PDA

View Full Version : Playing Games at Gitmo



K.Bullock
11-26-2008, 09:31 AM
As it turns out Obama will not be shutting down Gitmo as promised on the Campaign trail. ...wow who would have thunk it?:rolleyes:



November 26, 2008 12:00 AM

Playing Games at Gitmo
Nothing clarifies the mind like a jihadi boomerang.

By Michelle Malkin

The human-rights crowd is right: Life is hard for a Guantanamo Bay detainee. The deprivation is unspeakable. According to the facility’s “cultural adviser,” their brains have not been “stimulated” enough. So this Thanksgiving, America is drawing up plans to provide the 250 or so suspected jihadists at the “notoriously Spartan” detention camp with basic sustenance including, as reported by the Miami Herald, movie nights, art classes, English-language lessons, and “Game Boy-like” electronic devices.

Next up: Wii Fit, Guitar Hero, Sudoku, People magazine, and macrame. Anything less would be uncivilized.




On a deadly serious note, the detainees aren’t the only ones playing games at Gitmo. Some top legal advisers and supporters of Barack Obama, whose name detainees chanted on election night, are now rethinking the president-elect’s absolutist campaign position on shutting the center down and flooding our mainland courts with every last enemy combatant designee. Yes, reality bites. And Democrats must now grapple with the very real possibility that an Obama administration could potentially release a Gitmo denizen who would turn around and commit mass terrorist acts on American soil or abroad.

Nothing clarifies the mind like a jihadi boomerang. Never before have an administration and its followers matured so quickly in office — and they haven’t even taken office yet.

While Obama paid lip service to the “Close the Gitmo gulag!” agenda on 60 Minutes over the weekend, his kitchen cabinet is proceeding more pragmatically. Believe it or not, the Obama crowd is now contemplating a preventive detention law and an alternative judicial system for the most sensitive national security cases involving the most highly classified information — information that has no place being aired in the civilian courts for public consumption.

Listen to relentless Bush critic David Cole, who told the New York Times last week: “You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone.” Added Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution: “I’m afraid of people getting released in the name of human rights and doing terrible things.”

Moreover, Obama transition team members have suggested to The Wall Street Journal that despite his campaign season CIA-bashing, “Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzRkNmYwMGEzYzdkNjQ5ZDdmYTExMGRjOWIzOGEzMzk=

backpasture
11-26-2008, 10:34 AM
So, let me get this straight... Her problem is that she doesn't think that Gitmo should be shut down, and there are some Obama supporters that apparently agree with her, which to her indicates that the Obama team is 'playing games' with Gitmo? I think Obama has made his intentions quite clear, even though he may have some supporters and/or advisors who don't agree with that approach.

Since she doesn't want Gitmo closed, shouldn't be applauding that dissention? :???:

I guess when you have to fill column space with righteous indignation each week that the material starts to run pretty thin. Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave.

K.Bullock
11-26-2008, 10:45 AM
So, let me get this straight... Her problem is that she doesn't think that Gitmo should be shut down, and there are some Obama supporters that apparently agree with her, which to her indicates that the Obama team is 'playing games' with Gitmo? I think Obama has made his intentions quite clear, even though he may have some supporters and/or advisors who don't agree with that approach.

Since she doesn't want Gitmo closed, shouldn't be applauding that dissention? :???:

I guess when you have to fill column space with righteous indignation each week that the material starts to run pretty thin. Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave.
? I am not sure we are reading the same article.

backpasture
11-26-2008, 11:16 AM
We are reading the same article.

There is nothing there that suggest that Obama has had a change of heart regarding Gitmo. The only thing she can claim is that some 'top legal advisors and supporters' don't agree with that approach.

There is nothing in the article supporting the claim that "Obama will not be shutting down Gitmo as promised on the Campaign trail". It's all speculation (aka - a fantasy). The only sources she cites aren't even affiliated with the Obama team.

Typical Malkin drivel.

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/malkin.jpg

K.Bullock
11-26-2008, 12:19 PM
We are reading the same article.

There is nothing there that suggest that Obama has had a change of heart regarding Gitmo. The only thing she can claim is that some 'top legal advisors and supporters' don't agree with that approach.

There is nothing in the article supporting the claim that "Obama will not be shutting down Gitmo as promised on the Campaign trail". It's all speculation (aka - a fantasy). The only sources she cites aren't even affiliated with the Obama team.

Typical Malkin drivel.

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/malkin.jpg


Oh I see now. Never mind the legal, logistical and constitutional problems of closing an off shore facility and bringing untried prisoners onto U.S. soil.

The photograph clearly makes your case. My bad.

backpasture
11-26-2008, 12:28 PM
Oh I see now. Never mind the legal, logistical and constitutional problems of closing an off shore facility and bringing untried prisoners onto U.S. soil.

The photograph clearly makes your case. My bad.

Yep. Malkin is a joke. And she's a joke because she writes nonsense like this.

Terry Britton
11-26-2008, 01:12 PM
If it were up to me, I would give the prisoners the right to leave a long time ago. They could stay as prisoners by signing a contract waiving all rights, or swim home.

Bob Gutermuth
11-26-2008, 01:57 PM
Miss Malkin in an erudite, educated conservative but she is a bit left of my thoughts on gitmo. I would give each of the detainees a summary court martial and a first class hanging. Then they can close the place.

badbullgator
11-26-2008, 02:07 PM
If it were up to me, I would give the prisoners the right to leave a long time ago. They could stay as prisoners by signing a contract waiving all rights, or swim home.


BP wants to have them over for thanksgiving dinner and a handshake :rolleyes:

backpasture
11-26-2008, 02:09 PM
Miss Malkin is an erudite...
I don't think that word means what you think it means... ;-) I think the word you are looking for is 'shrill'.


I would give each of the detainees a summary court martial and a first class hanging.

Well, a court martial would be a much better solution than what they have now -- which is indefinite detainment and no trial. I would be all for court martials or some other type of hearing for the lot of them.

As for the hanging, you would carry that out regardless of the outcome of the court martial? Personally, I prefer we only hang the ones that are actually guilty of terrorism and/or war crimes.

Bob Gutermuth
11-26-2008, 02:23 PM
These terrorists would not be at GITMO if they weren't guilty of some kind on anti US acts. I favor giving them the same kind of 'trial ' the German agents involved in Operation Pastorius got and a first class execution as well.

I miss Ms Malkin on O'Rielly. She is a well spoken and highly intelligent member of the right, much easier on the eyes and ears than say Rosie O' Fatbutt or Ariana Huffington to mention two members of the left who give me a burr in my butt.

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 02:26 PM
Miss Malkin in an erudite, educated conservative but she is a bit left of my thoughts on gitmo. I would give each of the detainees a summary court martial and a first class hanging. Then they can close the place.

Bob -

You forgot to say "...the detainees a fair and impartial summary..."

Gotta be fair and impartial before you can hang them.

Fair And Impartial Regards,

Joe S.

Bob Gutermuth
11-26-2008, 02:31 PM
I don't care how they do it, but the sooner they are convicted and executed the sooner we CAN shut this place down. Not that I think it should be, anymore than I think Alcatraz should have been closed.

backpasture
11-26-2008, 02:48 PM
These terrorists would not be at GITMO if they weren't guilty of some kind on anti US acts.

So, everyone sent to Gitmo is guilty? Why have we released over 3 dozen of the captives then? As a law enforcement officer, do you believe that someone can be falsely accused and jailed, or do you believe that an arrest is always evidence that someone is guilty?

I am confident that most of the people there are indeed guilty and deserve execution. But, our Consitution outlines a right to a trial where evidence can be presented before a sentence can be carried out.


I favor giving them the same kind of 'trial ' the German agents involved in Operation Pastorius got and a first class execution as well.


For the record, the German agents involved in Operation Pastorius did indeed get a hearing where they were found guilty. It wasn't a 'jury of their peers', but it was more than what the Gitmo detainees have received.

cotts135
11-26-2008, 02:56 PM
These terrorists would not be at GITMO if they weren't guilty of some kind on anti US acts.

MMMMMMMmm oh really, I think I remember them releasing some prisoners already. I know that recently a judge has ordered 5 of the inmates released.

Here is an excerpt from the LA times:http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-hamdan26-2008nov26,0,1461507.story


Of the nearly 800 men brought to Guantanamo since the detention network was built at the U.S. naval base in January 2002, about 250 remain. The majority have been released or transferred to their home countries for lack of evidence to put them on trial for war crimes.

Hoosier
11-26-2008, 02:58 PM
Maybe we should escort them directly to an American court, pay for them a lawyer, and an interpretor. Then they could sue us. Let their lawyer sort through jurors until they found the ones they like. WIN. Get $10,000,000 and spend it on more terrorism in this country. Would that be enough to make you liberals happy, or do you want more? If you want more we could just elect a closet Muslim POTUS.

Hoosier
11-26-2008, 03:02 PM
MMMMMMMmm oh really, I think I remember them releasing some prisoners already. I know that recently a judge has ordered 5 of the inmates released.

Here is an excerpt from the LA times:http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-hamdan26-2008nov26,0,1461507.story


Of the nearly 800 men brought to Guantanamo since the detention network was built at the U.S. naval base in January 2002, about 250 remain. The majority have been released or transferred to their home countries for lack of evidence to put them on trial for war crimes.

Maybe that because everyone is tired of hearing the left piss and whine, so they just let you have your way. Keep chipping away at the stone, see where that gets us.

Hew
11-26-2008, 03:03 PM
Of the nearly 800 men brought to Guantanamo since the detention network was built at the U.S. naval base in January 2002, about 250 remain. The majority have been released or transferred to their home countries for lack of evidence to put them on trial for war crimes.
That's patently false.

Hoosier
11-26-2008, 03:05 PM
Should make em memorize the bible word for word before we let em go.

backpasture
11-26-2008, 03:06 PM
If you want more we could just elect a closet Muslim POTUS.

I guess it's not surprising that if you can be made to believe this kind of crap, that you can also be easily convinced that some parts of the Consitiution can be thrown out at whim.

Hew
11-26-2008, 03:09 PM
I think Obama has made his intentions quite clear, even though he may have some supporters and/or advisors who don't agree with that approach.
I'm guessing you wouldn't want to place a wager on whether Gitmo is still open for business one year after Obama is sworn in, would you? I'll cover you on that one.

Hoosier
11-26-2008, 03:10 PM
I guess it's not surprising that if you can be made to believe this kind of crap, that you can also be easily convinced that some parts of the Consitiution can be thrown out at whim.

I don't think the Constitution applies to terrorist

backpasture
11-26-2008, 03:13 PM
I'm guessing you wouldn't want to place a wager on whether Gitmo is still open for business one year after Obama is sworn in, would you? I'll cover you on that one.

I think it could take more than a year, but I would make a bet on 2 years.

cotts135
11-26-2008, 03:24 PM
That's patently false.
Support your claim. I'll listen.

precisionlabradors
11-26-2008, 03:52 PM
I don't think the Constitution applies to terrorist

that's your problem. there is a protocol of trial for a reason.

i agree 100% with BP that accusation does not make one guilty. let's just imagine for a second that the obama camp accused and arrested this malkin of high crimes and shipped her to gitmo or bob or hoosier or whomever. would you guys not make a thread here about how unjust and unconstitutional it is to ignore one's rights to trial etc?

closet muslim regards
________
VAPIR NO2 (http://no2vaporizers.com)

Hoosier
11-26-2008, 04:12 PM
Oh, your quite tricky with that bold type. You must be really smart. It seems to me that the approach President Bush has used has been pretty effective.
I don't think. Ha Ha Ha where do come up with such great material. Your a regular Don Rickles

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 05:05 PM
I don't think the Constitution applies to terrorist

Fortunately for us all, the SCOTUS has decided, repeatedly, much differently.

K.Bullock
11-26-2008, 05:06 PM
So, everyone sent to Gitmo is guilty? Why have we released over 3 dozen of the captives then? As a law enforcement officer, do you believe that someone can be falsely accused and jailed, or do you believe that an arrest is always evidence that someone is guilty?

I am confident that most of the people there are indeed guilty and deserve execution. But, our Consitution outlines a right to a trial where evidence can be presented before a sentence can be carried out.



For the record, the German agents involved in Operation Pastorius did indeed get a hearing where they were found guilty. It wasn't a 'jury of their peers', but it was more than what the Gitmo detainees have received.

That is true some have been released, only to be recovered later with a .223 caliber hole in them from the battlefield.

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 05:07 PM
That's patently false.

Very unlike you to make a broad statement like that and not back it with something, John. What is behind your thought process?

Inquiring Regards,

Joe S.

YardleyLabs
11-26-2008, 05:13 PM
I don't think the Constitution applies to terrorist

Personally I've always felt that we should reserve Constitutional rights to those that deserve them -- good law abiding Christians, and preferably Republicans. Furthermore, it's a waste of tax payer money to have trials for people we know are guilty. Let's save those niceties for the innocent.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Due process was pretty important to our country's founders and it should be pretty important to each of us. Those who believe that only guilty people are ever charged with a crime know little about our system of justice.

When I was 13 a guy in my school, as a prank, said that he had seen two other boys and me rape a girl outside of a school dance. The fact was that he had seen nothing and there was nothing to see except for four 13 year olds talking. The school sorted out the facts very quickly. However, the two other boys and I had already been eaten up by others at the dance and six years later classmates of mine still assumed that the rape had happened but that it was "covered up" by the school. In your world I fear I would still be in jail.

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 05:24 PM
Oh, your quite tricky with that bold type. You must be really smart. It seems to me that the approach President Bush has used has been pretty effective.
I don't think. Ha Ha Ha where do come up with such great material. Your a regular Don Rickles

It depends on what the definition of the word effective is.

If by effective you mean preventing another terrorist attack on the CONUS, then you may be right, or wrong. Truth of the matter is we don't know for sure what was prevented or disrupted and what role the folks at GITMO had or didn't have in the prevention or disruption, if it did or did not happen.

If by effective you mean IAW the Constitution that he was sworn to uphold, protect and defend against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, maybe, maybe not, depending on how you look at it.

Few, even the arch-neo-more-to-the-right-than-Barry-Goldwater types on this board, would willingly point to what we have done at GITMO as a shining example of what is known and revered around the world as American justice. GITMO is a great stain on the National morality. We are expected to be, and should be, better than that. Keeping people behind bars for years on end without the benefit of counsel or charges are things authorized by two-bit, tin-horn dictators, not the President of the United States of America. The greatest example of the level of justice present in a society is the justice it provides to those that would seek to destroy it.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 05:29 PM
That is true some have been released, only to be recovered later with a .223 caliber hole in them from the battlefield.

And your point?

Were they guilty at the time or did they take up arms upon their release after they were hed captive and waterboarded?

Timing Really Is Everything Regards,

Joe S.

K.Bullock
11-26-2008, 05:37 PM
It depends on what the definition of the word effective is.

