RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees"

RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (Full Version)

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

Message

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:33:30 PM)
Nice dance, Koja, but you didn't say anything. Please address the issues. Does the 14th Amendment apply to detainees suspected of Terrorism? yes or no? Does the Geneva Convention apply to detainees of terrorism? Are the terrorists included under that treaty? yes or no? In Luckydog's post #101 (100 if you are Sinergy) can you appreciate what impact a trial under our Constitution would have on this country? yes or no?

Koja -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:34:04 PM)
Oh, to prevent offense to any of differing tastes: "Ketchup on steak" may well be justified from a style perspective if it's Denny's quality steak or steak from some type of frozen dinner. I was thinking real steak, like a fresh filet or strip. Honestly, though, Denny's steak can be considered vulgar and obscene to begin with; it'd still be a crime to allow oneself to get in a positiion where they had to eat it.

Sinergy -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:37:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Nope, sinergy, I think you are wrong. I think the Luckydog's post is 101 and mine is 102. Ok...because sinergy still plays with Lincoln logs, let's assume my post is 101 and Luckydog's post is 100. Are you going to respond to Luckydog's post? OR...are you going to cede the argument? Are you going to be man enough to say that Lucky is correct that giving the detainees protections under the GC would be disasterous to the U.S.? I dont care what the Geneva Convention states. It is applicable for signatories, but I refuse to insist that people who did not sign it be bound by it. I tend to think that since the United States signed it, if the United States had any credibility or willingness to appear to be true to it's word, it would make a lot of sense to follow it. Failure to do so means that we alienate friends on this planet and appear to be a bunch of ignorant and unscrupulous bastards to everybody else on the planet. On the other hand, I can understand why a lot of people are more than willing to appear that way; look who they elected President. I quoted lines from the United States Bill of Rights. Not giving the detainees protections under the laws which govern the United States would be a travesty of the ideals this country was built on. They have not been proven in a court of law to be terrorists, they are under US jurisdiction, they are entitled to their day in court. AnencephalyBoy and his ilk have DENIED them this guaranteed protection under the United States Constitution. Your posts sound like you disagree with one of the fundamental tenets of our legal system, and yet you call me anti-American. Whatever. Maybe they will cover this when you get to US Government in 8th grade. Sinergy

luckydog1 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:37:58 PM)
koja, what convention? The Geneva? That requires them to wear uniforms with displayed ranks and insignia. And be part of a defined chain of command. Civil entities are not all equall depending on circumstances. If I as an civil entitiy break into your home, we are not equal in the eyes of the law. You can use force/kill me. Koja, could you please answer my question in Post 101? Sinergy seems to be unwilling.

Sinergy -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:39:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Koja, could you please answer my question in Post 101? Sinergy seems to be unwilling. That certainly explains post 123. Sinergy

Koja -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:39:27 PM)
No, Subjective, possibly, yes Morals are more important than legality. It is useless to debate legality if said legal basis violates the foundation upon which that law was created. Both the constitution and the Geneva convention are reliant on the ideal of equality between individuals as well as the idea of common decency even "under fire". To justify the foregoing of these ideals by use of said "laws" is a bit obscene. A bit of a pervert in most respects, and proud of most of my perversions, but a hard limit for me.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:40:03 PM)
Actually for those following along at home Sinergy is unable to follow the confusing numbering system. Post 101 is "Lets take this back to the Original Idea here. What exactly does giving the detainees full rights mean. It means the right to question thier accusers in open court. This means literally recalling and placing on the witness stands all of our undercover agnets working on the Al Queda and other issues, as well as all moles we have within thier structures, exposing thier families to retaliation. This means openly explaining all of our intell gathering systems, exactly what capabilties we have, and what weaknesses. The same people who expresssed such outrage over Plame being exposed are demanding we expose thousands of agents. Let's not forget, this whole issue is over whether the trails are secret( monitored by the Senate Select Commitee on Intelignece), or on CNN. Also it lets Al Queda know who is compromised on thier side and how to counter act. It gives them a great deal of concrete information. Why exactly do you want to do this Sinergy, Farg, et al? " Sinergy quoted post 102, and ducked the question.

Koja -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:41:29 PM)
Ack. Sorry about redundancy with Sinergy's post. I'm a bit slow in posting; sleep deprived, I tend to rant without a pause before I hit "send".

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:46:36 PM)
LOLOLOL My God, Sinergy, you are hysterical! This is like a bad attempt at doing "Who's on First?" Here is what Sinergy said: "I dont care what the Geneva Convention states. It is applicable for signatories, but I refuse to insist that people who did not sign it be bound by it." Dammit, isn't that funny?????? Sin...the terrorists are not bound by the Geneva Convention. hahahahahah But they aren't protected by it either!!! You are way funnier than South Park. And yes, I do tend to think you are very anti-American but I don't know why you brought it up. Well...hell....since you did, there are rights that you have in this country that are your birth right. You don't go and dilute them and make them fucking meaningless by conveying them to enemy combatants (who have the Geneva Convention to protect them) or to suspected terrorists.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:46:56 PM)
Koja, so you are arguing it is moral to destroy our inteligence systems, and have our allies slaughtered all over the world? Why?

