36 PM)
quote: Spinner, agreed, but, they wearn't wearing uniforms and thus they can and should have been shot as spies. Just take them to Fort Dix or whatever and execute them! The nearest military base. What good is a "trial" going to do? It's not neccessary and it's going to put the 9/11 families through more pain that they shouldn't have to be subjected to. What are they going to do, have a "dog and pony show" to demonstrate to future terrorists how "fair" we are? Last time I checked al qeada wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions anyway. They certainly shouldn't be getting any "protections" from it! That was the whole idea behind it, to get everyone "onboard" by offering a "carrot" by way of "protections." If you don't sign, you don't get any "protections." Some people seem to think that "everyone" is protected under the G.C's. If that was so then why would they create it in the first place? It wouldn't make any sense to do it. You need to be, "a member of the club" to get the "benefits." Why should the I.R.A. be "covered" under the G.C's if they're not a "signatory?" Or any other country or organisation? ORIGINAL: popeye1250 The good of it is the ability to say we are citizens of a country that doesn't just grab people and shoot them claiming they're guilty. It is the benefit of being part of a country of laws and procedures that are held to even under provocation. It is the very fact of showing our enemies that they cannot make us forget who we claim to want to be with a single attack, no matter how hurtful. I think those are good things indeed. There are ways to defeat an enemy without becoming as bad as they are. Or else what is the point?

DarkSteven -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 3:07:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: I would also like to point out that franklin qualified his comments "essential liberty". What essential liberties have been lost? ORIGINAL: luckydawg I view the right to a fair and public trial as an essential liberty. When the government is given the ability to decide who gets such a fair and public trial, an essential liberty is lost. Spinner, let me interject a couple of points. 1. I am under the impression that rendition (i.e., the kidnapping of foreign citizens on foreign soil without regard to national sovereignty) has been used before but its use was expanded considerably under Bush. Its use is a complete outrage. 2. The Bush administration, in the spirit of Cash for Clunkers, developed a Cash for Terrorists program, under which foreigners were encouraged to turn in their neighbors for cash, denouncing them as terrorists. The denunciations were not checked out, and the hapless prisoners were then interrogated, sometimes outside of the restrictions of the Geneva Convention. It's not only the liberty of our own citizens that suffered, but the citizens of other nations as well.

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 3:10:17 PM)
Spies get tried Popeye not taken to Fort Dix and stood up in front of a wall!

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 3:16:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: Spinner, agreed, but, they wearn't wearing uniforms and thus they can and should have been shot as spies. Just take them to Fort Dix or whatever and execute them! The nearest military base. What good is a "trial" going to do? It's not neccessary and it's going to put the 9/11 families through more pain that they shouldn't have to be subjected to. What are they going to do, have a "dog and pony show" to demonstrate to future terrorists how "fair" we are? Last time I checked al qeada wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions anyway. They certainly shouldn't be getting any "protections" from it! That was the whole idea behind it, to get everyone "onboard" by offering a "carrot" by way of "protections." If you don't sign, you don't get any "protections." Some people seem to think that "everyone" is protected under the G.C's. If that was so then why would they create it in the first place? It wouldn't make any sense to do it. You need to be, "a member of the club" to get the "benefits." Why should the I.R.A. be "covered" under the G.C's if they're not a "signatory?" Or any other country or organisation? ORIGINAL: popeye1250 The good of it is the ability to say we are citizens of a country that doesn't just grab people and shoot them claiming they're guilty. It is the benefit of being part of a country of laws and procedures that are held to even under provocation. It is the very fact of showing our enemies that they cannot make us forget who we claim to want to be with a single attack, no matter how hurtful. I think those are good things indeed. There are ways to defeat an enemy without becoming as bad as they are. Or else what is the point? Spinner, the point is that the U.S. isn't even following the G.C. How many spies have we executed so far, any? And if we've engaged in any torture like some claim citing "waterboarding" then that would cancel out our membership in the G. C. or did they give us a "do over?" As for defeating our enemies I don't want our guys wearing after shave or anything like that, just kill them. Who cares how we win just win against those savages! I seriously doubt they care whether we're "polite" or not. I think the idea of a "gentleman's war" where everyone lines up nice and neat and shoot's each other and all was put to rest in 1776. I don't want those savages "liking" me, I want to see them curled up in the fetal position shitting themselves at the mere mention of the U.S. Kill them as fast as we can and not try to analyse the situation. Who cares what someone might "think?" That's an excercise in frustration.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 3:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: Ben Franklin wouldnt say that if he were alive today. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I disagree. I see no reason why being alive today as opposed to in the late 1700's would have turned the man into a coward. [/quote[ It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice, but a recognition that the world is far more complicated today then it was then.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 3:42:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Of course there are winnable objectives and of course it will end. Not in our lifetimes, but it will most assuredly end. I see your assurance that it is so, but I have yet to see any coherent endpoint from either the Bush or Obama administrations. Obviously, there is no feasible way of attaining those objectives if we don't have them. The fact that you state that an end will not occur in our lifetimes says that this will go on 50 years or more since there are some youngish posters here... quote: And the successes of the FBI and CIA were not possible under Janet Reno, it took the Bush administration to correct that. I'm confused by this. The worst attack on US soil in history took place under the Bush administration. and was directly due to the lack of communication between agencies instituted by Reno. Um, no. Worldwide, terrorism has mushroomed since we invaded. not here, and not under the Bush administrationAnd you DO realize that a murderer just killed a dozen in Fort Hood in a terrorist attack as a direct response to those wars, right? kudos for admitting what Obama doesnt have the balls to admit, that it was a terrorist attack. Especially since it was a terrorist attack enabled by the PC brigade.