If by effective you mean preventing another terrorist attack on the CONUS, then you may be right, or wrong. Truth of the matter is we don't know for sure what was prevented or disrupted and what role the folks at GITMO had or didn't have in the prevention or disruption, if it did or did not happen.

If by effective you mean IAW the Constitution that he was sworn to uphold, protect and defend against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, maybe, maybe not, depending on how you look at it.

Few, even the arch-neo-more-to-the-right-than-Barry-Goldwater types on this board, would willingly point to what we have done at GITMO as a shining example of what is known and revered around the world as American justice. GITMO is a great stain on the National morality. We are expected to be, and should be, better than that. Keeping people behind bars for years on end without the benefit of counsel or charges are things authorized by two-bit, tin-horn dictators, not the President of the United States of America. The greatest example of the level of justice present in a society is the justice it provides to those that would seek to destroy it.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

I don't know If would regard Gitmo as a great stain on our nation. To buy that I would also have to buy into the camp that believes 9/11 was our fault. It is what it is and it is the only solution to detainment of terror suspects we have come up with.

It is interesting to note that GW has been trying to figure a way out of Gitmo, and has run into the same quandary the Obama team has. How do they do it without having to create new law and without releasing terrorists onto the American public.

Personally I am more concerned with my friends they are trying to kill and my homeland they want to destroy.

K.Bullock
11-26-2008, 05:42 PM
And your point?

Were they guilty at the time or did they take up arms upon their release after they were hed captive and waterboarded?

Timing Really Is Everything Regards,

Joe S.
That is easy enough to find out on your own. If you find a case where an insurgent that was released from Gitmo, later KIA against coalition troops in the middle east, and was not involved in something prior to Gitmo . I am sure you will return and post it.

Uncle Bill
11-26-2008, 06:29 PM
I say close it down!!!

Give every detainee a map of such dandy locations to choose from to re-locate:

St.Anthony ID.; Fredricksburg, VA.; Yardley, PA. and all over the Green Mountain state.

I agree with Joe, there is no way we can know how nice these guys could be. Without having a timely trial, they have been enduring way too much for a basic terrorist. Oops...let's see now, while I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one of TV...even I could issue one of those "get-out-for-free" cards based on the ultimate problem...no one read them their rights!

I can hardly wait for UBL's trial. Hope his captors Mirandize him. Actually I think he's looking forward to living in a prison...can't possible be worse than the rat holes he's been forced to hide in the past 6 years...that is if you believe he's still alive.

UB

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 06:31 PM
I don't know If would regard Gitmo as a great stain on our nation. To buy that I would also have to buy into the camp that believes 9/11 was our fault. It is what it is and it is the only solution to detainment of terror suspects we have come up with.

Like I said, "few." Thanks for making my point.


It is interesting to note that GW has been trying to figure a way out of Gitmo, and has run into the same quandary the Obama team has. How do they do it without having to create new law and without releasing terrorists onto the American public.

He is now that the SCOTUS has ruled, REPEATEDLY, that holding people at GITMO without counsel or charges for years on end is unconstitutional. I'm sure you will recall that the original position of President Bush and his Ace #1 Legal Team was the courts couldn't even REVIEW the cases.

Yes, I can see it may be problematic to craft a new law dealing with a situation like this, especially when you have been used to ignoring those laws that you found inconvenient. But, let's face it, the guys in GITMO weren't going anywhere so IF a new law had to be developed, they had the time.

Well, see, that is the trouble with GITMO. Those at GITMO were, I thought, supposed to be the worst of the worst. Hard core. Steely-eyed killers. The core of the islamofas-movement. One would think there would be substantial evidence to support that claim, evidence that was not obtained under duress. Guess not, huh.


Personally I am more concerned with my friends they are trying to kill and my homeland they want to destroy.

So, to be clear, it is OK with you to deny others due process as long we are the good guys. Right?

Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 06:43 PM
I say close it down!!!

Give every detainee a map of such dandy locations to choose from to re-locate:

St.Anthony ID.; Fredricksburg, VA.; Yardley, PA. and all over the Green Mountain state.

I agree with Joe, there is no way we can know how nice these guys could be. Without having a timely trial, they have been enduring way too much for a basic terrorist. Oops...let's see now, while I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one of TV...even I could issue one of those "get-out-for-free" cards based on the ultimate problem...no one read them their rights!

I can hardly wait for UBL's trial. Hope his captors Mirandize him. Actually I think he's looking forward to living in a prison...can't possible be worse than the rat holes he's been forced to hide in the past 6 years...that is if you believe he's still alive.

UB

I don't think I ever said these were nice guys. Nor did I suggest they should all be set free. All I said was that they should receive the same rights as others in the legal system. That is the problem with trying to have a conversation with guys like you, Bill, you cannot deal with what is said and to make your point you have to twist the words into what you want them to say. To twist my words as you did makes them inaccurate.

Now, you want to debate what I said, bring it on, but don't twist my words to make your point. That is beneath you.

Actually, I hope a team of my friends from inside the compound at Ft. Bragg find UBL and deal with him.

Double-Tap Regards,

Joe S.

K.Bullock
11-26-2008, 08:41 PM
Like I said, "few." Thanks for making my point.



He is now that the SCOTUS has ruled, REPEATEDLY, that holding people at GITMO without counsel or charges for years on end is unconstitutional. I'm sure you will recall that the original position of President Bush and his Ace #1 Legal Team was the courts couldn't even REVIEW the cases.

Yes, I can see it may be problematic to craft a new law dealing with a situation like this, especially when you have been used to ignoring those laws that you found inconvenient. But, let's face it, the guys in GITMO weren't going anywhere so IF a new law had to be developed, they had the time.

Well, see, that is the trouble with GITMO. Those at GITMO were, I thought, supposed to be the worst of the worst. Hard core. Steely-eyed killers. The core of the islamofas-movement. One would think there would be substantial evidence to support that claim, evidence that was not obtained under duress. Guess not, huh.



So, to be clear, it is OK with you to deny others due process as long we are the good guys. Right?

Regards,

Joe S.
How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. But, I can live with that.


While we are on the subject of due process ..."Double tap regards"? Is there a facet of due process I am missing?

John Kelder
11-26-2008, 09:25 PM
Miss Malkin in an erudite, educated conservative but she is a bit left of my thoughts on gitmo. I would give each of the detainees a summary court martial and a first class hanging. Then they can close the place.

To help the deficit , I will provide labor and rope .

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 09:27 PM
While we are on the subject of due process ..."Double tap regards"? Is there a facet of due process I am missing?

Given the time and bandwidth constraints, I could not do justice to the facets of so very many things, including due process, that I think you are missing.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
11-26-2008, 09:31 PM
BHO and a good portions of the American public are going to find out the office of the Presidency has limitations…doesn’t matter if Howdy Doody is in office

K.Bullock
11-26-2008, 10:18 PM
Given the time and bandwidth constraints, I could not do justice to the facets of so very many things, including due process, that I think you are missing.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

I didn't miss much, that includes your inconsistent position. :eek:

Bruce MacPherson
11-26-2008, 11:58 PM
. GITMO is a great stain on the National morality. We are expected to be, and should be, better than that.
Joe S.

Noble thought, in theory correct but from a practical standpoint it's ridiculous. We should do, and should have done, whatever we have to do to protect American lives from people that have no qualms about carrying out the most atrocious acts imaginable.
Never made much sense to me to fight a war with one hand tied behind your back. I did that once, never again.

Mac

precisionlabradors
11-27-2008, 01:51 AM
I say close it down!!!

Give every detainee a map of such dandy locations to choose from to re-locate:

St.Anthony ID.; Fredricksburg, VA.; Yardley, PA. and all over the Green Mountain state.

I agree with Joe, there is no way we can know how nice these guys could be. Without having a timely trial, they have been enduring way too much for a basic terrorist. Oops...let's see now, while I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one of TV...even I could issue one of those "get-out-for-free" cards based on the ultimate problem...no one read them their rights!

I can hardly wait for UBL's trial. Hope his captors Mirandize him. Actually I think he's looking forward to living in a prison...can't possible be worse than the rat holes he's been forced to hide in the past 6 years...that is if you believe he's still alive.

UB

[eyeroll]. are you really interpreting what myself, joe s, and bp say as all detainees at GITMO should be released? that is absurd. it's difficult to debate the issue when you make suppositions that have no relation to the topic.

but just for fun, you can release them all here the same day we can arrest and detain everyone from Rapid City, SD and hold them for years without due process...because you're guilty.
________
Love quotes dicussion (http://www.love-help.org/love-quotes/)

Pete
11-27-2008, 10:05 AM
If they shut down gitmo ,,I want first dibs on those dog kennels:D
Pete

Uncle Bill
11-27-2008, 10:57 AM
[eyeroll]. are you really interpreting what myself, joe s, and bp say as all detainees at GITMO should be released? that is absurd. it's difficult to debate the issue when you make suppositions that have no relation to the topic.

but just for fun, you can release them all here the same day we can arrest and detain everyone from Rapid City, SD and hold them for years without due process...because you're guilty.

Only in your demented state could you compare the CITIZENS OF THE USA that reside in Rapid City with the terrorists in Guantanamo, and believe you are comparing apples to apples. Is there no end to your ignorance? Even for Joe, you must be heavy baggage.

UB

Uncle Bill
11-27-2008, 11:12 AM
Speaking of Gitmo...who better than Ann to set the record straight?

Enjoy,

UB


Terrorists' Restless Leg Syndrome
by Ann Coulter (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ann+Coulter) (more by this author) (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ann+Coulter)
Posted 11/26/2008 ET
Updated 11/26/2008 ET


I thought the rest of the world was going to love us if we elected B. Hussein Obama! Somebody better tell the Indian Muslims. As everyone but President-elect B. Hussein Obama's base knows, many of the Guantanamo detainees cannot be sent to their home countries, cannot be released and cannot be tried. They need to be held in some form of extra-legal limbo the rest of their lives, sort of like Phil Spector.

And now they're Obama's problem.

If Obama wants his detention of Islamic terrorists to be dramatically different from Bush's Guantanamo, my suggestion is that he cut off -- so to speak -- the expensive prosthetic limb procedures now being granted the detained terrorists.

Far from being sodomized and tortured by U.S. forces -- as Obama's base has wailed for the past seven years -- the innocent scholars and philanthropists being held at Guantanamo have been given expensive, high-tech medical procedures at taxpayer expense. If we're not careful, multitudes of Muslims will be going to fight Americans in Afghanistan just so they can go to Guantanamo and get proper treatment for attention deficit disorder and erectile dysfunction.

After being captured fighting with Taliban forces against Americans in 2001, Abdullah Massoud was sent to Guantanamo, where the one-legged terrorist was fitted with a special prosthetic leg, at a cost of $50,000-$75,000 to the U.S. taxpayer. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Massoud would now be able to park his car bomb in a handicapped parking space!

No, you didn't read that wrong, because the VA won't pay for your new glasses. I said $75,000. I would have gone with hanging at sunrise, but what do I know?

Upon his release in March 2004, Massoud hippity-hopped back to Afghanistan and quickly resumed his war against the U.S. Aided by his new artificial leg, just months later, in October 2004, Massoud masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan working on the Gomal Zam Dam project.

This proved, to me at least, that people with disabilities can do anything they put their minds to. Way to go, you plucky extremist!

Massoud said he had nothing against the Chinese but wanted to embarrass Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for cooperating with the Americans. You know, the Americans who had just footed -- you should pardon the expression -- a $75,000 bill for his prosthetic leg.

Pakistani forces stormed Massoud's hideout, killing all the kidnappers, including Massoud. Only one of the Chinese engineers was rescued alive.

As a result of the kidnapping, the Chinese pulled all 100 engineers and dam workers out of Pakistan, and work on the dam ceased. This was bad news for the people of Pakistan -- but good news for the endangered Pakistani snail darter!

In none of the news accounts I read of Massoud's return to jihad after his release from Guantanamo is there any mention of the fact that his prosthetic leg was acquired in Guantanamo, courtesy of American taxpayers after he was captured trying to kill Americans on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

News about the prosthetic leg might interfere with stories of the innocent aid workers being held captive at Guantanamo in George Bush's AmeriKKKa.

To the contrary, although Massoud's swashbuckling reputation as a jihadist with a prosthetic leg appears in many news items, where he got that leg is almost purposely hidden -- even lied about.

"Abdullah Massoud ... had earned both sympathy and reverence for his time in Guantanamo Bay. ... Upon his release, he made it home to Waziristan and resumed his war against the U.S. With his long hair, his prosthetic limb and impassioned speeches, he quickly became a charismatic inspiration to Waziristan's youth." -- The New York Times

He's not a one-legged terrorist -- he's a freedom fighter living with a disability. I think we could all learn something about courage from this man.

"He lost his leg in a landmine explosion a few days before the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in September 1996. It didn't dampen his enthusiasm as a fighter and he got himself an artificial leg later, says Yusufzai." -- The Indo-Asian News Service

Where? At COSTCO?

"The 29-year-old Massoud, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion while fighting alongside the Taliban, often used to ride a horse or camel because his disability made it painful for him to walk long distances in hilly areas." -- BBC Monitoring South Asia

Side-saddle, I'm guessing. And you just know those caves along the Afghan-Pakistan border aren't wheelchair accessible.

"He was educated in Peshawar and was treated in Karachi after his left leg was blown up in a landmine explosion in the Wreshmin Tangi gorge near Kabul in September 1996. He now walks with an artificial leg specifically made for him in Karachi." -- Gulf News (United Arab Emirates)

Karachi? Hey, how do I get into this guy's HMO?

They can't lick leprosy in Karachi, but the Gulf News tells us Massoud got his artificial leg at one of their specialty hospitals.

Anyone who thinks the Guantanamo detainees can be released without consequence doesn't have a leg to stand on.

precisionlabradors
11-27-2008, 02:37 PM
Only in your demented state could you compare the CITIZENS OF THE USA that reside in Rapid City with the terrorists in Guantanamo, and believe you are comparing apples to apples. Is there no end to your ignorance? Even for Joe, you must be heavy baggage.

UB

yesss! a smackdown from UB. at least you responded this time.

now to the issue-prove that you're not a terrorist. oh wait.....no due process. off to GITMO. as for Joe, let him talk for himself.

You still haven't even responded to why you feel due process is unfit for the prisoners at GITMO.

Rights aren't exclusive regards
________
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)

YardleyLabs
11-27-2008, 03:08 PM
Anyone who thinks the Guantanamo detainees can be released without consequence doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Anyone who believes we can throw due process out the window because we know the accused is guilty deserves to live without due process for himself or herself. With respect to Massoud, the question should be who released him and why. His release was decided by the military, not ordered by any court.

