RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Sternhand4 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 8:45:48 PM)

No I'd prefer we treat them under Islamic law.. as they treat our people. wouldnt that be better.
What no outrage over that from the left.
I personally don't support deporting them to GITMO except for the ones that want to give intel. The others should be try'd in the fied and shot when found guilty.

If an american is found overseas and fighting for al qaeda then they have lost thier right to the protection of US law, and as an enemy combatant they take the same risks as the rest of the islamic terrorists.




Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 8:53:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

No I'd prefer we treat them under Islamic law.. as they treat our people. wouldnt that be better.
What no outrage over that from the left.
I personally don't support deporting them to GITMO except for the ones that want to give intel. The others should be try'd in the fied and shot when found guilty.

If an american is found overseas and fighting for al qaeda then they have lost thier right to the protection of US law, and as an enemy combatant they take the same risks as the rest of the islamic terrorists.




I understand your approach to people whose views you disagree with is to murder them.

Jose Padilla was captured and detained in Chicago.  He was denied due process, the right to face his accusers, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be judged by his peers, the right to an attorney, etc.  In other words, he was denied the ability to prove his innocence (remember innocent until proven guilty?) that he had ever attended an Al Qaeda training camp or was an enemy combatant.

My question was not whether or not you deem him worthy of being murdered by our government, my question was how do you justify violating the principles this country is built on in order to protect the principles this country is built on?

Please answer the question.

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 8:54:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

be try'd in the fied



What exactly does this mean?

Sinergy



Sternhand4 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 11:00:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

No I'd prefer we treat them under Islamic law.. as they treat our people. wouldnt that be better.
What no outrage over that from the left.
I personally don't support deporting them to GITMO except for the ones that want to give intel. The others should be try'd in the fied and shot when found guilty.

If an american is found overseas and fighting for al qaeda then they have lost thier right to the protection of US law, and as an enemy combatant they take the same risks as the rest of the islamic terrorists.




I understand your approach to people whose views you disagree with is to murder them.

Yes I personally murder those who disagree, what a load of crap. But I have noticed that it is a standard tactic to personaly attack those who question the leftwimgers and expose their lies.

Jose Padilla was captured and detained in Chicago.  He was denied due process, the right to face his accusers, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be judged by his peers, the right to an attorney,

Bull, he has several attorney's but as leftwingers like to leak sensative data how can you have a trial where sources will be exposed
A federal judge found on Wednesday that a lawyer for Jose Padilla, accused of being an operative for Al Qaeda, violated a court order by leaking sensitive wiretap transcripts to The New York Times. The judge, Marcia Cooke of Federal District Court in Miami, took no disciplinary action but ordered all defense lawyers in the case to sign papers indicating that they understood and would follow rules barring disclosure of certain evidence. Michael Caruso, one of three public defenders on Mr. Padilla's defense team, acknowledged that one of them was responsible for providing the material to The Times for a front-page article published on Jan. 4.

etc.  In other words, he was denied the ability to prove his innocence (remember innocent until proven guilty?) that he had ever attended an Al Qaeda training camp or was an enemy combatant.

The only argument that holds water is the speedy trial issue and the supreme court ruled that the next time this issue comes up they will hold a higher standard.
 
He will get his chance to defend himself in court.But as he has admitted to attending Al Qaeda training camps, he's going to be doing some time I bet.

My question was not whether or not you deem him worthy of being murdered by our government, my question was how do you justify violating the principles this country is built on in order to protect the principles this country is built on?

I guess the issue is really should he be treated like a criminal, or like an enemy combatant. I think even you would admit that its not like he robbed a bank. Going overseas and joining Al Qeada makes for a difficult trial, should it be military or civilian. How can you protect our sources of intel when at a civilian trial they would be exposed.
Should he be allowed to use laws that were written for "normal" criminals instead of military ones.
 Its a balancing act for sure... the rights of an individual versus the rights of the rest of us.
I believe he should have been tried in a military tribunal as its essentially a war crime he's been charged with.

Please answer the question.

Sinergy



Sternhand4 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 11:05:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

be try'd in the fied
   tried           field  -5 for spelling


What exactly does this mean?

Sinergy

Sorry 2 finger typist here and a long day



luckydog1 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 2:02:25 AM)

Sternhand, you do not get it, we have to give him full due process.  Every intell agent, must be called to be publically cross examined, even the covert ones.  Its not like they are important agents like Valerie Plame, they have no right to keep thier idenities secret.  Anyone abroad who helped us must be exposed in court so thier families can be murdered.  Any agents we have in the field must be pulled from duty so they can be cross examined and exposed.  Any method we use for collecting intell data must be exposed and examined publically.  Don't you understand what the goal is here?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 7:01:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

You know, nothing I read on this board generally troubles me 99% of the time, but something you said today does trouble me Merc, and that is that I am supporting terrorists by not supporting Bush and the military industrial complex. I am troubled by it because I do not think that I can have discourse with someone that thinks this way... it goes against the core of who I am, it disrespects my humanity, and frankly if that is the way you think I do not think we have anything left to say to each other. I refused to talk to two of my family members for a very long time over such utter bullshit. I just will not communicate with people who attempt to get personal like this because of what I consider a spiritual position.
Take care.


