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

MellowSir -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:28:35 AM)
If they're US citizens then give them their rights, if not then send them home, what are they going to do, get in a rowboat, row 5000 miles and throw firecrackers?

Sanity -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:42:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You going to argue with Ronald Reagan? So, any quote by any U.S. President is gold, and I can take it to the bank?

Sanity -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:50:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Masterdogie Every form of government has some idiots. Ours seems to have an abundance of them at all levels. If a group of people are not going to follow the rules and want to destroy our form of government especially on religious grounds then they should be DESTROYED. Any method used to locate the spies (religious fanatics) and incarcerate them is justified no matter whose rules you use. Soon we will all be praying to Alla and have at least 7 wives if we don't stand up for our values, but hey maybe 7 wives wouldn't be so bad [;)] You're wrong. So long as we've followed our Suicide Pact / Constitution above and beyond the call of duty, everything will be okay. They may be purposely using it to destroy us, but hey - what the hell, ya know? At least we'll be good chumps, even if we are dead.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 7:02:01 AM)
Fargle...Ronnie was, without a doubt, one of the greatest Presidents we have had in the past 100 years, no doubt about it. Are you challenging the legal position that the UDHR occupies which was eplained by, I think, Luckydog? If you are saying that he is wrong in that it is not law and it is not a treaty then cite your source for your position. I asked that you cite your source for the position that the UDHR trumps the Geneva Convention and you can't because it doesn't. I'm not going to debate with you for the sake of debating.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 7:07:35 AM)
Heeeey!! Fargle basically asked me the kind of oh so relevant question that I said Sinergy would ask. Ok...if mom or dad or son or daughter became a terrorist, I would expect that they might endure a hell of a lot worse than water boarding if they were held by a country other than the United States. By the same token, if mom or dad or son or daughter went out and committed pre-meditated murder I would expect that they would get the death penalty in THIS country.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 7:11:57 AM)
Koja, I'm sorry, but this isn't worth a replying to...no offense meant. The issue is not what is morally right or morally wrong. You can get on your moral high horse and ride it around all day if it makes you feel good. The issue is "how do you treat an enemy of your country that is not a member of any other country's military?" The answer for the detainees is MUCH nicer than the answer has been for people who spied for America, caught in Russia. You know what we said, you have heard it in a thousand movies; "If your or any member of your team gets captured we will deny all yadda yadda yadda" and the spy got summarily executed. That hasn't happend to the detainees.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 7:24:03 AM)
You are wrong again. No, it doesn't say that you can torture and except for the rogue participants at Abu Ghrab, we don't torture. Due process differs from tribunal to tribunal. There are different due process rights in each state court (unless they have adopted the Federal Rules). Due process rights in Federal Courts differ from due process rights in State courts. Due process rights in military tribunals differ from both State courts and Federal courts. You are simply wrong. Get over it. Get past it. The Declaration of Independence is NOT source law for this debate. No one is saying that the detainees are not equal as human beings. What is being said is that the detainees enjoy less legal status than POW's. That is beyond debate. That the 14th Amendment does not apply to this situation is also beyond debate. That the UDHR does not apply to this situation is beyond debate. That Fargle wants them to have that kind of legal status of U.S. citizens is not persuasive. Fargle wants them to have that status to the CLEAR DETRIMENT of his country. Fargle address in detail what was said in post 101.

Archer -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 8:09:57 AM)
The purpose of the hearings I mentioned (the one that determines legally the combatant, illegal combatant, non combatant), is so that the GC can be applied appropriately. Legal combatants according to the GC get one level of treatment, illegal combatants get another and non combatants get still another. The status hearing can be as simple as Sgt Baker, you captured this man at Hfkhhskh on XX/XX/2004, was he in uniform? No Was he armed and had he been shooting at your unit up untill the capture? Yes. Is this the property list of what he was carrying on his person at the time? Yes I filled out the inventory before turning himover to SSG Cook with the MPs. But they could get rather complex as well, the point being they need to be done so that we Can live up to our own standards. The majority of these detainees were battlefield captures best I can tell although there were some raids to capture higher ranking members. Some of those might pose problems

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 8:21:37 AM)
Great post! I think for the military aspects of this discussion, you should be dubbed "resident expert". So...it seems to me you are saying that the Geneva Convention does apply and that the Geneva Convention contains provisions for illegal combatants. Is that right? I guess my next question would be what is all the rancor about applying the GC to the detainees if it is already applicable? Is the argument that some dim wits just want illegal combatants to be classified with the protections conveyed to legal combatants? If they won their argument, wouldn't that encourage MORE terrorism?