M Remington
11-27-2008, 07:23 PM
Only in your demented state could you compare the CITIZENS OF THE USA that reside in Rapid City with the terrorists in Guantanamo, and believe you are comparing apples to apples. Is there no end to your ignorance? Even for Joe, you must be heavy baggage.

UB

To imprison people without trial is so un-American. What are we afraid of? Why aren't these people entitled to the rights we would expect if we were arrested in another country? We don't release anyone UNLESS they are acquitted of the charges under which they were arrested.

As far as the Ann Coulter article. . .the woman has no credibility. She has proven she is mentally unbalanced.

Captain Mike D
11-27-2008, 07:55 PM
What are we afraid of? Why aren't these people entitled to the rights we would expect if we were arrested in another country?

Um----Excuse me but if you are arrested in another country I'm afraid you don't have your Constitutional rights. You will be tried based on the laws of the country you are in unless the State Dept. can wrangle you out of the country somehow.

Foreign Nationals captured on the battle field never have had the same rights we do nor did the SCOTUS declare that they do.

Wouldn't it be so nice to try those folks in a US court and the Feds have to give up the CIA op. that worked out the capture of a high value target for example. Way to much classified info that the Feds would not and should not give up during a trial by jury in US courts.

This is a war that we are in and it is a World War with Fanaticist Islamists. The events in India that started yesterday should prove that point.

As POWs those folks should sit in their cozy berths till the war is over or till THEIR COUNTRY negotiates their release. Problem is NO COUNTRY WANTS THEM. If they have committed acts that warrent they should be taken before a military tribunal and tried in that venue.

John Kelder
11-27-2008, 10:03 PM
To imprison people without trial is so un-American. What are we afraid of? Why aren't these people entitled to the rights we would expect if we were arrested in another country? We don't release anyone UNLESS they are acquitted of the charges under which they were arrested.

As far as the Ann Coulter article. . .the woman has no credibility. She has proven she is mentally unbalanced.

You have the right to remain silent . You should use it .If you get arrested in another country , you are in that countries jurisdiction .THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF SAID COUNTRY .Apparently you have never heard of a turkish or mexican prison , for example .
And to be imprisoned before trial is common in this country .ie-flight risk , unable to post bond/bail ,threat to others or themselves ..... Wait a minute , that sounds like a description of GITMO POWs . Thats right , WAR . We are in one .You don't have a clue as to the justice system.Or to the jihad fanatics who wish you were dead , even as you plead their cause .

Hoosier
11-27-2008, 10:21 PM
Anyone who believes we can throw due process out the window because we know the accused is guilty deserves to live without due process for himself or herself. With respect to Massoud, the question should be who released him and why. His release was decided by the military, not ordered by any court.

And anyone who would behead someone and throw their body in the street. How do you deal with people like that. How about someone who would like to detonate a nuke in a major US city, or use biological weapon on our citizens. We are not dealing with some guys that stoled a candy bar or wrote a bad check. You can't treat these animals like humans they see that as weakness to exploit.

JDogger
11-27-2008, 10:33 PM
How do you deal with people like that.

Maybe by holding yourself and your country to the higher standard that we say we stand for, rather than bringing ourselves down to their level just cause that's what they do. Where's the bottom line then?
Do we really want to let 'the bad guys' set our standards for us?

JD

Bruce MacPherson
11-27-2008, 11:21 PM
Maybe by holding yourself and your country to the higher standard that we say we stand for, rather than bringing ourselves down to their level just cause that's what they do. Where's the bottom line then?
Do we really want to let 'the bad guys' set our standards for us?

JD

I keep waiting for one of you guys to get it. Setting a higher standard works just fine when you are dealing with someone that has roughly the same values you do. Radical Islam doesn't care where WE set the standard. Their objective is to kill us. So if you want to be liked and respected by these guys I wish you good luck. I personaly have no bottom line when it comes to terrorists,

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 04:23 AM
Foreign Nationals captured on the battle field never have had the same rights we do nor did the SCOTUS declare that they do.

In previous wars, foreign nationals captured on the battlefield have been called POW. There rights and treatment standard was covered by the Geneva Convention.


Wouldn't it be so nice to try those folks in a US court and the Feds have to give up the CIA op. that worked out the capture of a high value target for example. Way to much classified info that the Feds would not and should not give up during a trial by jury in US courts.

This would assume that they are all HVTs, which they aren't, and that some big sources-and-methods operation was put together to take them down. So, what are we supposed to believe? "We captured this guy because he is bad and we know he is bad because we have classified information that proves it. I'm sorry we can't show you the proof because it's classified. You'll just have to trust us." Isn't that counter to EVERYTHING America should stand for? To suggest that there is no way to introduce the classified information in the court room is just plain wrong.


As POWs those folks should sit in their cozy berths till the war is over or till THEIR COUNTRY negotiates their release. Problem is NO COUNTRY WANTS THEM. If they have committed acts that warrent they should be taken before a military tribunal and tried in that venue.

So, now they are POWs, huh? If they were treated as POWs, we wouldn't have the situation we have now. Problem is, President Bush and his Ace #1 Legal Team have said they aren't POWs.

Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 04:43 AM
Speaking of Gitmo...who better than Ann to set the record straight?

Enjoy,

UB

Terrorists' Restless Leg Syndrome
by Ann Coulter (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ann+Coulter) (more by this author) (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ann+Coulter)
Posted 11/26/2008 ET
Updated 11/26/2008 ET



Wow, interesting article. I wonder where Ann stole the thoughts/ideas/words for this one?

Ann Coulter is a plagiarizing harpy who, like Lady MacBeth, has not the milk of human kindness running through her breast.

She, and people like her, are in very large part why the Republican Party lost the last election.

She Can't Wash The Blood Off Her Pen Regards,

Joe S.

JDogger
11-28-2008, 06:03 AM
I keep waiting for one of you guys to get it. Setting a higher standard works just fine when you are dealing with someone that has roughly the same values you do. Radical Islam doesn't care where WE set the standard. Their objective is to kill us. So if you want to be liked and respected by these guys I wish you good luck. I personaly have no bottom line when it comes to terrorists,

You're entitled to your opinion. But when you allow your fear to be the cause for lowered standards, you've lost and they've won.
Even if they don't care where the standard is set, shouldn't we?

JD

YardleyLabs
11-28-2008, 06:18 AM
And anyone who would behead someone and throw their body in the street. How do you deal with people like that. How about someone who would like to detonate a nuke in a major US city, or use biological weapon on our citizens. We are not dealing with some guys that stoled a candy bar or wrote a bad check. You can't treat these animals like humans they see that as weakness to exploit.

How should we deal with those in our own country who suggest that we should nuke other countries or other people, or that we should summarily execute the people in Gitmo, or that we should gun down those who hate us before they do it to us? Fortunately for some on this forum our laws do not generally punish bombast. The rules of war provide ample room for killing enemy combatants with enough gray area to cover a lot of sin. However, once we take people into custody our own rules -- defined by our treaties, our laws and our constitution -- take over. If you wantg to be judged by the standards of those that commit beheadings, maybe you should join up with them. I would prefer that our country not sink to that level.

Pete
11-28-2008, 06:43 AM
#52 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=364995&postcount=52) John Kelder (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/member.php?u=27599)

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/image.php?u=27599&dateline=1207338729 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/member.php?u=27599)

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Independence Mo.
Posts: 95


Quote:
Originally Posted by M Remington http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=364966#post364966)
To imprison people without trial is so un-American. What are we afraid of? Why aren't these people entitled to the rights we would expect if we were arrested in another country? We don't release anyone UNLESS they are acquitted of the charges under which they were arrested.

As far as the Ann Coulter article. . .the woman has no credibility. She has proven she is mentally unbalanced.

Yo



I love her idea's Your just not used to seeing balls on a hot chick:)

Pete

backpasture
11-28-2008, 08:28 AM
Your just not used to seeing balls on a hot chick:)

Pete

Coulter? A hot chick?!

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/austin-powers-poster.jpg
"It's a man, baby!"

K.Bullock
11-28-2008, 08:59 AM
How should we deal with those in our own country who suggest that we should nuke other countries or other people, or that we should summarily execute the people in Gitmo, or that we should gun down those who hate us before they do it to us? Fortunately for some on this forum our laws do not generally punish bombast. The rules of war provide ample room for killing enemy combatants with enough gray area to cover a lot of sin. However, once we take people into custody our own rules -- defined by our treaties, our laws and our constitution -- take over. If you wantg to be judged by the standards of those that commit beheadings, maybe you should join up with them. I would prefer that our country not sink to that level.




No one has suggested denying habeas corpus to our citizens. The men in question have been captured on the field of battle against our soldiers.

It sounds like some are suggesting that if we catch someone on a shooting spree here in the U.S., we should release them until we build a court case against them. That is not logical.

I also wonder what will happen after our soldiers start realizing that the men they capture, may soon be patched up and put back in the field against them again.


I agree what Justice Scalia has to say in his dissent.



Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that
goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension
Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separationof-
powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional”
test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus
(and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other
constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes
important precedents, most conspicuously Justice
Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager.
It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law
that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens
abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically,
it sets our military commanders the impossible task
of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards
this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports
the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done
today. I dissent.

In case your bored here is the rest. :)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

Gerry Clinchy
11-28-2008, 09:10 AM
However, once we take people into custody our own rules -- defined by our treaties, our laws and our constitution -- take over.

Really, just an honest inquiry here, as I truly don't know: If these detainees would be treated as suspected of espionage, i.e. non-uniformed combatants in a war, then what constitutional rights might apply?

However, this "war" is very different from past wars where the combatants were more clearly identified. AQ and other radical Muslim groups call it a "war", but also announce that terrorism is a legitimate strategy in their form of war.

There is no way that I have read everything possible on the perps of 911, but perhaps someone else here has the info. If those particular people had been "detained" prior to 911, it has not appeared to me (thus far) that the evidence available on them would have been enough to convict them in one of our courts of law. However, would there have been enough "question" to "detain" them if the current system for detainment (whatever those criteria are) had been in effect then?

I think this is a very different situation from the detainment of Japanese-American citizens during WW II (which I believe was truly against our laws, as many, if not all, were citizens or, at the very least, legal residents).

What do we know about those who are being detained? Or those who were released or deported?

If you are to debate this issue, we do need to have some facts to work with. Most of what has been presented seems to be conjecture, or if there are facts known, the factual information has not been presented.

K.Bullock
11-28-2008, 09:21 AM
Really, just an honest inquiry here, as I truly don't know: If these detainees would be treated as suspected of espionage, i.e. non-uniformed combatants in a war, then what constitutional rights might apply?

However, this "war" is very different from past wars where the combatants were more clearly identified. AQ and other radical Muslim groups call it a "war", but also announce that terrorism is a legitimate strategy in their form of war.

There is no way that I have read everything possible on the perps of 911, but perhaps someone else here has the info. If those particular people had been "detained" prior to 911, it has not appeared to me (thus far) that the evidence available on them would have been enough to convict them in one of our courts of law. However, would there have been enough "question" to "detain" them if the current system for detainment (whatever those criteria are) had been in effect then?

I think this is a very different situation from the detainment of Japanese-American citizens during WW II (which I believe was truly against our laws, as many, if not all, were citizens or, at the very least, legal residents).

What do we know about those who are being detained? Or those who were released or deported?

If you are to debate this issue, we do need to have some facts to work with. Most of what has been presented seems to be conjecture, or if there are facts known, the factual information has not been presented.

This is basically what we are debating. I cherry picked a piece that I agreed with in an earlier post.

*(it is much easier to read at the link posted below ...the print in the quote box seems kind of crowded.)


here is a link>>> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf


CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 06–1195. Argued December 5, 2007—Decided June 12, 2008*
In the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress empowered
the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force
against those . . . he determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks . . . on September 11, 2001.” In Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 518, 588–589, five Justices recognized that
detaining individuals captured while fighting against the United
States in Afghanistan for the duration of that conflict was a fundamental
and accepted incident to war. Thereafter, the Defense Department
established Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs)
to determine whether individuals detained at the U. S. Naval Station
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were “enemy combatants.”
Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured
in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy
combatants by CSRTs. Denying membership in the al Qaeda terrorist
network that carried out the September 11 attacks and the Taliban
regime that supported al Qaeda, each petitioner sought a writ of
habeas corpus in the District Court, which ordered the cases dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo is outside sovereign
U. S. territory. The D. C. Circuit affirmed, but this Court reversed,
holding that 28 U. S. C. §2241 extended statutory habeas
jurisdiction to Guantanamo. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S. 466, 473.
Petitioners’ cases were then consolidated into two proceedings. In
the first, the district judge granted the Government’s motion to dismiss,
holding that the detainees had no rights that could be vindi-
——————
* Together with No. 06–1196, Al Odah, Next Friend of Al Odah, et al.
v. United States et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

backpasture
11-28-2008, 09:24 AM
It sounds like some are suggesting that if we catch someone on a shooting spree here in the U.S., we should release them until we build a court case against them. That is not logical.


No one is saying any such thing. (It's always easy to debunk someone else's position as unreasonable if you invent an unreasonable position and claim it is their's).



I agree what Justice Scalia has to say in his dissent.


The key word here is 'dissent'. The court ruled otherwise, thankfully.

And, despite the debate here, the electorate has spoken and elected someone as president who will be closing this embarassing chapter in American history, despite your and Malkin's unsupported claim that Obama is going to reverse himself and not shut Gitmo down.

K.Bullock
11-28-2008, 09:52 AM
And, despite the debate here, the electorate has spoken and elected someone as president who will be closing this embarassing chapter in American history, despite your and Malkin's unsupported claim that Obama is going to reverse himself and not shut Gitmo down.

.........Oh ok

YardleyLabs
11-28-2008, 09:57 AM
A critical part of the majority opinion reads:

"The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its
terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution
on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177. These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question here, for the habeas writ is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers." (emphasis mine)

In my mind, the entire purposes of the administrations actions was to declare itself sovereign and not subject to review based on the grant of powers in the war authorization bill. This has been part of the administration's overall effort to push its unitary executive theory to new levels by exempting the President's actions from judicial as well as legislative review. It is a short step from that position to tyranny. Happily the Court rejected the administration's position. It is frightening that four justices were prepared to grant such unprecedented power to the President.

Patrick Johndrow
11-28-2008, 10:20 AM
I am not sure some of us understand other positions on closing GITMO….couple of questions for clarification:

1) Do feel the POTUS has overreached legal boundaries?
2) Are you suggesting the protection of the citizens of this country should be compromised by giving enemies of United States there civil rights/freedoms?

Looking for yes or no answers.



Thank you

Bruce MacPherson
11-28-2008, 10:38 AM
You're entitled to your opinion. But when you allow your fear to be the cause for lowered standards, you've lost and they've won.
Even if they don't care where the standard is set, shouldn't we?

JD

OK, make your case. Besides giving you a moral sense of superiority how does taking the moral high ground keep you safer against extremeists?
Fear really plays no part in my thoughts on this, pragmatisim does.