Julia,
It is unfortunate that you arrived at that conclusion. I didn't know that is the way you would take my position, nor did I, or could I, anticipate you questioning your spirituality. Nothing read or viewed in a debate on an internet forum should be so powerful. The internet is similar to academia in that regard. You can learn and gather information but it is nothing like real life.

If you knew all the atrocities of the Nazis and their leaders you would know you do a disservice to their victims by comparing them to any regime. Loathing the leaders, or as you said, any decision maker, of the US or any country notwithstanding can not rationalize any comparison.

The facts of logic most often are contrary to a person's spirituality. Faith is rarely the result of logic, but it does get stronger through having it tested; unless, of course, its false.



farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 8:04:15 AM)

"If you knew all the atrocities of the Nazis and their leaders you would know you do a disservice to their victims by comparing them to any regime."

How do we apply the lessons learned from our experiences with the Nazis if we cannot compare them to contemporary events?

e.g.: Nazi atrocities didn't happen overnight. How do you avoid going down the same slippery slope?




Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 9:41:41 AM)

fargle,
The "slippery slope" argument is similar to brining up the Nazis. Currently throughout the world there are pockets of people going about, with little notice, atrocities that are similar or modernized versions of the Nazis. The genocide in Darfur is the obvious reference. But the similarity ends by the global scale.

There was little or no political opposition in 1930's Germany. Instead of having Congressional investigations, and special prosecutors assigned to the occurrence, "Kristallnacht" was seen as a example of national pride. Instead of the debate and ongoing saga of Terri Schiavo, Nazi Germany had as a matter of policy the termination of any individual not up to Nazi standards.

Fargle, I am guilty of using the "slippery slope" argument. For instance I think it is germane to the selective enforcement of laws. However, I'd argue that the viscosity is more like sandpaper versus oil in regard to the Nazis, from any perceptive that is historically accurate.



farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 10:15:10 AM)

Kristallnacht didn't happen in a vacuum.


From 1848 through 1 April 1933, Jews were considered equal members of German society ( under German law )

1 April 1933: Jewish doctors, shops, lawyers and stores were boycotted.

Five Years Later...

30 September 1938, "Aryan" doctors could only treat "Aryan" patients. ) remember how Jews were banned from practicing medicine back in 1936?

5 October a large letter "J" was to be imprinted on their passports

15 November Jewish children were banned from going to normal schools.

November 9-10 Kristallnacht - Approximately 100 Jews were killed, and another 20,000 arrested, some of which were sent to the newly formed concentration camps.




Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 2:27:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:



Jose Padilla was captured and detained in Chicago.  He was denied due process, the right to face his accusers, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be judged by his peers, the right to an attorney,



Bull, he has several attorney's but as leftwingers like to leak sensative data how can you have a trial where sources will be exposed


 
You are absolutely correct, it is only left wingers who leak sensitive information, like, say, Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.  Wait, umm.   The term to describe what you are doing when you parrot the twaddle emanating from Faux News and the Bush administration is "projection."

Think twice, verify your source material, ensure your claim is not idiotic or unprovable, post once. 

Would make a lot more sense if you stopped using comments like "left wingers" to substantiate your arguments.  I consider myself a left winger, had a high security clearance for years, and have never mentioned anything classified I worked on to anybody, ever. 

quote:


quote:



etc.  In other words, he was denied the ability to prove his innocence (remember innocent until proven guilty?) that he had ever attended an Al Qaeda training camp or was an enemy combatant.



The only argument that holds water is the speedy trial issue and the supreme court ruled that the next time this issue comes up they will hold a higher standard.



So innocent until proven guilty does not apply?

Next time?

Please stay on topic, the Bush administration violated his civil rights by imprisoning him on a military base where the US Justice Department has no authority.  That is against the law in this country.

quote:



He will get his chance to defend himself in court.But as he has admitted to attending Al Qaeda training camps, he's going to be doing some time I bet.
 


Interesting theory.

On the other hand, everything that was obtained from him came under duress, torture, and violating his civil rights, and odds are fairly good it will all be thrown out in a criminal court of law and he will be set free.

quote:



My question was not whether or not you deem him worthy of being murdered by our government, my question was how do you justify violating the principles this country is built on in order to protect the principles this country is built on?

quote:



I guess the issue is really should he be treated like a criminal, or like an enemy combatant. I think even you would admit that its not like he robbed a bank. Going overseas and joining Al Qeada makes for a difficult trial, should it be military or civilian. How can you protect our sources of intel when at a civilian trial they would be exposed.
Should he be allowed to use laws that were written for "normal" criminals instead of military ones.
 Its a balancing act for sure... the rights of an individual versus the rights of the rest of us.
I believe he should have been tried in a military tribunal as its essentially a war crime he's been charged with.