philosophy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 3:45:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy kudos for admitting what Obama doesnt have the balls to admit, that it was a terrorist attack. Especially since it was a terrorist attack enabled by the PC brigade. ....so how is you suggesting that 9/11 is the responsibility of those who favour equal rights for all any different to that Phelps fellow saying it was because God hates fags?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 3:46:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: I would also like to point out that franklin qualified his comments "essential liberty". What essential liberties have been lost? ORIGINAL: luckydawg I view the right to a fair and public trial as an essential liberty. When the government is given the ability to decide who gets such a fair and public trial, an essential liberty is lost. Spinner, let me interject a couple of points. 1. I am under the impression that rendition (i.e., the kidnapping of foreign citizens on foreign soil without regard to national sovereignty) has been used before but its use was expanded considerably under Bush. Its use is a complete outrage. I agree. We should admit torture as an effective information gathering device and do it ourselves. Clinton and Obama wouldnt, so rendition is their only alternative, and an admission that it works. 2. The Bush administration, in the spirit of Cash for Clunkers, developed a Cash for Terrorists program, under which foreigners were encouraged to turn in their neighbors for cash, denouncing them as terrorists. The denunciations were not checked out, and the hapless prisoners were then interrogated, sometimes outside of the restrictions of the Geneva Convention. It's not only the liberty of our own citizens that suffered, but the citizens of other nations as well.

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 4:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Spies get tried Popeye not taken to Fort Dix and stood up in front of a wall! You're a funny guy Mike!

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 4:39:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Spies get tried Popeye not taken to Fort Dix and stood up in front of a wall! You're a funny guy Mike! Yes I am Popeye,but alas on this point I don't see the humour.....summary executions are not anything I would want my country to engage in.To do so would be a repudiation of everything this country claims to stand for.

Rhodes85 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 7:13:29 PM)
'First, the Neurembug trials were not an American internal opperation. It was a joint military tribunal conducted by the victorious allies. Second, those tried at Neuremburg were all officials of the Hitler government and/or military.' In fairness it was dominated by the US. Not all were officials of the government. Hell several, although Nazis themselves were in fact imprisoned in concentration camps, before being 'liberated' and tried. And actually there were several Nuremberg trials over a period of more than ten years. '1. I am under the impression that rendition (i.e., the kidnapping of foreign citizens on foreign soil without regard to national sovereignty) has been used before but its use was expanded considerably under Bush. Its use is a complete outrage. 2. The Bush administration, in the spirit of Cash for Clunkers, developed a Cash for Terrorists program, under which foreigners were encouraged to turn in their neighbors for cash, denouncing them as terrorists. The denunciations were not checked out, and the hapless prisoners were then interrogated, sometimes outside of the restrictions of the Geneva Convention. ' Very well put Steven. 'Spinner, agreed, but, they wearn't wearing uniforms and thus they can and should have been shot as spies. ' Well no not as spies. You can't execute someone as a spy without proving them a spy. They would have been considered partisans and executed as such.

Moonhead -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 4:54:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Justme696 and civil wars are about men in uniforms and countries too? Given that the Confederacy was very keen to secede from the Union yours was, yes.

cadenas -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 6:04:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Kd, the problem with that is that 9/11 was an act of war, not simply "a crime." In "crimes" our military doesn't go around "assisting" the police by doing bombings for them. Correct. The military HASN'T gone around assisting police. The military has dealt with a COUNTRY (Afghanistan) that provided shelter to terrorists. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I was watching this on t.v. last night and even the "9/11 families" don't want this. "THE" families? You mean, the one or two of the 3000 or so families they hand-picked to interview? When I heard interviews with two 9/11 families about it on the local radio news station, all but one family supported the trial in New York. It all depends on whom you pick for the interview (and how you phrase the questions and statements). quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I thought there was supposed to be a seperation of the military and other branches of our govt. Where did you get that nonsense? That would lead to military dictatorship. In the USA, the exact opposite is true. The military is part of the executive branch of government (US Constitution Article II, Section 2), the same branch that the prosecutors belong to who will bring this case. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Spinner, I agree, the Geneva Accords should apply here not some "court" that's given the job "politically" and they should be shot as spies. Which is it? The Geneva Conventions explicitly say that they MUST be tried in a civilian court under domestic US laws. They can only be "shot as spies" after a regular civilian conviction. According to the Geneva Convention, military tribunals are only supposed to determine whether a person is a prisoner of war (with all the protections that come with that), should be released, or should be tried as civilians. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 We really don't need a "show trial" that's going to bring back so many bad memories to so many people! This will only re-open wounds to the families who lost loved ones for no good reason! That's true for all kinds of trials. Yet we tried Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the Unabomber. We try rapists, child abusers, stalkers, ... all the time. Yes, I wish there was a way to do without this type of pain - but not if that means gutting our Constitution. I don't know the rationale for trying them in New York of all places. That does seem like a mistake to me, at least at first glance. I would have chosen a place like Kansas City, Chicago, Denver, or so - somewhere as unrelated as possible to the events.