K.Bullock
11-28-2008, 10:43 AM
A critical part of the majority opinion reads:

"The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its
terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution
on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177. These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question here, for the habeas writ is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers." (emphasis mine)




In my mind, the entire purposes of the administrations actions was to declare itself sovereign and not subject to review based on the grant of powers in the war authorization bill. This has been part of the administration's overall effort to push its unitary executive theory to new levels by exempting the President's actions from judicial as well as legislative review. It is a short step from that position to tyranny. Happily the Court rejected the administration's position.
I could agree with this position especially considering who we have just elected ;). I still think that we have enough checks and balances to deal with a threat from an overbearing presidency from the inside without putting our citizens at risk. Protecting al-queada and giving it's operatives the same protection as our homegrown criminals, does not seem to me to be in our best interest where our national security is concerned.


It is frightening that four justices were prepared to grant such unprecedented power to the President.

I don't see it that way. The way I see it they have provided Al-queada with another weapon, which they will exploit to it's fullest.

As it is there has been no abuse towards citizens of the U.S.. The debate has been about U.S. treatment of foreign nationals apprehended by our troops.

I do not believe there would have been any dissenting opinions if we were talking about our citizens on our shores.

Marvin S
11-28-2008, 11:46 AM
She, and people like her, are in very large part why the Republican Party lost the last election.

You just keep thinking that ---:razz:


Isn't that counter to EVERYTHING America should stand for? To suggest that there is no way to introduce the classified information in the court room is just plain wrong.

It really makes me comfortable to know that, by your claims, you held a responsible position in this area of government. To believe this country should stand aside while AVT holds potential information that could save the lives of any of the citizens of this country is very wrong headed, IMO.


Problem is, President Bush and his Ace #1 Legal Team have said they aren't POWs.

Admit it, you're going to miss GWB & the easy target you extremist lefties have had the last 8 years.

Lowered estimation, Regards.

backpasture
11-28-2008, 12:35 PM
Admit it, you're going to miss GWB & the easy target you extremist lefties have had the last 8 years.


I will miss the comedy of the man himself, but not the tragedy that was his presidency. Thank God it's almost over.

I'll still be able to get a good chuckle from people who pine for Goldwater and consider the majority the electorate (who voted for Obama) 'extemist', though. ;)

Uncle Bill
11-28-2008, 01:04 PM
There are NO POW's at Gitmo. NONE are anything but terrorists. When they stop acting like little girls, hiding behind face scarves and towels, maybe they will become real fighters representing a country, so they can claim rights under the Geneva convention.

I'm rapidly losing faith in your convictions, Joe, as you continually side with those that are so obviously void of any knowledge. Should your son fall into the hands of the 'enemy', and becomes one of their 'symbols', God forbid, will only America be to blame for their treatment?

Please climb down from your 'holier than thou' soap box, with all the platitudes of the usual leftists, and realize we up against an enemy that has ZERO concern for what's in our Constitution, except to know they have sympathizers like you throughout this nation, which they will use to the hilt.

God help us if what's happening in India comes over here during our new President's reign. To say I'm skeptical about how that might be handled is an understatement. Right now he has plenty of backing for whatever he wants to do, but even your side will become nervous when he stumbles. When that happens, not if, I'm guessing the right will give him more leeway than the left ever gave President Bush. Time will tell.

UB

Patrick Johndrow
11-28-2008, 02:12 PM
There are NO POW's at Gitmo. NONE are anything but terrorists. When they stop acting like little girls, hiding behind face scarves and towels, maybe they will become real fighters representing a country, so they can claim rights under the Geneva convention.


UB



This point is lost on the many that hate Bush so much to want to put the country at risk...our mistake and only mistake, in my opinion, was not handling these terrorist like the Israelis would have handled them.

K.Bullock
11-28-2008, 04:03 PM
Please climb down from your 'holier than thou' soap box, with all the platitudes of the usual leftists, and realize we up against an enemy that has ZERO concern for what's in our Constitution, except to know they have sympathizers like you throughout this nation, which they will use to the hilt.
UB

I agree. Half the battle is convincing Americans that we are at war with people who will not stop until they have defeated us. It is literally against their religion to lose. surrender is unacceptable in Islam you must only retreat to regroup and restrengthen to mount another attack.This period must not exceed ten years.

Islam has been fighting a war with us since our nations birth. This is not a new war. It took 9/11 to wake us up to the fact that there are elements that want to see our nation toppled and will go to any length to see this done. At some point the nation has relapsed into a collective navel gazing and forgotten all about it.

To the shores of tripoli ...again.

cotts135
11-28-2008, 04:43 PM
I'm rapidly losing faith in your convictions, Joe, as you continually side with those that are so obviously void of any knowledge. Should your son fall into the hands of the 'enemy', and becomes one of their 'symbols', God forbid, will only America be to blame for their treatment?

Sorry UB I think you are the one not getting it. Listen it is not a news flash to know what will happen to one of our soldiers if God forbid they are captured. The problem is that we champion ourselves on our human rights record. We then chastise China or Russia or any other country who have a definite history of Human rights abuse. When we rendition,waterboard or pick up our own citizens on US soil and deny them their constitutional rights we are viewed as hypocrites. The radicals get even more inflamed and spread more and more hate about the US.
The more important point though is that when we start to do things that they do we become them. We hate and loathe them because of their behavior but some of us advocate the very same actions that drive these people. That to is hypocritical.

K.Bullock
11-28-2008, 04:52 PM
Sorry UB I think you are the one not getting it. Listen it is not a news flash to know what will happen to one of our soldiers if God forbid they are captured. The problem is that we champion ourselves on our human rights record. We then chastise China or Russia or any other country who have a definite history of Human rights abuse. When we rendition,waterboard or pick up our own citizens on US soil and deny them their constitutional rights we are viewed as hypocrites. The radicals get even more inflamed and spread more and more hate about the US.
The more important point though is that when we start to do things that they do we become them. We hate and loathe them because of their behavior but some of us advocate the very same actions that drive these people. That to is hypocritical.

You couldn't be more wrong. The very fact that we are free to choose what God we worship or choose not to worship is what inflames them.

It has zero to do with politics or hypocrisy or anything else. You will not appease an islamic radical until you are dead or a Muslim . That is all.

We do not hate and loathe them because of their behavior. We kill them because they will not have it any other way. They refuse to live in peace with us. It is not us that cannot live in peace with our neighbors.

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 05:34 PM
I am not sure some of us understand other positions on closing GITMO….couple of questions for clarification:

1) Do feel the POTUS has overreached legal boundaries?
2) Are you suggesting the protection of the citizens of this country should be compromised by giving enemies of United States there civil rights/freedoms?

Looking for yes or no answers.

Thank you

1) Clearly. Without doubt. Yes.

2) No. I'm not suggesting that the protection of the citizens of this country should be compromised by giving enemies of United States their civil rights/freedoms.

I am suggesting by giving those enemies captured on the battlefield during the GWOT the same civil rights/freedoms afforded to enemy POWs, we ensure the freedom, safety, and security of citizens of the United States.

Looking Forward To Your Response Regards,

Joe S.

Hoosier
11-28-2008, 05:43 PM
1) Clearly. Without doubt. Yes.

2) No. I'm not suggesting that the protection of the citizens of this country should be compromised by giving enemies of United States their civil rights/freedoms.

I am suggesting by giving those enemies captured on the battlefield during the GWOT the same civil rights/freedoms afforded to enemy POWs, we ensure the freedom, safety, and security of citizens of the United States.

Looking Forward To Your Response Regards,

Joe S.


What I'm hearing is people wanting to give these mutts constitutional rights.Thats the most ridicules thing I've ever heard. A bullet behind the ear would be much more effective.

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 05:58 PM
OK, make your case. Besides giving you a moral sense of superiority how does taking the moral high ground keep you safer against extremeists?

Fear really plays no part in my thoughts on this, pragmatisim does.



It is not a moral sense of superiority that drives my position. I am driven by the sense that power, especially power of the type and kind we are dealing with here, needs to be weilded very carefully or it can run away with those that think they are in control of it.

When we allow one branch of government to decide without review what is legal and illegal, trouble is the result:

1. Research the Jose Padilla case. While he was found guilty in the end, remember he is an American Citizen. If it happened to him, who else could it happen to? If you are willing to accept the continuum for evil set forth by the government, then the equally as real continuum for abuse of power has to be accepted as well.

2. In 200X (I can't remember the exact year) a U.S. citizen was in Yemen in a car with several known terrorists. Those in the car were killed by a hellfire missle on orders from, I think, the President. While I have no problem with killing the terrorists with the hellfire, I have some concern with ANY President being Judge, Jury, and Executioner of an American citizen when that decision is not subject to review.

On the battlefield, kill them all if that is what it comes down to...but if YOU capture them, if YOU control them, if YOU have rendered them in-effective has a fighter, our country should be required to treat them as POWs.

Put another way, providing basic civil rights keeps me safer from extremeists by knowing that those in power are subject to and understand the rule of law.

Interesting Question Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 06:04 PM
As it is there has been no abuse towards citizens of the U.S.

Your research is lacking. Jose Padilla is an American citizen.


I do not believe there would have been any dissenting opinions if we were talking about our citizens on our shores.

You do not believe, huh? Of course there wouldn't be, Captian Obvious, they would be US citizens in US territory and US laws would apply.

It Takes More Than Talking Points Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
11-28-2008, 06:16 PM
1) Clearly. Without doubt. Yes.

2) No. I'm not suggesting that the protection of the citizens of this country should be compromised by giving enemies of United States their civil rights/freedoms.

I am suggesting by giving those enemies captured on the battlefield during the GWOT the same civil rights/freedoms afforded to enemy POWs, we ensure the freedom, safety, and security of citizens of the United States.

Looking Forward To Your Response Regards,

Joe S.

So this entire argument could have been settled by an enterprising, forward thinking 2nd lieutenant with a pistol and a shovel…the real tragedy here is that our young officers are now thinking like the top brass…sad…real sad.

Shoot them in the face regards ;)


While I don’t have first hand knowledge I have spoken to friends that have dealt with the Gitmo prisoners...every account is the captured fighters are real bad guys...not your garden variety soldier...not even close to being a uniformed soldier.

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 06:22 PM
You just keep thinking that ---:razz:

...oh, I will, Marv, I will.


It really makes me comfortable to know that, by your claims, you held a responsible position in this area of government.

What, exactly, are you talking about, Marv. What area of government, specifically. You and Bill are getting king of slippery lately, Marv, so you need to be specific.


To believe this country should stand aside while AVT holds potential information that could save the lives of any of the citizens of this country is very wrong headed, IMO.

I don't understand AVT.

Do you mean "...a terrorist holds potential information that could save lives of any of the citizens of this country is very wrong headed, IMO."?

You do understand how torture works, don't you Marv.


Admit it, you're going to miss GWB & the easy target you extremist lefties have had the last 8 years.

Oh, OK, now I'm an extremist lefty. Nice. Then that would make you, let's see...a narrow-minded, right-wing, xenophobic, hate monger. Did I miss any of the current buzz-word adjectives? ;-)

No, I'm not going to miss President Bush or his policies. I think that history will not judge the major efforts of the last 8 years as successful or anything that remotely enhanced the nation as a whole.


Lowered estimation, Regards.

As If It Matters Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 06:48 PM
I'm rapidly losing faith in your convictions, Joe, as you continually side with those that are so obviously void of any knowledge. Should your son fall into the hands of the 'enemy', and becomes one of their 'symbols', God forbid, will only America be to blame for their treatment?

Sorry to disappoint, Bill. You will, of course, forgive me if I decide to be true to my country in the way that best fits the needs of my country as I see them, won't you?

My children, should they enter the military, will be fully briefed on the dangers. I would feel the pain much more sharply than I feel it for any other family who loses a child in combat, but I would know my children made a choice and did so knowing the potential outcome.


Please climb down from your 'holier than thou' soap box, with all the platitudes of the usual leftists, and realize we up against an enemy that has ZERO concern for what's in our Constitution, except to know they have sympathizers like you throughout this nation, which they will use to the hilt.

Bill, you just don't get it.

No enemy we have ever fought has cared about what is in our Constitution. We fight them to defend our Constitution, that is why we fight, right? When it gets down to it, what we, as Americans, really want to protect and defend in its pureist form is the Constitution. So Bill, if we are fighting to defend the Constitution, why is it that you, Marv, Bobby G., and countless others are so willing to trash it when it's fair and equal application becomes too much of a burden? Our society REQUIRES hard work and tough decisions, Bill, I would think you of all people would know that by now.

The greatest sympathizers the other side has, Bill, are those that would see the Constitution destroyed from within under the misguided approach of trying to save the country. That would be guys like you and Marv, Bill.

The measure of a great society is the method of justice it would use to hold accountable those that would seek to destroy it.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Bruce MacPherson
11-28-2008, 06:54 PM
It is not a moral sense of superiority that drives my position. I am driven by the sense that power, especially power of the type and kind we are dealing with here, needs to be weilded very carefully or it can run away with those that think they are in control of it.

When we allow one branch of government to decide without review what is legal and illegal, trouble is the result:

1. Research the Jose Padilla case. While he was found guilty in the end, remember he is an American Citizen. If it happened to him, who else could it happen to? If you are willing to accept the continuum for evil set forth by the government, then the equally as real continuum for abuse of power has to be accepted as well.

2. In 200X (I can't remember the exact year) a U.S. citizen was in Yemen in a car with several known terrorists. Those in the car were killed by a hellfire missle on orders from, I think, the President. While I have no problem with killing the terrorists with the hellfire, I have some concern with ANY President being Judge, Jury, and Executioner of an American citizen when that decision is not subject to review.

On the battlefield, kill them all if that is what it comes down to...but if YOU capture them, if YOU control them, if YOU have rendered them in-effective has a fighter, our country should be required to treat them as POWs.

Put another way, providing basic civil rights keeps me safer from extremeists by knowing that those in power are subject to and understand the rule of law.

Interesting Question Regards,

Joe S.

So your thought here is that the extremeists are less of a worry to you than our own goverment? It will be interesting to see, and I have no reason to doubt you will, if you hold the President Elect to the same standards should he take some of the same positions.

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 07:02 PM
So this entire argument could have been settled by an enterprising, forward thinking 2nd lieutenant with a pistol and a shovel…the real tragedy here is that our young officers are now thinking like the top brass…sad…real sad.

Shoot them in the face regards ;)



No, that would have lead to bigger troubles...but it could have been settled by Senior Leadership that thought it through before hand. ;)

Hey, Patrick is home from school. We shot his slug gun in today and are going to spend the day tomorrow hunting deer. Tomorrow is a "doe" day in Virginia so he said "If it's brown, it's down...yada, yada, yada." That kid talks so much crap it is unreal. He is already talking about taking a buck in the morning and a doe in the afternoon. I told him he should concentrate on one and go from there...

