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

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



Message


slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 5:04:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Those issues have been addressed Nihilus...a little late in the day....but addressed.

Fine. Just pop my balloon. I didn't want to play anyway! *kicks sand*

[8D] [image]http://www.robguimaraes.com/s/cry.gif[/image]
Awww,why do I get the feeling you did want to play?
p.s. sorry about the baloon.




popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 5:08:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Politesub, that's correct, the I.R.A. was never a signatory to the G.C's and the Brits could have done with them what they would.


...not without breaking our own laws....and that's an important issue.

quote:

I think they executed three of them at a petrol station in broad daylight if I'm not mistaken on their way to blow something up!
Is there a problem with that?


...i assume you're talking about Gibralter. There was an inquiry over that issue. Because it was very, very close to the line in light of our own laws.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8292470.stm
Even now it is a hugely controversial issue in the UK. Not because we shot some terrorists, but because we may have broken our own laws of engagement in doing so. If a country genuinely believes in the rule of law this sort of thing is a real issue. Only if a country has abandoned absolute ethics in favour of situational ethics can it be justified.


The UK and the US are nations governed by law. Those laws don't just apply to wrong doers, or those suspected of such. They apply to our own actions too.



Philosophy, that's not true.
I don't know about the U.K. but here in the U.S. we can't even get the government to enforce our immigration laws!




slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 5:12:54 PM)

Shit Popeye if one was to listen to you one would think its all a matter of wanting to do it...and it shall be done.
Do you really see the illegal immigration situation in this country is such black and white colors?.....do you think the only thing standing between us and an illegal free country is political will?




mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 5:17:16 PM)

Ja, must be, because popeye will volunteer to slaughter turkeys and chop lettuce.


LOL.

That is the political will at the moment.




Sanity -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 7:11:31 PM)


Pat Buchanan:

quote:


Is America at war, or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

...

What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?

In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.

The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268




popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/16/2009 10:39:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Pat Buchanan:

quote:


Is America at war, or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

...

What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?

In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.

The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268




Yup, this is going to backfire on Obama.
Noone said lawyers were, "smart."




rulemylife -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 12:59:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Pat Buchanan:
Is America at war, or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.


Buchanan's argument is ludicrous on several levels.

Let's begin with the highlighted portion.  Is that not what justice is about and what trials are for?

What Buchanan is saying is we should not put him on trial because if he is found not guilty then we are guilty of illegal imprisonment.

He then goes on to imply he should not be tried because he is guilty and we already know that.

Is that really the picture of the American judicial system that we want to convey to the world?





luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 1:20:11 AM)

No Buchanon is pointing out that Obama is killing KSMs associates along with thier famillies) with no trials.




luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 1:23:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, too bad, because Bush couldn't make it stick. I don't remember YouTube videos of folks cutting off americans heads when Billy was gittin his dick sucked. But I do remember them when George was choking his pretzels.

So in the last three interchanges we had you have sat on all sides of the argument regarding the Geneva Conventions, but stood nowhere.

Ron



Mnot, that is because durring Clintons term they had safe training camps where thousands of terrorist commandos were trained, funded, and deployed to cause violence against us. That and the embassies and navy ships being blown up. But that stuff doesn't matter.

Can you at least get creative with the insults you will use to not adress the point I made this time.




rulemylife -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 1:41:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

No Buchanon is pointing out that Obama is killing KSMs associates along with thier famillies) with no trials.


Which is a separate matter that he is using to cloud the issue.

And which, as long as we're on the subject, was a policy initiated by Bush.




luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 2:17:21 AM)

How is it a seperate matter? It is how we are treating people that have been determined by our government to be terrorists.

And you are simply incorrect. Clinton was having these people killed with no trials, as well as kidnapping and having them tortured. Surley you remeber Clinton bombing Afghanistasn, and Sudan and Iraq? are you actuallyu pretending that trials were held for all of the victims?

Oh wait, liberals like to pretend we were at peace durring Clintons term. It was a silly campaign slogan, like the idea of treating terrorism as a normal crime. Just blather to keep the left happy.




mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 3:30:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, too bad, because Bush couldn't make it stick. I don't remember YouTube videos of folks cutting off americans heads when Billy was gittin his dick sucked. But I do remember them when George was choking his pretzels.

So in the last three interchanges we had you have sat on all sides of the argument regarding the Geneva Conventions, but stood nowhere.

Ron



Mnot, that is because durring Clintons term they had safe training camps where thousands of terrorist commandos were trained, funded, and deployed to cause violence against us. That and the embassies and navy ships being blown up. But that stuff doesn't matter.

Can you at least get creative with the insults you will use to not adress the point I made this time.



Ucky, The camps that were funded by the Reagan administration to train al-Queda and the Taliban? As Saddam Hussein was funded by the Reagan administration you mean? Why would I insult you? I agree with you. This entire fiasco is a result of Reagans meddling in internal middle eastern affairs. You finally got one right, kid.

Ron




Sanity -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 4:23:52 AM)


They're presumed guilty until dead. Trial by fire...




DarkSteven -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 4:43:13 AM)

One easy way around Buchanan's argument is to state that all actions against the US AFTER we declared war on Afghanistan and invaded were acts of war, and the 9/11attacks were acts of war AND also actions against US civilians. If that argument is made, then KSM and colleagues are liable for both civilian and military courts. 




mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 4:52:50 AM)

well, right off the bat, america is not at war. so, Buchanans answer to the premise is no.

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

Why are we trying these folks in court? Simple, because they ain't the sort of fellers who are actually gonna be in the foxholes shooting. Them what shoot at you get shot back at.
Not brain surgery here.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 7:21:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

One easy way around Buchanan's argument is to state that all actions against the US AFTER we declared war on Afghanistan and invaded were acts of war, and the 9/11attacks were acts of war AND also actions against US civilians. If that argument is made, then KSM and colleagues are liable for both civilian and military courts. 



That isnt an easy way around his argument, it encompasses his argument. We are at war. War includes "actions against US civilians" and there is no need for you to parse that out so that civilian courts can be involved.




mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 7:34:31 AM)

we are not at war. lets be clear about that, the argument is moot.




DarkSteven -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 7:36:50 AM)

Ron, we are at war.  We have troops in another country, and they're shooting people and being shot at.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 7:43:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

we are not at war. lets be clear about that, the argument is moot.


We are at war and the argument isnt moot. It doesnt take a Declaration of War to be "at war".

If we ARENT at war then all of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan would be acts of war against those countries in violation of International law. Since dozens of UN countries are also involved in those actions good luck trying to argue that they are all committing acts of war.




mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 7:45:46 AM)

ok, here you go fellers:

the authorization for use of military force:
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

the war powers act:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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