cadenas -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 6:08:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub One of the basic tenets of our justice system is that crimes are tried in the jurisdiction they are committed…that would be New York. Actually, since this is clearly a Federal trial, the jurisdiction is the United States; it could be tried in any Federal court. Federal Cases are often tried clear across the country, for all kinds of reasons. I don't know why the prosecutor requested a trial in New York. There could be a good reason, or it could simply be a tactical move, fully expecting a Federal judge to order a change of venue.

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 6:12:14 AM)
once again, I think the idea is to follow the constitution: A snip from Article III, section 2. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

cadenas -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 6:23:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Rule, the constitution applies to citizens of the United States. Not any one else. Not true. For the most part, the Constitution doesn't even deal with individuals but with the structure of Government. The Bill of Rights applies to PEOPLE - regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The Supreme Court has allowed one restriction on the Bill of Rights: to non-citizens, it generally only applies on US soil (to US citizens, the Bill of Rights applies worldwide with respect to dealings with the USA). That is why Bush put the prison into Guantanamo - but the Supreme Court later clarified that because the US has full control over it, the Bill of Rights still applies to the Guanatano prisoners. And in any case, regardless of the Constitution, simple US law also guarantees the same rights to the Guantanamo abductees. The Geneva Convention is a US law.

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 11:48:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I thought there was supposed to be a seperation of the military and other branches of our govt. Where did you get that nonsense? That would lead to military dictatorship. In the USA, the exact opposite is true. The military is part of the executive branch of governme ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I thought there was supposed to be a seperation of the military and other branches of our govt. Where did you get that nonsense? That would lead to military dictatorship. In the USA, the exact opposite is true. The military is part of the executive branch of government (US Constitution Article II, Section 2), the same branch that the prosecutors belong to who will bring this case. nt (US Constitution Article II, Section 2), the same branch that the prosecutors belong to who will bring this case. Cadenas, by that I meant that the "military" doesn't have the power of "arrest" under the posse committatus rule. But, that apparently only applies to U.S. Citizens in the U.S. I just don't think it's a good thing to have them "arrest" pirates 8,000 miles away and bring them to the U.S. for "trial." What happened there, did the SEALS run out of bullets or something? Again, having our military perform "arrests" is a very slippery slope! Of course they're "under" our civilian govt. but we can't have them going around "arresting" people. And if you remember during the Clinton Administration , Clinton said that "He" would cover anyone under the Geneva Accords whether or not they were a signatory to it. The Bush Administration took the opposite tack. If we're going to cover "anyone" under the G.C's then it effectively renders the document worthless as there is no impetus for countries and organizations to sign onto it. Why should they if we and the other signatory countries are going to extend to them the priviledges "anyway?" It's just common sense. The G.C's is not a "one-way" document, you don't get to kill and torture my guys and expect me to treat your guys with respect. Otherwise, why bother to have it in the first place? All it would do would be to tie the hands of the signatory countries and organizations but non-signatories would have no such limits. I think Clinton was wrong to extend that protection and he set a bad precedent by doing so. The I.R.A. and al qeada could,'t care less about the G.C.'s, why "reward" them for not doing so? Just because it makes some people feel "superior" to terrorist groups? Because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside? I don't want to watch a dog and pony show trial! Is there supposed to be some "entertainment value" in it like the O.J. trial? Will the govt. "force" us to watch it? Is there some "doubt" that these savages actually did it? "Wait! It could have been those Philipino terrorists!" Funny thing is that the very people who want to show the world that we're "fair" are the very ones who go on a rant about the U.S. "exploiting" other countries! This is rediculous and it's going to open up a lot of old wounds for a lot of people unneccessarily! President Obama is way out of line on this. He's a lawyer, lawyers want to have "trials" for everything! The Whole Fucking World knows that those savages did it but "He" wants to have a trial? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bill Clinton a "lawyer" too? Lawyers just don't seem to make good presidents. (Abraham Lincoln being the exception.)

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875