Anyway, we are meeting the guys at about 7:00AM (kind of late for me but we're guests so whatever they want to do...) Should be a nice day. I'd like to take a deer with him but I think it's more important just to be in the woods with him, you know?

Be Well My Brother Regards,

Joe S.

John Kelder
11-28-2008, 07:06 PM
#52 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=364995&postcount=52) John Kelder (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/member.php?u=27599)

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/image.php?u=27599&dateline=1207338729 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/member.php?u=27599)

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Independence Mo.
Posts: 95


Quote:
Originally Posted by M Remington http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=364966#post364966)
To imprison people without trial is so un-American. What are we afraid of? Why aren't these people entitled to the rights we would expect if we were arrested in another country? We don't release anyone UNLESS they are acquitted of the charges under which they were arrested.

As far as the Ann Coulter article. . .the woman has no credibility. She has proven she is mentally unbalanced.

Yo



I love her idea's Your just not used to seeing balls on a hot chick:)

Pete
You gotta cruise 42nd street one night . They are a dime a dozen .LOLOLOL

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 07:16 PM
So your thought here is that the extremeists are less of a worry to you than our own goverment? It will be interesting to see, and I have no reason to doubt you will, if you hold the President Elect to the same standards should he take some of the same positions.

No, that is not my thought.

My thought is that by safeguarding the rights of those that seek to destroy it, my goverment reinforces my rights as a law abiding citizen.

You should not doubt it in the least. The bottom line of my thought process has not changed:

We are a country of laws, not of men. Our Supreme Court has ruled that those laws apply to those that seek to destroy us. It may not make sense and we may think it is wrong, but that is the law.

If we need new laws for the new GWOT, we should craft them in the full light of day, not in a back-room manner without benefit of discussion.

Rule Of Law Not Of Men Regards,

Joe S.

K.Bullock
11-28-2008, 07:46 PM
Your research is lacking. Jose Padilla is an American citizen.

No it isn't.


On August 16, 2007, José Padilla was found guilty, by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. He was widely described in media as a suspect of planning to build and explode a "dirty bomb" in the United States, but he was not convicted on this charge.


He was convicted in a federal court. You do not have a clue what you are talking about.


You do not believe, huh? Of course there wouldn't be, Captian Obvious, they would be US citizens in US territory and US laws would apply.

It Takes More Than Talking Points Regards,

Joe S.

Do you read anything? What talking points?

Again unimpressed.

JDogger
11-28-2008, 07:59 PM
OK, make your case. Besides giving you a moral sense of superiority how does taking the moral high ground keep you safer against extremeists?
Fear really plays no part in my thoughts on this, pragmatisim does.
I'm sure you meant to say a sense of moral superiority... but never mind that...will it keep us safer? I can't say. In an ugly world, maybe none of us are safer. But playing the game by the lowest common denominator, definitly will not make anyone safer.

JD

Joe S.
11-28-2008, 07:59 PM
He was convicted in a federal court. You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)


Again unimpressed.

Good Bye Cruel World Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
11-28-2008, 08:56 PM
No, that would have lead to bigger troubles...but it could have been settled by Senior Leadership that thought it through before hand. ;)

Hey, Patrick is home from school. We shot his slug gun in today and are going to spend the day tomorrow hunting deer. Tomorrow is a "doe" day in Virginia so he said "If it's brown, it's down...yada, yada, yada." That kid talks so much crap it is unreal. He is already talking about taking a buck in the morning and a doe in the afternoon. I told him he should concentrate on one and go from there...

Anyway, we are meeting the guys at about 7:00AM (kind of late for me but we're guests so whatever they want to do...) Should be a nice day. I'd like to take a deer with him but I think it's more important just to be in the woods with him, you know?

Be Well My Brother Regards,

Joe S.

I would agree with causing more problems on a real battle field with real soldiers but these guys are nothing more the jihadist gang bangers bent on murder and mayhem.


Good luck on the hunt tomorrow…maybe your host feeders are set for 8:00AM…that’s the way those Texas boys do it. ;)


Good luck in the morning

Pat

Hew
11-29-2008, 09:42 AM
Support your claim. I'll listen.

Okie dokey.

As a review, here's your claim about the Gitmo prisoners which I said was patently false:


Of the nearly 800 men brought to Guantanamo since the detention network was built at the U.S. naval base in January 2002, about 250 remain. The majority have been released or transferred to their home countries for lack of evidence to put them on trial for war crimes.

1) there's never been any official accounting of why individual prisoners were released, so presumtions of their innocence or "lack of evidence" is purely wishful thinking on your part.

2) the bulk of them were released at a time when they weren't being officially afforded any rights and at a time when trials for war crimes wasn't a consideration. Therefore, they couldn't have been released because there was a lack of evidence for trial because no trials were being planned for them in the first place.

Those are the purely factual reasons why your statement was incorrect. Here are the common sense reasons:

3) we know for sure that most of the Gitmo detainees came from A-Stan or were handed over by Pakistan. While there's not been a precise accounting of the nationalities of captured prisoners, it is commonly accepted that a sizable chunk of them (if not most) are Arabs. Arabs captured in A-stan and the tribal regions of Pakistan. Hmmmm. I wonder what they could have been up to? I wonder if they might have info we could use?

4) to state that a majority of the 800+ people who were picked up on the field of battle were ultimately released because there wasn't proof of their guilt (in ANY court of law) presumes an incompetence on the part of the US military that's beyond belief.

5) the 800 or so scum that have spent time at Gitmo represent a tiny portion of the scum we've caught in the WOT/A-Stan/Iraq. Wouldn't common sense indicate that there's probably a pretty damn good reason we went through the trouble and expense to fly them half way around the world to Gitmo when the vast majority of other captured prisoners are dealt with locally? Again, unless you want to make the case that the military is grossly incompetent, it is pretty safe to assume that nearly everyone who received a ticket to Gitmo probably deserved it.

Are there/were there some innocent men that were sent to Gitmo? I'm sure. But to contend that most were defies logic. And when you contend they were kicked loose because there wasn't evidence to try them, it defies facts.

cotts135
11-29-2008, 11:17 AM
Okie dokey.

As a review, here's your claim about the Gitmo prisoners which I said was patently false:



[QUOTE=Hew;365330]1) there's never been any official accounting of why individual prisoners were released, so presumtions of their innocence or "lack of evidence" is purely wishful thinking on your part.

There are five Guantanamo inmates being ordered released by a Federal Judge as of this moment. {Fact}
Am I to believe that the Government has released inmates from Guantanamo who pose a threat to the US. Please tell me what status the inmates would be in order for the US to release them. Or worded another way, who are they releasing other than innocent people.


12) the bulk of them were released at a time when they weren't being officially afforded any rights and at a time when trials for war crimes wasn't a consideration. Therefore, they couldn't have been released because there was a lack of evidence for trial because no trials were being planned for them in the first place.

This is a circular argument and makes no sense at all. This doesnt change my initial assertion that there still might be innocent people in Guantanamo


Those are the purely factual reasons why your statement was incorrect. Here are the common sense reasons:

3) we know for sure that most of the Gitmo detainees came from A-Stan or were handed over by Pakistan. While there's not been a precise accounting of the nationalities of captured prisoners, it is commonly accepted that a sizable chunk of them (if not most) are Arabs. Arabs captured in A-stan and the tribal regions of Pakistan. Hmmmm. I wonder what they could have been up to? I wonder if they might have info we could use?

I got it: 1. Your an Arab
2. Your in Afghanistan
3. US picks you up and sends you to Gitmo because you might have
info that we could use.
How did I miss that.


4) to state that a majority of the 800+ people who were picked up on the field of battle were ultimately released because there wasn't proof of their guilt (in ANY court of law) presumes an incompetence on the part of the US military that's beyond belief.

Call it what you will but many of them have been released. I don't think they are that incompetent that they would release inmates who they have a strong case against.

Patrick Johndrow
11-29-2008, 12:08 PM
It is absolutely pathetic that there are those people who seem more interest in the “constitutional rights” of Arab fighters than they are interested in the protection of this country. What is your motivation?

I understand Joe’s argument and we just disagree on the issue…Joe is a “give the guy the benefit of the doubt” while I am the “why take a chance” type of guy.

Hew
11-29-2008, 02:27 PM
Please tell me what status the inmates would be in order for the US to release them. Or worded another way, who are they releasing other than innocent people.
The bulk of those released have probably given us as much info/intelligence as we're going to get out of them and are no longer useful. Gitmo isn't a Holiday Inn to provide jihadis with three hots and a cot.


This is a circular argument and makes no sense at all. This doesnt change my initial assertion that there still might be innocent people in Guantanamo
Your contention was that most Gitmo detainees have been released because there wasn't enough evidence to try them for war crimes. The bulk of the releases were before trials were even considered, so how could "lack of evidence for trial" possibly have been a reason for releasing them? And no, your initial assertion was not that there might still be innocent people in Gitmo. In case you forgot, here's what you said: "The majority have been released or transferred to their home countries for lack of evidence to put them on trial for war crimes."

As I said, and proved, that's patently bullsh....err...false.

Uncle Bill
11-29-2008, 03:57 PM
It is absolutely pathetic that there are those people who seem more interest in the “constitutional rights” of Arab fighters than they are interested in the protection of this country. What is your motivation?

I understand Joe’s argument and we just disagree on the issue…Joe is a “give the guy the benefit of the doubt” while I am the “why take a chance” type of guy.


Me too, PJ. And the reason we feel that way is because we believe them when they say they want to kill us all...that they cannot live harmonious with a Christian democracy, for we are without question infidels. Yet, we have the ACLU types that think they can persuade them to change their ways...kinda like stumbling into a camp of cannibles and thinking you can convince them not to place you in their stew.

HEY, YOU IMBICILES, IT'S ALL THEY KNOW.

If only we could convince all you dreamers to join ranks and go to Afganistan, and break bread with these loonies. And then you can tell us how many you were able to convert to a live and let live philosophy.

In the meantime, all you are spewing is hypocrasy. You are no different than the atheist not confronted with a foxhole. You're reminiscient of the idiots portrayed as the leadership in the city of San Francisco in all the Dirty Harry movies. It's always enjoyable to me to see true justice handed out, especially when it involves smarmy linguini-spined liberals.

UB

M Remington
11-29-2008, 04:17 PM
It is absolutely pathetic that there are those people who seem more interest in the “constitutional rights” of Arab fighters than they are interested in the protection of this country. What is your motivation?

PJ, it's time for America to be a world leader again. The Arab "boogey man" arguement is getting old. That was George Bush's ONLY focus during his presidency, at the expense of everything else and you see what happened to our country.

Let's work to convict detainees who are guilty and release those who are not--I'm not a fan of the "they speak Arabic so they must be guilty." Providing them with "constitutional rights" should, in no way affect the outcome of a trial. Indefinitely locking up people without charges or rights makes us no better than the dictator we deposed in Iraq.

Patrick Johndrow
11-29-2008, 04:46 PM
...that they cannot live harmonious with a Christian democracy, for we are without question infidels.
UB

It isn’t just us Christians UB ...it is anyone that is Non-radical Muslim...the kill Jews, Christians, atheist, other Muslims, they really like killing homosexuals. If you are not a radical Muslim you are a potential target.

Captain Mike D
11-29-2008, 06:34 PM
So, now they are POWs, huh? If they were treated as POWs, we wouldn't have the situation we have now. Problem is, President Bush and his Ace #1 Legal Team have said they aren't POWs.

Regards,

Joe S.

Ok Joe,
In any other war they would have been POW's cause they were fighting for a country.
Bush Admin declared them enemy combatents. What would be your take on how they should be defined?

What rights should they have? Should they have the same rights as our citizens under the Constitution? Maybe Geneva Convention rights should apply but what country do they represent and what country wants them?

I have not seen any data showing that even Iran will claim them, though they probably had alot to do with their funding.

Want them released to go take shots and plant EID's directed at our kids serving in Afganistan? How about having a few of them plan the next attack on Innocent People somewhere else around the world.

Please tell me, Qui Chang, what should we do??

Think I'll just dance on rainbows and fart sunshine like the dude in the brown robe with doves flitting obout his head while waiting on the answer.

Gerry Clinchy
11-29-2008, 06:38 PM
Indefinitely locking up people without charges or rights makes us no better than the dictator we deposed in Iraq.

I can't agree with locking people up indefinitely without charging them with something, that is what happens to even the worst of criminals in the US, whether they are citizens or not. I'm still trying to figure out, though, why these guys aren't just POWS (if they were captured in battle or attempting acts of terrorism).

Due to the nature of a guerilla-type war (as this one is), I can also understand that in rounding up a bunch of apparent "hostiles", the net might have caught some who were not hostile. Are these the ones, perhaps, that have been released?

I can be dense, but I don't think that has been explained. Wouldn't it be customary to hold POWs until the end of hostilities? Would it not also be customary to interrogate POWs for useful information? (No, that does not have to mean by use of torture. )

From what I can tell the acts perpetrated upon these POWS which the media has evidently covered, is a far cry from the dictator who was deposed. I don't think Saddam's media would have gotten away with openly criticizing his methods of handling his prisoners. Nor am I easily led to believe that the treatment of these POWS (by the U.S) has been on the level of how Saddam might have treated his prisoners. Overall, these prisoners are likely living better than Allied POWs during WW II. I think to compare U.S. treatment of these prisoners to Saddam's treatment of is prisoners is a far-reach.

Yes, if we abandon due process for any person, we leave ourselves open to finding other "excuses" to do so for others. I think the history of depotism seems pretty clear on that.

Yes, it is also not beyond belief that Federal judges would have released dangerous people ... judges do that on a regular basis in the criminal justice system. That is also one of the risks of our justice system: the bad guys can get away more often than we like to think about.

If a large number of the original POWS have been released (and there still seems to be some dispute on that from what I can gather from the posts so far), the ones who are left could actually be some pretty bad dudes.

Has this situation been messed up? Seems so. The question now would be how to clean it up.

If these fellows are POWs, at the end of hostilities, what if their countries don't want them back? Where do they go? One wonders why their own countries would not want them back.

Joe S.
11-29-2008, 07:49 PM
Ok Joe,
In any other war they would have been POW's cause they were fighting for a country. Bush Admin declared them enemy combatents. What would be your take on how they should be defined?

What rights should they have? Should they have the same rights as our citizens under the Constitution? Maybe Geneva Convention rights should apply but what country do they represent and what country wants them?


First, I think think you break it down into two pieces:

Piece 1: Detention and Questioning

Afford them full rights under the Geneva Convention.

Piece 2: Disposition

Determine that at a future time.

By addressing the immediate issue of how they should be treated, this does several things for us, I think. It clearly outlines how they should be treated and provides a transparent accountability for our actions. It also taps down the anti-Muslim aspect of the GWOT.