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 9:20:09 AM)
Oh Man!!! It just gets better and better with you. You didn't sleep at all last night, did you. Ok...here is what you said: "How do we know whether or not they are citizens without giving them their day in court, access to an attorney, facing their accusers, etc?" Ummmm....we know they aren't citizens (for the most part b/c I think Padilla is) because they were captured on the field of battle as an illegal combatant in a foreign land, or in a raid, and...well...let's see they don't have driver's licenses from the United States, they don't have Certificates of Birth from the United States, etc. Dude...are you really asking whether or not we know if the detainees are citizens of this country? Nah...you are just being purposefully comical. Anyway, go back and read some of Archer's posts. I think you will find them educational.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 9:34:24 AM)
Man you are daft. We have inaleinable rights? Says who? The Declaration of Independence? That's nice...for us here in America. It says it on a piece of paper in this country but another country doesn't have that same piece of paper so they don't have inalienable rights. Our recognition of inalienable rights (God given rights) comes from our Judeo-Christian belief system that is not shared world wide. I know, you are some wacky one worlder and that's fine. But for you to say the Declaration of Independence governs everything we do while many other nations or terrorist groups, etc. abides by it sounds outright stupid. Remember Kyoto? Standards were advanced for the United States that not all countries had to follow...so we rejected it. :) You seem to like things that don't give your country a level playing field world wide. I bet you were a big supporter of S.A.L.T. I and S.A.L.T. II as well. The detainees, according to Archer, have provisions that apply to them as illegal combatants under the Geneva Convention. Why don't you go do something construction, instead of harping on your circular and bankrupt arguments, and go see if Archer is right. If he IS correct, then the detainees' rights are secured by that treaty--a world body treaty....which should appeal to you immensely.

mnottertail -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 9:51:18 AM)
you breath alot of fire, but fail to produce proof that the detainees were captured in battle, or that their citizenship has been determined. Now, that doesn't make them illegal combatants --- the fact that they were snatched in an imbriglio. Have you read the accords of that convention? Those of us that served military had to have some foundation in that. This in no way denigrates Archer, because he is right about it. So, prithee, what is an illegal combatant? a legal one? How many people are in Guantanemo as detainees, and what is the nationality breakdown, how many drivers licenses are forfeit? How many passports are confiscated--- Ronnie; again: 'Trust, but verify.' Why is there a problem with that? If the administration of OUR government is acting in concert with our mores and our documents of foundation and their principles, then what shame is there in proclaiming it to friend and foe alike? They don't play fair? So if your friend jumps off a bridge you have to as well? This country is strong enough as generally proclaimed to uphold the highest principles of the world in all our dealings and still grind the despoilers of the globe into dust. Ron

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 10:49:12 AM)
Wow...go back and *read* the posts.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 11:28:08 AM)
"Morals are more important than illegality." Koja Unless you're Bill Clinton. I hear some of these same things being bandied about by the illegal alien advocates. Does anyone think that the framers of the Constitution were thinking about say,...Germany or Poland when they were writing the Constitution? We may all have "inalienable rights" but as an American Citizen it is not my job to "confer" those rights on citizens of foreign countries. The framers were talking about the new "united states" not other countries. I don't understand how some people can think those rights are "transferrable" to foreigners much less terrorists. I mean would you have to fill out a "form" or something? (lol) ("Sign right here Achmed, no, there's another form for food stamps.") And if the Geneva Conventions works the way some in here "think" it does the U.S. and other countries never would have gotten into it in the first place! Why would any country join something that totally constrains them but gives their enemy free rein? There are some very weak arguments in here People!

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 12:06:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You going to argue with Ronald Reagan? So, any quote by any U.S. President is gold, and I can take it to the bank? Not necessarily, but in this case Reagan did a very good job stating why the UDHR is worth following, didn't he?

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 12:07:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Heeeey!! Fargle basically asked me the kind of oh so relevant question that I said Sinergy would ask. Ok...if mom or dad or son or daughter became a terrorist I didn't suggest that they became terrorists. Answer the question AS ASKED, please.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 12:09:14 PM)
quote: The issue is not what is morally right or morally wrong. Doing what is RIGHT is ALWAYS the issue.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 12:11:00 PM)
quote: So long as we've followed our Suicide Pact / Constitution above and beyond the call of duty, everything will be okay. Pretty much. Since we survived the failure of the Articles of Confederation just fine, it proves that the Declaration of Independence is robust enough. The Constitution may not be a suicide pact, but the Declaration of Independence is it's Death Penalty should it lose sight of it's obligations. Such as Due Process, Equal Protection, etc.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 12:20:01 PM)
Fargle, you're normally pretty good but you're way off base here. It's like you're using oatmeal instead of cement to construct an argument. And look who the senators are who came up with this shit! Spector, Levin and Lehey! Three socialists! They're wasting our time and money!

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 12:38:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Fargle, you're normally pretty good but you're way off base here. It's like you're using oatmeal instead of cement to construct an argument. And look who the senators are who came up with this shit! Spector, Levin and Lehey! Three socialists! They're wasting our time and money! I get it ALL from here: quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. That's the beauty of the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't matter how much a person HATES the idea of "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", they still enjoy the protections that philosophy affords. If you don't BELIEVE the Declaration of Independence is the FOUNDATION of our nation, you aren't REALLY an American.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02