Koja -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:47:20 PM)
Meh. A trial does not have to be public to be fair. But it needs to be impartial.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:50:22 PM)
sigh but how do you allow them to confront witnesses against them without compromising everything? This goes back to rights that you have as a citizen versus how things are conducted when you are a terrorist suspect. Surely, koja, you must see the danger is what you are arguing for.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:51:58 PM)
Sinergy saying you quoted the bill of rights is not much of a response. You did try to defend farg, but failed. But I guess thats all we can expect from you. The question is why do you want to publically expose every Intell Agent we have and every foriegn agent we have working in Al queda and Iran, as well as expose all of our methods and limitations to intell gathering? The 2 choices are secret trials with limited senate oversight or on CNN. Why do you Choose CNN?

luckydog1 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:53:26 PM)
No Koja, Constitutonal Due Process requires it to be public, that is precisley what you are arguing for.

Sinergy -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:55:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway sigh but how do you allow them to confront witnesses against them without compromising everything? This goes back to rights that you have as a citizen versus how things are conducted when you are a terrorist suspect. Surely, koja, you must see the danger is what you are arguing for. lockedaway, For me, I have a set of ideals that I adhere to as an individual even in the face of personal danger. I imagine, in my perfect world, that we in the United States have a set of ideals we adhere to in the face of personal danger. Using the BogeyMan rational about why it is ok to sacrifice the principles which I feel are the bedrock of what makes the United States great, I feel is a bunch of complete poppycock. You can go along with the fear mongering by the current adminstration if you want, but as I have quoted before "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." We will just have to agree to disagree. Sinergy

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 10:59:54 PM)
AAAAgagagagagaga...Sinergy....nyuck, nyuck. LOLOL just teasing, pal. Respond to post number 129 after you fall off of your high horse....or is that a hobbi horse?

Koja -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 11:00:44 PM)
Luckydog(129)... Is using said intelligence systems to detain and torture innocent civilians any better? You have yet to establish that these are terrorists. It should be noted that a heck of a lot of people admit to being a witch during a witch-hunt :P Confessions under duress mean nothing... Likewise, warts or nationality don't cut it either. (131) Of course there's a danger. And it's a danger that has to be mitigated somehow: "You have rights unless allowing you to have them might be dangerous; as such, I shall proceed to shove a fluorescent light bulb further within your rectum" is not a good argument(1). (1) Footnotes are often underused.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 11:01:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Nope, sinergy, I think you are wrong. I think the Luckydog's post is 101 and mine is 102. Ok...because sinergy still plays with Lincoln logs, let's assume my post is 101 and Luckydog's post is 100. Are you going to respond to Luckydog's post? OR...are you going to cede the argument? Are you going to be man enough to say that Lucky is correct that giving the detainees protections under the GC would be disasterous to the U.S.? I dont care what the Geneva Convention states. It is applicable for signatories, but I refuse to insist that people who did not sign it be bound by it. I tend to think that since the United States signed it, if the United States had any credibility or willingness to appear to be true to it's word, it would make a lot of sense to follow it. Failure to do so means that we alienate friends on this planet and appear to be a bunch of ignorant and unscrupulous bastards to everybody else on the planet. On the other hand, I can understand why a lot of people are more than willing to appear that way; look who they elected President. I quoted lines from the United States Bill of Rights. Not giving the detainees protections under the laws which govern the United States would be a travesty of the ideals this country was built on. They have not been proven in a court of law to be terrorists, they are under US jurisdiction, they are entitled to their day in court. AnencephalyBoy and his ilk have DENIED them this guaranteed protection under the United States Constitution. Your posts sound like you disagree with one of the fundamental tenets of our legal system, and yet you call me anti-American. Whatever. Maybe they will cover this when you get to US Government in 8th grade. Sinergy Sinergy, you aren't hitting on any cylinders there! "Friends on this planet?" Other countries "like" us for what they can get out of us or what we'll "do" for them or what we'll "give" them or that we "overlook" the fact that millions of their citizens are in our country illegally and send our money back to their countries. Again, the Geneva Conventions is not a one-way document. We are required to treat the other signatories according to it but not a non signatory country and certainly not terrorists like al qeada! What if we catch Bin Laden alive, would you really want a drawn out show trial for that piece of human excrement? I'd rather see him placed in a stadium and turned over to the families of the 9/11 victioms! And bring on the Butt Pyramids and Bacon!

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 11:09:21 PM)
Man...more funny stuff from Sinergy. Do you intend to be this good? Here is what Sinergy said and, to him, it still sounds great! lololol "I imagine, in my perfect world, that we in the United States have a set of ideals we adhere to in the face of personal danger. Using the BogeyMan rational about why it is ok to sacrifice the principles which I feel are the bedrock of what makes the United States great, I feel is a bunch of complete poppycock." The United States protects its citizens. It conveys rights to its citizens. Again, Sinergy, those rights are your birth rights. Under the 14th Amendment, there are certain things that a State can't do to anybody including those people that are not citizens. Do you understand??? Now that applies to the States, it DOES not apply to the Fed. Got it? We became signatories to the GC to protect the rights of combatants fighting under the colors of a sovereign nation. Do you understand that? The States have nothing...absolutely nothing...to do with that. OK?? Now...now we have detainees suspected of being engaged in acts of terrorism. They should not get the protections under the GC because that would only encourage more terrorism. Surely you are bright enough to understand that. Not only would it encourage more terrorists but it would also encourage more countries to surreptitiously sponser terrorism. We on the same page here? Ok...if they don't get the protections accorded under the GC, you MUST AGREE that you would DEFINITELY NOT give them the same rights as accorded to an American citizen. Right? For Chrstsake, be forthright enough to address the issues and acknowledge the weaknesses in your arguments.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/28/2007 11:24:50 PM)
Sinergy, I don't want those sleezeballs given any rights under OUR Constitution. The way you're talking we should give them U.S. Citizenship. I don't want them to have any rights that I have. Of course their "allah" wouldn't allow it anyway.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125