The disposition piece can be addressed as the process moves forward. When the decision is made that there are those that can be released, the US makes it know that they are ready to be released as soon as a country is found that will take them. We are under no moral obligation to accept them into the United States nor should we release them to roam the streets.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Bruce MacPherson
11-29-2008, 08:02 PM
Brilliant Joe, the end result is you end up holding them indefinately ( cuz no country wants them) but you make yourself feel good about doing it. :D

Losthwy
11-29-2008, 09:16 PM
Me too, PJ. And the reason we feel that way is because we believe them when they say they want to kill us all...that they cannot live harmonious with a Christian democracy, for we are without question infidels. Yet, we have the ACLU types that think they can persuade them to change their ways...kinda like stumbling into a camp of cannibles and thinking you can convince them not to place you in their stew.

HEY, YOU IMBICILES, IT'S ALL THEY KNOW.

If only we could convince all you dreamers to join ranks and go to Afganistan, and break bread with these loonies. And then you can tell us how many you were able to convert to a live and let live philosophy.

In the meantime, all you are spewing is hypocrasy. You are no different than the atheist not confronted with a foxhole. You're reminiscient of the idiots portrayed as the leadership in the city of San Francisco in all the Dirty Harry movies. It's always enjoyable to me to see true justice handed out, especially when it involves smarmy linguini-spined liberals.

UB
My, my, my what a large mind.

Hoosier
11-29-2008, 10:25 PM
Do you people actually believe that in the history of this planet, any country in any war has given all their POWs the rights you people want to give these pieces of crap. I mean the same rights we enjoy as American citizens given to terrorist. You goofballs really do hate this country. Or is it that you hate the current administration so much you have to oppose everything they do no matter how self defeating it is. Its a good thing few liberals volunteer to serve in the military, because to many of you guys in the ranks could really screw it up. You are much better at breaking windows and throwing poop at the republican national convention then actually defending the country from threats. Stick with what you are good at. Maybe you could do some hair dressing or something.

JDogger
11-29-2008, 11:55 PM
Do you people actually believe that in the history of this planet, any country in any war has given all their POWs the rights you people want to give these pieces of crap. I mean the same rights we enjoy as American citizens given to terrorist. You goofballs really do hate this country. Or is it that you hate the current administration so much you have to oppose everything they do no matter how self defeating it is. Its a good thing few liberals volunteer to serve in the military, because to many of you guys in the ranks could really screw it up. You are much better at breaking windows and throwing poop at the republican national convention then actually defending the country from threats. Stick with what you are good at. Maybe you could do some hair dressing or something.

Wow, Hoosier
Does the word apopletic ring a bell? Sorry, I guess it wouldn't.

JD

Bob Gutermuth
11-30-2008, 03:44 AM
These barfbags want to destroy our nation and our way of life and some would like to take up a collection to hire OJ's dream team to defend them(minus Johnny Cockroach of course). They deserve nothing but a humane execution and swiftly.

Joe S.
11-30-2008, 04:46 AM
Brilliant Joe, the end result is you end up holding them indefinately ( cuz no country wants them) but you make yourself feel good about doing it. :D

While I wouldn't have a problem with that as long we followed the rules to get to that as an end point, I don't think that will be the case at all and in the mean time you have afforded them their basic rights.

As long as we are doing everything we can to be fair and above board, that is all we can do...which isn't what we are doing now.

Just Sayin' Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-30-2008, 04:58 AM
You goofballs really do hate this country.

I am wondering who really hates this country: Those that seek to ensure those in it's custody for whatever reason are treated, as a minimum, fairly IAW established rules or those that seek to deny fair treatment to those that oppose us.


Its a good thing few liberals volunteer to serve in the military, because to many of you guys in the ranks could really screw it up.

Now, see, you have just shown what a simple-minded asshat you are. I'd put my career up against yours, assuming you had the courage to serve, any day of the week.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-30-2008, 05:07 AM
These barfbags want to destroy our nation and our way of life and some would like to take up a collection to hire OJ's dream team to defend them(minus Johnny Cockroach of course). They deserve nothing but a humane execution and swiftly.

I don't think anyone on the board has said anything remotely close to that, Bob.

But...it now shines a light on what you seem to really be frightened of...you seem to really be afraid that there is not enough admissable evidence to get a conviction or the type of conviction you would like to have when they are represented by a quality legal team. I bet it just scares the living crap out of you that senior defense attorney's in the military are resigning and going public because the system as it is in place is unfair. I mean, it should scare you if you REALLY care about defending the Constitution and all...

Open Your Eyes Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-30-2008, 05:15 AM
I can't agree with locking people up indefinitely without charging them with something, that is what happens to even the worst of criminals in the US, whether they are citizens or not. I'm still trying to figure out, though, why these guys aren't just POWS (if they were captured in battle or attempting acts of terrorism).

...and that is the question that NO ONE (That's for you, Bill...;-)) can answer. What do we, as a country, lose by treating them as POW's except the "ability" to torture them? So they don't have a uniform or a standing army or a nation-state. What do we lose by treating them better than they expect to be treated.

Just Wondering Regards,

Joe S.

cotts135
11-30-2008, 05:26 AM
The bulk of those released have probably given us as much info/intelligence as we're going to get out of them and are no longer useful. Gitmo isn't a Holiday Inn to provide jihadis with three hots and a cot.
That first sentence you have no proof of. The second sentence I concur



Your contention was that most Gitmo detainees have been released because there wasn't enough evidence to try them for war crimes. The bulk of the releases were before trials were even considered, so how could "lack of evidence for trial" possibly have been a reason for releasing them? And no, your initial assertion was not that there might still be innocent people in Gitmo. In case you forgot, here's what you said: "The majority have been released or transferred to their home countries for lack of evidence to put them on trial for war crimes."

As I said, and proved, that's patently bullsh....err...false.

Your contention is:The bulk of the releases were before trials were even considered, so how could "lack of evidence for trial" possibly have been a reason for releasing them?". You really haven't proved anything. What you consider as proof is only what you think is true. Proof needs evidence not opinions.
My initial post to this thread was to Bob. And if you read what Bob said you will see that my response imply's innocent prisoners at Gitmo

Bob Gutermuth
11-30-2008, 07:33 AM
What scares me is the courts extension of Constitutional rights to non citizens who are guerilla fighters and have no rights to any of the protections they seek to destroy.

Uncle Bill
11-30-2008, 09:48 AM
What scares me is the courts extension of Constitutional rights to non citizens who are guerilla fighters and have no rights to any of the protections they seek to destroy.



That doesn't scare me at all, Bob. What IS scary is that so many on THIS board side with these terrorists. And then they have the audacity to run down a country that allows them to do so.

They are all most likely rooting for President Bush to 'pardon' that idiot that joined the jihad, denouncing his US citizenship until he was captured. Then he sang a different tune. Now he's begging for a pardon.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm in favor of that too, but only if he's deported to Syria. Then we could listen to the libs squeel. But think of the justice in doing that....again pointing out how people seldom get what they want, but usually get what they deserve.

UB

Hoosier
11-30-2008, 09:55 AM
I am wondering who really hates this country: Those that seek to ensure those in it's custody for whatever reason are treated, as a minimum, fairly IAW established rules or those that seek to deny fair treatment to those that oppose us.



Now, see, you have just shown what a simple-minded asshat you are. I'd put my career up against yours, assuming you had the courage to serve, any day of the week.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.


I joined the USAF right out of high school. Went to basic at Lackland. Spent a year in training at Lowery in Denver. Avionic Test Station for F-111s. Started having some medical problems. Really don't want to bore you with the details. But I believe it was complications from a pituitary tumor. I was medically discharged after a year and a half. Tried to join the marines but couldn't get in for the above reasons. So you may have more time in service then me.

JDogger
11-30-2008, 10:21 AM
. What IS scary is that so many on THIS board side with these terrorists. And then they have the audacity to run down a country that allows them to do so.
UB

Can you please give specific examples of posters siding with terrorists?

JD

Hoosier
11-30-2008, 11:16 AM
Oh by the way Joe. Since you think I'm so simple minded. Exactly what job did you get placed in in the military. You realize they place you according to test scores.

precisionlabradors
11-30-2008, 11:36 AM
Oh by the way Joe. Since you think I'm so simple minded. Exactly what job did you get placed in in the military. You realize they place you according to test scores.

my dad can beat up your dad [huge eyeroll]
________
Chevrolet Kodiak (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Kodiak)

brian breuer
11-30-2008, 11:37 AM
Oh by the way Joe. Since you think I'm so simple minded. Exactly what job did you get placed in in the military. You realize they place you according to test scores.

No, they don't. I maxed the ASVAB, I was a crane operator. A buddy scored in the 90's but was 11B (infantry) because he wanted to go to Hawaii.

Those test scores don't mean much. I was a nervous 17 year old 200 miles from home (first time alone in a big city - Milwaukee) in a crappy Howard Johnson the night before I took my physical when I took mine.

Marvin S
11-30-2008, 11:55 AM
No, they don't. I maxed the ASVAB, I was a crane operator. A buddy scored in the 90's but was 11B (infantry) because he wanted to go to Hawaii.

Those test scores don't mean much. I was a nervous 17 year old 200 miles from home (first time alone in a big city - Milwaukee) in a crappy Howard Johnson the night before I took my physical when I took mine.

What really should be said is test scores limit what specialties you may be considered for - I was an athletic instructor my time in the USAF, stationed at Hdqtrs SAC, in LeMay's time, also did basic at Lackland when it was still Army Air Corps. We had 3 people in our group who maxed the tests of 9 total at Offutt, being an athletic instructor (72750) had no score requirement on the tests.

Hoosier
11-30-2008, 12:00 PM
No, they don't. I maxed the ASVAB, I was a crane operator. A buddy scored in the 90's but was 11B (infantry) because he wanted to go to Hawaii.

Those test scores don't mean much. I was a nervous 17 year old 200 miles from home (first time alone in a big city - Milwaukee) in a crappy Howard Johnson the night before I took my physical when I took mine.

Keep telling yourself that. Oh you did great we'll make you a grunt. That guy is stupid we'll have him work down to the component electronics on bombers Sounds reasonable

Hoosier
11-30-2008, 12:08 PM
Could be they just draw names out of a hat, and we were just to stupid to realize it.

precisionlabradors
11-30-2008, 12:24 PM
hoosier what are you trying to overcompensate for?
________
Www.vaporizer.com (http://vaporizer.org)

Patrick Johndrow
11-30-2008, 01:00 PM
Hey guys...I think we can argue our points without taking shots at each other. Hell Joe S. is a complete goofball ;) and I rarely agree with any of his ideals but if I had to pick one guy on RTF to share a foxhole with it would be Joe.

So let’s knock of the extraneous B.S. and stick to our arguments.

With the exception of a few egomaniacs on RTF (I suggest you use the ignore button), most the guys on RTF are great guys.

Let's not eat our own regards

Joe S.
11-30-2008, 01:09 PM
What scares me is the courts extension of Constitutional rights to non citizens who are guerilla fighters and have no rights to any of the protections they seek to destroy.



Now Bob, take a deep breath and re-read what you just wrote.

The SCOTUS found that non-citizens who are guerilla fighters HAVE rights under the laws of those they seek to destroy so of course they have rights, no matter how much you and yours wish to see it other wise.

What scares me is your very selective opinion of who should and shouldn't get rights.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Hoosier
11-30-2008, 01:19 PM
Hey guys...I think we can argue our points without taking shots at each other. Hell Joe S. is a complete goofball ;) and I rarely agree with any of his ideals but if I had to pick one guy on RTF to share a foxhole with it would be Joe.

So let’s knock of the extraneous B.S. and stick to our arguments.

With the exception of a few egomaniacs on RTF (I suggest you use the ignore button), most the guys on RTF are great guys.

Let's not eat our own regards

Point taken

Joe S.
11-30-2008, 01:21 PM
Let's not eat our own regards

Careful, Patrick, your name may show up on a menu some place soon...;-)

I missed a 5 point yesterday and the deer turned and walked away from me and headed straight to Junior, who killed it cleanly. (I mean, least the deer could have done was run or scamper or something to indicate I was at least close...come on...;-)) Kid was pretty happy, so I was happy, besides, his deer, his drag, his cleaning...at almost 21 he is well past the age where I'm doing that stuff for him.;-)

Deer Roast For Christmas Dinner Regards,

Joe S.

Hoosier
11-30-2008, 01:39 PM
hoosier what are you trying to overcompensate for?

Boy named Sue syndrome. My momma named me Tremayne.:)

Bubba
11-30-2008, 04:15 PM
Boy named Sue syndrome. My momma named me Tremayne.:)

Ya well at least it help to expedite your Redistributor check.

Trying to help out in the worst way regards

Bubba

M Remington
11-30-2008, 04:44 PM
That doesn't scare me at all, Bob. What IS scary is that so many on THIS board side with these terrorists. And then they have the audacity to run down a country that allows them to do so.UB

Easy there, U.B. . .

None of us "side" with the terrorists. Instead, we feel that certain rights apply to people who have been arrested by the U.S. government.

Hoosier
11-30-2008, 04:49 PM
Ya well at least it help to expedite your Redistributor check.

Trying to help out in the worst way regards

Bubba

Yes I've been getting unsolicited checks since Nov.4. Can't figure it out

Uncle Bill
11-30-2008, 05:09 PM
Easy there, U.B. . .

None of us "side" with the terrorists. Instead, we feel that certain rights apply to people who have been arrested by the U.S. government.


That's the entire jist of what's being discussed here. NONE of those terrorists were 'arrested' in the sense your pot smokin' buddies would be. They are terrorists that were "CAPTURED". They were attempting to kill American soldiers during a war.

When they get released, unless they are sent home, wherever that may be, so 'justice' can be done, they will again start killing more American soldiers if given the opportunity.

Please tell me you understand the significant differences here.

UB

YardleyLabs
11-30-2008, 05:29 PM
That's the entire jist of what's being discussed here. NONE of those terrorists were 'arrested' in the sense your pot smokin' buddies would be. They are terrorists that were "CAPTURED". They were attempting to kill American soldiers during a war.

When they get released, unless they are sent home, wherever that may be, so 'justice' can be done, they will again start killing more American soldiers if given the opportunity.

Please tell me you understand the significant differences here.

UB

What I see is that, under our laws, there are two options. Either they are combatants entitled to all considerations afforded to them under the Geneva Convention, or they are prisoners entitled to all the rights granted to accused persons under our Constitution and laws. We are a nation of laws and claim that as one of the good things that differentiates us from so many other countries in the world. The administration, however, seems to only like laws that apply to others and has been trying to say that no laws protect the prisoners at Gitmo. Fortunately our courts have rejected these arguments. Our Constitution provides for two types of emergency under which the right of habeas corpus may be suspended temporarily: insurrection or invasion. Even under these dire circumstances, the suspension must be explicit and temporary, not a lawless action by the executive. I hope we never become the type of lawless nation that ignores such protections. If we do, I believe it may be time for true patriots to follow the lead set by our forefathers in 1776 when another George acted in a similar manner.