They have sealed trials, sensitive information, etc., all the time.   It is up to the JUDGE to make that determination.  I suspect the only reason the Bush Administration violated the law of the land is because they lack the evidence to support their claims as to his guilt.

Have you ever read the US Bill of Rights?

Sinergy



luckydog1 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 5:51:46 PM)

We have sealed trials all the time?  Can you give an example?  Please do not refer to Grand Jury procedings, because while they are done in private, they are not trials.  I would be interested to see a  list of the sealed trials that go on all the time. 



Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 6:21:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

We have sealed trials all the time?  Can you give an example?  Please do not refer to Grand Jury procedings, because while they are done in private, they are not trials.  I would be interested to see a  list of the sealed trials that go on all the time. 


I misspoke.  There are legal procedures for safeguarding classified information.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02054.htm

My point is that it is up to the court to take various approaches to prevent the release of classified information.  It does require the prosecution to provide the information to the court, who then takes whatever steps need to be taken to prevent it's release.  This is called "Seperation of Powers" in the U.S. Constitution.  Monkeyboy wants to make laws, enforce laws, and try people accused of breaking laws, all by himself.

The Bush Administration imprisoned Jose Padilla for four years, and said they could not try him because of the risk of disclosure of classified information.  This is not their call, it is within the court's jurisdiction to make that determination.  I am cynical enough about that administration to think that they arrested him, tortured him, etc, and at the end of the day discovered he was not guilty of anything.  The classified secrets they were trying to prevent being leaked was the evidence of their criminal violation of his civil rights.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy

edited to change convicted to accused of breaking



luckydog1 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/14/2007 9:10:15 PM)

But the courts have ruled that Bush is correct in his handling of the Padilla case.  It has been to the USSC a couple of times, with more pending.  The site you gave is related to Domestic Criminal Law, not enemy combatants making War on the USA.  You can be as cynically paranoid as you like, it doesn't make any of it true.



farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/15/2007 2:33:35 AM)

Sin,

For comprehensive Court Security matters, just look at the EFF's site for EFF v AT&T.

Plenty of documents submitted are sealed, even so the Government is saying "We can't even comment or it'll jepordize National Security", while AT&T is saying "We can't defend against this w/o violating National Security".

Which is total bullshit, it's just a Banana Republic, trying to cover up their crimes.




luckydog1 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/15/2007 9:54:44 AM)

Yes, by all means look at a site put up by an activist plaintiff about thier own case, if you want a comprehensive explanation.
<Shakes head in disgust>



SimplyMichael -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/15/2007 12:34:45 PM)

America is great not because we put great ideas down on paper but because when things get hard, when decisions are not easy, we stand up and take the hard road, not the easy one.  Talking about morality is easy, doing it isn't.

Saying we stand for justice and freedom is easy, when there is a mob outside pounding on the door wanting to lynch someone, we don't open the door and throw that person to the mob, we fight to ensure the fucking bastard gets a fair trial, because THAT is what Americans do.  How many of have proudly watched John Wayne do exactly that?  I know MY chest swells with pride watching that. I know that when I read the declaration of independence or the constitution, I know they were written by men who had just washed the blood off their hands fighting for those rights, not sitting around in clubrooms talking about it.

The America I love attacks and destroys countries that kidnap and torture people, "Shores of Tripoli" anyone?  The America I love held trials for people who gassed trainloads of people and conducted wars of aggression.  The America I love seems rather confused and tawdry at the moment and that makes me deeply sad because I love what we used to stand for, I loved being able to thrust my chest out proudly and say "I am an American and we are among the most just people on earth".  Today, I lower my head in shame as we discuss how much you can torture people, when you can invade and occupy another country, and to whom "all men are created equal" really applies.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/18/2007 5:59:50 PM)

If Senator Obama's ads, actually I don't think he or his "official" staff have anything to do with these, are any indication the primary campaign season will be very interesting.

Short Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo&mode=related&search=

Long Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QViJwZwXTl0&mode=related&search=



farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/18/2007 6:06:35 PM)

I happened to see the opener to SNL last night.

Chris Rock Impersonator, discussing Hillary/Barry winds up the sketch with:

"Is America ready for a Black President?"

"Why not? We've just had a RETARDED One" I don't see it up on youtube, but it was hilarious.




Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/18/2007 6:14:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

The site you gave is related to Domestic Criminal Law, not enemy combatants making War on the USA. 



[sarcasm]

You are absolutely right, a US citizen detained in Chicago (a US city) and held without access to council or being charged with a crime is not a domestic matter.

[/sarcasm]

I am not even sure how to respond to your assertion.

Sinergy



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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