Uncle Bill
11-30-2008, 06:52 PM
Could we rely on you to be one of those "true Patriots", Jeff. Or would you be one of the CO's that so many photographers become in a war zone.

After you have looked down the business end of a rifle held by a crazed animal determined to wipe you out, I'd be anxious to then get your views of how many rights these unprincipled, non-uniformed cowards hiding among women and children should be given.

Let's say, just for the hell of it, their rights were NOT read to them at the time of their capture...does the ACLU need to go any further in their defense? Isn't that enough for everyone to see how unfair these poor souls are being treated? It would be an automatic mistrial.

The Geneva Convention was developed for the humane treatment and exchange of prisoners of war. Remember seeing your countries soldiers that were detained in concentration camps in WW II? Would you call those camps in Germany and Japan as being 'humane' in their treatment of our soldiers? We don't see much of those pictures anymore. Back then the press and the picture takers were looking for the truth, not distorting it with their agenda-led stories.

Terrorists are no part of a recognized militia, that this nation or any other nation for that matter, needs to adhere to a Geneva Convention guideline. As to their treatment, I'd be willing to bet they all are living a better life than their 'buddies' in the caves of Afghanistan.

You can continue to look down your nose at all of us conservatives that see these hoodlums and brain-washed morons for the mindless terrorists they are, but as much as I would like to see it differ, your being protected the same as we are, despite your views and desires for the enemy to be treated like they were just some mis-guided pranksters.

UB

Bruce MacPherson
11-30-2008, 07:06 PM
What I see is that, under our laws, there are two options. Either they are combatants entitled to all considerations afforded to them under the Geneva Convention, or they are prisoners entitled to all the rights granted to accused persons under our Constitution and laws

They are neither, therefore it gets thrown to the courts. There it will be determined by the political inclinations of those involved. Nation of laws made up on the fly with the nod going to the political party that is in power or has the most appointments.

YardleyLabs
11-30-2008, 07:48 PM
Could we rely on you to be one of those "true Patriots", Jeff. Or would you be one of the CO's that so many photographers become in a war zone.

After you have looked down the business end of a rifle held by a crazed animal determined to wipe you out, I'd be anxious to then get your views of how many rights these unprincipled, non-uniformed cowards hiding among women and children should be given.

UB, considering that you don't know me at all, you seem happily willing to make lots of assumptions about my character. I have noted before that I am not a pacifist. I have also never served in the military. I have been assaulted more than once by armed attackers, and I know I am not a pacifist based on my responses to those attacks. I learned early in life that when you are attacked by someone stronger, by multiple people, or by someone who is armed that you do whatever is needed in that moment to defend yourself and others. I am not a clean fighter. However, that doesn't give me the right to go out attacking people that I think might be a threat. With respect to your contemptuous comment about photographers, I would note that photographers and journalists covering the Iraq (and prior) war zones are probably more likely to be shot or kidnapped than members of our armed forces.



Let's say, just for the hell of it, their rights were NOT read to them at the time of their capture...does the ACLU need to go any further in their defense? Isn't that enough for everyone to see how unfair these poor souls are being treated? It would be an automatic mistrial.


The "evidence" that has been thrown out in the small number of cases that have been heard and decided has been discarded because it was acquired through hearsay and not backed by other evidence, or because it was acquired through torture in the eyes of the military officers hearing the evidence. Those are not exactly technicalities.



The Geneva Convention was developed for the humane treatment and exchange of prisoners of war. Remember seeing your countries soldiers that were detained in concentration camps in WW II? Would you call those camps in Germany and Japan as being 'humane' in their treatment of our soldiers? We don't see much of those pictures anymore. Back then the press and the picture takers were looking for the truth, not distorting it with their agenda-led stories.

Terrorists are no part of a recognized militia, that this nation or any other nation for that matter, needs to adhere to a Geneva Convention guideline. As to their treatment, I'd be willing to bet they all are living a better life than their 'buddies' in the caves of Afghanistan.


The Geneva Convention, as has been reaffirmed by our courts, defines combatant very broadly and in a manner that covers the Taliban. The administration claims to the contrary have been rejected.



You can continue to look down your nose at all of us conservatives that see these hoodlums and brain-washed morons for the mindless terrorists they are, but as much as I would like to see it differ, your being protected the same as we are, despite your views and desires for the enemy to be treated like they were just some mis-guided pranksters.

UB

If I have said anything suggesting that I look down my nose at conservatives, I apologize. With respect to the protection, I will admit that I feel much more threatened by the administration's activities to "protect" me than I ever have by terrorists despite having frequently attended meetings in the WTC, having a cousin who missed being on one of the top floors of the WTC only because her train was late, having a friend who was in the building but escaped before the collapse, and a friend and employee whose son was one of the last surviving security guards in the Towers because he worked a double shift the night before and was given the day off, and another friend and former employee who escaped from the World Financial Center but was almost hit by the person who fell to the street in front of her.

The rights and laws we have in our country are about how we choose to live our lives and the type of country we choose to be. They were not written to protect criminals or terrorists. However, unless we protect the rights of all in our care, we will never be protecting those innocents among us who may at any time be wrongfully accused of being either a terrorist or a criminal. When we choose to adopt the behaviors of those we detest in the name of security, we have already lost what we were fighting to protect.

Marvin S
11-30-2008, 07:48 PM
None of us "side" with the terrorists. Instead, we feel that certain rights apply to people who have been arrested by the U.S. government.

Watching this discussion with interest & trying to stay out as I believe these vermin being discussed are no different than a rabid coyote, except maybe they are less honorable. So, if you are sticking up for them you must be siding with them.

I have a Webster's, when I look up rights it only shows right, would you mind explaining which of the 62 different explanations for right applies in your statement. :confused:

Gerry Clinchy
12-01-2008, 04:39 AM
SN05329602 Originally posted by Yardley LabsThe Geneva Convention, as has been reaffirmed by our courts, defines combatant very broadly and in a manner that covers the Taliban. The administration claims to the contrary have been rejected.

This has been my question all along. If they are POWs, it would seem they can be held until the end of hostilities (barring any prisoner exchanges, which are unlikely with the group, or groups, these combatants represent).

In some cases, due to the nature of the combatants in this conflict, it might be reasonable to speculate that some of those captured were not actually combatants. Hence, the reason some have been released?


or because it was acquired through torture in the eyes of the military officers hearing the evidence.

This could be strong evidence that our military have a very high sense of what they are fighting for against those forces that would have much less mercy on them if the situation were reversed.


When we choose to adopt the behaviors of those we detest in the name of security, we have already lost what we were fighting to protect

I believe that is the crux of this whole debate. How can we avoid doing the above, but also not act stupidly in ignoring what might be a true threat to security.

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 03:03 PM
So, if you are sticking up for them you must be siding with them.

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion, shall we:

Since the SCOTUS has REPEATEDLY found in their favor, they must be siding with them, too.

And, since the SCOTUS decides was is and is not CONSTITUTIONAL, siding with them would seem to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

That said, it seems the continuing to seek to deny rights afforded by the CONSTITUTION would be in violation of the CONSTITUTION and is an attempt to destroy that which is the cornerstone of our great nation.

So, Marv, why don't you support the Constitution of the United States of America?

Just Asking Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 03:11 PM
You can continue to look down your nose at all of us conservatives that see these hoodlums and brain-washed morons for the mindless terrorists they are, but as much as I would like to see it differ, your being protected the same as we are, despite your views and desires for the enemy to be treated like they were just some mis-guided pranksters.

UB

Hummmm...yeah, about that:

So, to be clear Bill, you are advocating that law abiding US citizens who speak in disagreement to your position be denied their CONSTITUTIONAL right to free speech simply because they disagree with your position.

Please, tell me again how you, Bob, and Marv are actually defending the constitution and guys like Jeff, Remington, and me are trying to destroy it because I must have really missed it the first time.

Thanks In Advance For Clearing This One Up For Me Regards,

Joe S.

Captain Mike D
12-01-2008, 05:01 PM
Joe,

I may be able to clear it up. IF not,UB, Marv, and Bob, please correct me.
We all grew up in a time where wars were forthright with country fighting against country for whatever reason.
Now along comes 9/11 and we are in another war cept this time the the enemy has no country, only a theology of wanting to kill Infidels who do not perscribe to their BENT idea of Islam.

A POTUS is in place who states "Wherever you are we are coming to get you!"
He has attacks launched into Afganistan where OBL is nearly taken but operatives are doublecrossed on the ground and he escapes( probably dead now anyway)

Then this President launches a second offensive into Iraq, 1-to take out a despot that has thumbed his nose at NUMEROUS UN resolutions, and 2- to draw as many followers of the above mentioned perverted Islamic followers into a fight with the greatest military on this earth( which happens to belong to the country that has given more to help mankind than any country in the history of mankind).

Plan works and enemies from all over the Arab world rush to try to fill a void left by the topple of Saddam and push the infidels out of Iraq. Thousands upon thousands af these "Holy Warriors" are killed. The Holy Warriors also kill many of their own to try and disrupt any peaceful movement towards Iraq becoming a free country. Then comes the quandry-- what to do with these Arab and Persian Holy warriors when they are captured. Bush Admin declares them enemy combatents. Appeals follow in court cases to see what rights they should have. Scotus and lower courts decide by rulings.
How should it be done, take a lessor course, in which case no argument comes to the court, or by strong minded individuals bringing forth a compelling case that should be ruled upon?

How has Bush trampled anyones' rights given the fact that NO-ONE ever faced the same set of circumstances before?

I applaud the man for taking a conservative approach to the problem.

GW has not been an enemy of the US as many who are convinced by the talking points of the left would have us believe. Why would those same folks keep hammering away at GW, think it is because they care about your rights?
Not hardly, much more about their quest for power!!

Mike

Patrick Johndrow
12-01-2008, 05:37 PM
Hummmm...yeah, about that:

So, to be clear Bill, you are advocating that law abiding US citizens who speak in disagreement to your position be denied their CONSTITUTIONAL right to free speech simply because they disagree with your position.

Please, tell me again how you, Bob, and Marv are actually defending the constitution and guys like Jeff, Remington, and me are trying to destroy it because I must have really missed it the first time.

Thanks In Advance For Clearing This One Up For Me Regards,

Joe S.


I think Joe finally gets it....YES JOE...you are correct...that is what all of us right wingers want to do....you have us figured out.

Marvin S
12-01-2008, 05:49 PM
Let's follow this to its logical conclusion, shall we:

Since the SCOTUS has REPEATEDLY found in their favor, they must be siding with them, too.

And, since the SCOTUS decides was is and is not CONSTITUTIONAL, siding with them would seem to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

That said, it seems the continuing to seek to deny rights afforded by the CONSTITUTION would be in violation of the CONSTITUTION and is an attempt to destroy that which is the cornerstone of our great nation.

So, Marv, why don't you support the Constitution of the United States of America?

Just Asking Regards,

Joe S.

As I am not a constitutional scholar such as you are Joe, you'll have to bear with my convoluted way of arriving where I have arrived.

These enemy combatants are not citizens of our country, in my mind they have no rights. They were brought to Gitmo for interrogation regarding their presumed knowledge of terrorist operations. When that knowledge is no longer a source of value, then you dispose of them by whatever means. If they did not have some sort of useful knowledge I have a tried & true method of insuring they are no longer enemy combatants. In some cases I'm not sure being sent to their home country is what these people had in mind. The Egyptians are quite good at getting someone to talk quickly, it's just that they as an ally are also not very trustworthy.

You use SCOTUS as a measure, there are 4 in the tank for your position immediately, Kennedy dreams of international law, so my thought would be that if Anthony Scalia agreed with that position then it must have merit, if he did not it is a bogus decision.

As for my support of the constitution, I don't believe I have to even make the effort to convince you. The difference is, I believe that it was meant to cover the legal citizens of this country & not just anyone who happens to get crossways with our way of life.

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 06:07 PM
Joe,

I may be able to clear it up. IF not,UB, Marv, and Bob, please correct me.
We all grew up in a time where wars were forthright with country fighting against country for whatever reason.
Now along comes 9/11 and we are in another war cept this time the the enemy has no country, only a theology of wanting to kill Infidels who do not perscribe to their BENT idea of Islam.

A POTUS is in place who states "Wherever you are we are coming to get you!"
He has attacks launched into Afganistan where OBL is nearly taken but operatives are doublecrossed on the ground and he escapes( probably dead now anyway)

Then this President launches a second offensive into Iraq, 1-to take out a despot that has thumbed his nose at NUMEROUS UN resolutions, and 2- to draw as many followers of the above mentioned perverted Islamic followers into a fight with the greatest military on this earth( which happens to belong to the country that has given more to help mankind than any country in the history of mankind).

Plan works and enemies from all over the Arab world rush to try to fill a void left by the topple of Saddam and push the infidels out of Iraq. Thousands upon thousands af these "Holy Warriors" are killed. The Holy Warriors also kill many of their own to try and disrupt any peaceful movement towards Iraq becoming a free country. Then comes the quandry-- what to do with these Arab and Persian Holy warriors when they are captured. Bush Admin declares them enemy combatents. Appeals follow in court cases to see what rights they should have. Scotus and lower courts decide by rulings.
How should it be done, take a lessor course, in which case no argument comes to the court, or by strong minded individuals bringing forth a compelling case that should be ruled upon?

How has Bush trampled anyones' rights given the fact that NO-ONE ever faced the same set of circumstances before?

I applaud the man for taking a conservative approach to the problem.

GW has not been an enemy of the US as many who are convinced by the talking points of the left would have us believe. Why would those same folks keep hammering away at GW, think it is because they care about your rights?
Not hardly, much more about their quest for power!!

Mike

Mike -

I was all for it right up until you got to Iraq. I am open for correction but I do not believe either of the reasons you listed were given as reasons we first went to Iraq.

Recall that the original position of President Bush's administration is that the courts were not even able to review the status of those captured on the battlefield. It is false to suggest that the administration welcomed the courts intervention.

The fact that no-one ever faced this type of situation before should be cause for the President to seek all manner of input into the situation and not just take the word of the "yes men" he elected to surround himself with from the outset. Had he gone to the other branches of government and sought input, this could have been avoided or at least the impact of the situation lessened.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Marvin S
12-01-2008, 06:12 PM
The fact that no-one ever faced this type of situation before should be cause for the President to seek all manner of input into the situation and not just take the word of the "yes men" he elected to surround himself with from the outset. Had he gone to the other branches of government and sought input, this could have been avoided or at least the impact of the situation lessened. Joe S.

Had Bush done this everyone of your persuasion would have been commenting on how indecisive he was. You would have said the POTUS is supposed to run the show, why is'nt he doing that?

Let's face it, anything this POTUS does is suspect as far as you are concerned.

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 06:23 PM
As I am not a constitutional scholar such as you are Joe, you'll have to bear with my convoluted way of arriving where I have arrived.

Oh, I don't know about that, Marv, you seem to do alright with the Constitution when it suits your need.


These enemy combatants are not citizens of our country, in my mind they have no rights.

Your mind does not impact the rule of law, Marv. The SCOTUS has long held that you need not be a citizen of the United States to be covered by its rights. It is, I think, a founding principle of the judical system.


They were brought to Gitmo for interrogation regarding their presumed knowledge of terrorist operations. When that knowledge is no longer a source of value, then you dispose of them by whatever means. If they did not have some sort of useful knowledge I have a tried & true method of insuring they are no longer enemy combatants. In some cases I'm not sure being sent to their home country is what these people had in mind. The Egyptians are quite good at getting someone to talk quickly, it's just that they as an ally are also not very trustworthy.

They were brought to GITMO because the Administration thought that they could be tortured without regard to US laws. Missed it by that much.

Great so now we farm our torture out to the Egyptians or some other country. Doesn't that strike you as morally reprehensible? I mean, you do understand how torture works, don't you Marv. (I know, I've asked you that and several other questions already but since you have ducked them I thought I'd ask you again...;-))


You use SCOTUS as a measure, there are 4 in the tank for your position immediately, Kennedy dreams of international law, so my thought would be that if Anthony Scalia agreed with that position then it must have merit, if he did not it is a bogus decision.

There are 4 conservative justices on the court as well, but I don't consider them "in the tank" for your position immediately. I'd like to think that they are open minded enough to at least listen to the arguments. As to Justice Kennedy, you do understand, of couse, that our laws are largely founded on international law and our law, especially SCOTUS decisions, form the Gold Standard for other democratic countries in the world like India, for example. I understand your line of thought regarding Justice Scalia but you might want to consider where he wrote the position from before you decide the decision was bogus.


As for my support of the constitution, I don't believe I have to even make the effort to convince you. The difference is, I believe that it was meant to cover the legal citizens of this country & not just anyone who happens to get crossways with our way of life.

Well Marv, all I can say is good for you and it is great for our country that the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
12-01-2008, 06:29 PM
Had Bush done this everyone of your persuasion would have been commenting on how indecisive he was. You would have said the POTUS is supposed to run the show, why is'nt he doing that?

Nope, wouldn't have said that in the least. I don't think the President is supposed to run the show at all. I think he is part of the process. He is the "decider" for the Executive Branch but his actions are subject to review and oversight by the Legislative and Judicial Branches.


Let's face it, anything this POTUS does is suspect as far as you are concerned.

Let's face it, Marv, you don't know you asshat from a hole in the ground when it comes to me. You can go back and find several posts by me where I said the President did a good job.

All It Takes Is Research Regards,

Joe S.

YardleyLabs
12-01-2008, 06:35 PM
As I am not a constitutional scholar such as you are Joe, you'll have to bear with my convoluted way of arriving where I have arrived.

These enemy combatants are not citizens of our country, in my mind they have no rights. They were brought to Gitmo for interrogation regarding their presumed knowledge of terrorist operations. When that knowledge is no longer a source of value, then you dispose of them by whatever means. If they did not have some sort of useful knowledge I have a tried & true method of insuring they are no longer enemy combatants. In some cases I'm not sure being sent to their home country is what these people had in mind. The Egyptians are quite good at getting someone to talk quickly, it's just that they as an ally are also not very trustworthy.

You use SCOTUS as a measure, there are 4 in the tank for your position immediately, Kennedy dreams of international law, so my thought would be that if Anthony Scalia agreed with that position then it must have merit, if he did not it is a bogus decision.

As for my support of the constitution, I don't believe I have to even make the effort to convince you. The difference is, I believe that it was meant to cover the legal citizens of this country & not just anyone who happens to get crossways with our way of life.

Marvin,

The rights of non-citizens have been an issue of frequent litigation through the history of our country. Obviously, non-citizens do not share some of our most fundamental rights including the right to vote, the right to enter the country freely, or the right to stay in the country except as permitted by Congress. The courts have ruled that Congress has very broad rights to determine who may enter or stay in the country even when the laws involve discrimination that would be illegal if directed at citizens. The courts also give the government broad freedom to expel aliens from the country with minimal oversight.

However, other rights are well established both by the language of the Constitution and repeated court decisions. In particular, the courts have ruled that those rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all "persons" mean exactly that -- all persons regardless of citizenship.

This applies for example to the fifth amendment which guarantees rights of due process and protection against self-incrimination. It also applies, for example, to the 14th amendment provisions making all "persons" born in this country citizens regardless of the legality of their presence at the time of birth.

These interpretations are well established and are fundamental to our Constitution. Non-citizens also have a variety of other rights established under treaties which have been approved by 2/3 vote of Congress and the President. These treaties have the full force of law, another fact that has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. High on the list of such treaties is the Geneva Convention which gives clear rights to our enemy captives. You may not agree with these rights but, absent repeal of the treaties or amendment of the Constitution, they remain our law nonetheless.

backpasture
12-01-2008, 06:47 PM
As for my support of the constitution, I don't believe I have to even make the effort to convince you. The difference is, I believe that it was meant to cover the legal citizens of this country & not just anyone who happens to get crossways with our way of life.

In other words, Marvin supports the Constitution as long as it is interpreted the way HE wants it interpreted. Any opinion (by SCOTUS or otherwise) is irrelevant and wrong if it isn't in line with his.

I love that Marvin doesn't have much use for a Supreme Court, but just needs one justice who agrees with him.

Scalia for Supreme and Sole Justice! ROTFLMAO!:D:D

Marvin S
12-01-2008, 06:48 PM
Your mind does not impact the rule of law, Marv. The SCOTUS has long held that you need not be a citizen of the United States to be covered by its rights. It is, I think, a founding principle of the judical system.

Having a couple of attorneys in the family tree (who BTW passed the bar on their first try) gives me a small amount of insight. How about "there is little about justice in the justice system".



They were brought to GITMO because the Administration thought that they could be tortured without regard to US laws. Missed it by that much.

Now you are a mind reader, come on, that's a real stretch.


There are 4 conservative justices on the court as well, but I don't consider them "in the tank" for your position immediately. I'd like to think that they are open minded enough to at least listen to the arguments. As to Justice Kennedy, you do understand, of couse, that our laws are largely founded on international law and our law, especially SCOTUS decisions, form the Gold Standard for other democratic countries in the world like India, for example. I understand your line of thought regarding Justice Scalia but you might want to consider where he wrote the position from before you decide the decision was bogus.

Well Marv, all I can say is good for you and it is great for our country that the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. Joe S.

One of the nice things about our country is we can disagree with our leaders without going kaput. If enough people come to their senses then bad decisions get changed.

mjh345
12-01-2008, 06:49 PM
[quote=Joe S.;36608. He is the "decider" for the Executive Branch
Joe S.[/quote]

I don't care who you are, THAT is funny!!!!

K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 11:10 AM
They were brought to GITMO because the Administration thought that they could be tortured without regard to US laws. Missed it by that much.

Great so now we farm our torture out to the Egyptians or some other country. Doesn't that strike you as morally reprehensible? I mean, you do understand how torture works, don't you Marv. (I know, I've asked you that and several other questions already but since you have ducked them I thought I'd ask you again...;-))



This should go over well. It seems what your saying is water boarding(not wholesale torture) put us on the same level as the terrorists. I strongly disagree(surprise) there is a difference, water boarding did not cause physical harm, it was not used liberally, the information gathered has saved non-combatant lives.


Waterboarding is a relatively mild form of water torture in which the victim is strapped to a board facing up and water is continuously poured over the victim's face. The victim will inhale water, gag, and feel as if he or she is drowning.

Much different than say knifing someones head off on a video for no other reason than to instill terror,or bamboo under the fingernails etc. So far it has been used on a whopping 3 inmates. For me, no, it is not morally reprehensible that water boarding was used.

It would be morally reprehensible if we had the means to extract information from these monsters and refused to, costing potentially thousands of innocent lives.

And you keep blaming the administration as if GW were solely responsible.


What about this?

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.


I guess I didn't realize that Pelosi was in Bush's pocket all along.

The truth is democrats knew about and did not make it an issue until after the CIA stopped using it on their own and (what a coincidence) an election year came along.



Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

I added the bold.

Entire article>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html

backpasture
12-02-2008, 11:45 AM
It seems what your saying is water boarding(not wholesale torture) put us on the same level as the terrorists. I strongly disagree(surprise) there is a difference, water boarding did not cause physical harm, it was not used liberally, the information gathered has saved non-combatant lives.




Not 'wholesale' torture? Just 'sort-of, kind-of' torture?

Torture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

That is the UN's definition, which is recognized by the international community. Waterboarding is, by definition, torture.

It is morally repugnant, and more importanly it DOES NOT WORK. Here is an enlightening read from a lead interrogator in Iraq. This was published in Sunday's Washington Post, and is worth reading if you think that waterboarding is either effective or otherwise 'okay'.



AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

I should have felt triumphant when I returned from Iraq in August 2006. Instead, I was worried and exhausted. My team of interrogators had successfully hunted down one of the most notorious mass murderers of our generation, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the mastermind of the campaign of suicide bombings that had helped plunge Iraq into civil war. But instead of celebrating our success, my mind was consumed with the unfinished business of our mission: fixing the deeply flawed, ineffective and un-American way the U.S. military conducts interrogations in Iraq. I'm still alarmed about that today.

I'm not some ivory-tower type; I served for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force, began my career as a Special Operations pilot flying helicopters, saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, became an Air Force counterintelligence agent, then volunteered to go to Iraq to work as a senior interrogator. What I saw in Iraq still rattles me -- both because it betrays our traditions and because it just doesn't work.
....

Entire article can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html

Cue the 'eye for an eye' crowd....

Hoosier
12-02-2008, 11:57 AM
We could just ask the terrorist politely. That should get the desired response. "So mister terrorist who and when do you plan on bombing". Sounds reasonable. How about" if you tell me what I want to know I'll give you a cookie". That one always works. Ridicules

backpasture
12-02-2008, 12:05 PM
We could just ask the terrorist politely. That should get the desired response. "So mister terrorist who and when do you plan on bombing". Sounds reasonable. How about" if you tell me what I want to know I'll give you a cookie". That one always works. Ridicules

RTFA

The reality is that 'buddying up' to detainees is a more effective way of getting info than torturing them. I know it doesn't satisfy your blood lust, but it actually works.

Juli H
12-02-2008, 12:08 PM
I guess the question remains to be answered....
how do we get information from captured terrorists (or presumed terrorists)? Or are we supposed to?

I haven't read this whole thread....but in what I have read, no one has come up with any brilliant ideas.....

let's hear them!

Juli

Hoosier
12-02-2008, 12:10 PM
RTFA

The reality is that 'buddying up' to detainees is a more effective way of getting info than torturing them. I know it doesn't satisfy your blood lust, but it actually works.

Well I'll be damned. Let's start baking cookies.:D

Juli H
12-02-2008, 12:10 PM
RTFA

The reality is that 'buddying up' to detainees is a more effective way of getting info than torturing them. I know it doesn't satisfy your blood lust, but it actually works.



let's hear about your 'buddying up' method....

Juli

Hoosier
12-02-2008, 12:11 PM
I guess the question remains to be answered....
how do we get information from captured terrorists (or presumed terrorists)? Or are we supposed to?

I haven't read this whole thread....but in what I have read, no one has come up with any brilliant ideas.....

let's hear them!

Juli

Cookies!!!

backpasture
12-02-2008, 12:20 PM
I guess the question remains to be answered....
how do we get information from captured terrorists (or presumed terrorists)? Or are we supposed to?

I haven't read this whole thread....but in what I have read, no one has come up with any brilliant ideas.....

let's hear them!

Juli

Instead of the 'well informed' peanut gallery here telling us their ideas, why don't we ask actual Army interrogators what does and doesn't work? (Or, you can read the article I posted, which is an interrogator doing just that.)

Some highlights (since the entire article is pretty long for Hoosier to read ;)):


I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

.....

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

backpasture
12-02-2008, 12:26 PM
let's hear about your 'buddying up' method....

Juli

For a classic example, read about the Saddam interrogation. It has been well-documented:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

Hoosier
12-02-2008, 12:46 PM
And in cases that cookies and ice cream don't work, what? Then can we use the butt of a rifle? We could give em a turkey dinner and wait for the tryptophan to take effect.

cotts135
12-02-2008, 01:41 PM
This should go over well. It seems what your saying is water boarding(not wholesale torture) put us on the same level as the terrorists. I strongly disagree(surprise) there is a difference, water boarding did not cause physical harm, it was not used liberally, the information gathered has saved non-combatant lives.

Waterboarding is torture, justify it any way you like but the fact is The US has have prosecuted individuals in other countrys who used waterboarding. There is no way you could know if the info gathered has saved lives. Torture doesn't work well in obtaining info.







[QUOTE=K.Bullock;366299I guess I didn't realize that Pelosi was in Bush's pocket all along.

The truth is democrats knew about and did not make it an issue until after the CIA stopped using it on their own and (what a coincidence) an election year came along. [/QUOTE]

The Democrats are just as complicit in this as anyone. They knew what was going on and decided not to say anything. This is why you will not see any serious inquires into wrong doing by the Bush administration.

cotts135
12-02-2008, 01:42 PM
Well I'll be damned. Let's start baking cookies.:D

Whats your best recipe?

Hoosier
12-02-2008, 01:56 PM
Whats your best recipe?

I just cut em off a roll you buy at the store.

Joe S.
12-02-2008, 02:02 PM
This should go over well. It seems what your saying is water boarding(not wholesale torture) put us on the same level as the terrorists. I strongly disagree(surprise) there is a difference, water boarding did not cause physical harm, it was not used liberally, the information gathered has saved non-combatant lives.

Please understand that your agreement or disagreement with me means precious little to my thought process. When I read your posts I instantly recall the Book of Daniel, Chapter 5, 25-28. As you have professed to be a Christian, I'm sure you will recognize the verse.

What I am saying is torture is torture. The use of torture is beneath the dignity of, and in direct opposition to the founding principles of, the United States of America.

There is no proof, other than the word of our government, that it was not used liberally and that the information gathered has saved non-combat lives. Now, you may call me cynical, but I need a bit more than that before I buy into a process clearly in violation to our way of life and ratified international agreements.


The truth is democrats knew about and did not make it an issue until after the CIA stopped using it on their own and (what a coincidence) an election year came along.

You seem to think that people who oppose the use of torture are lock-step political pawns. It is worth considering that some people who oppose torture do so despite what the politicians on either side of the aisle think.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 02:12 PM
Not 'wholesale' torture? Just 'sort-of, kind-of' torture?

Torture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

That is the UN's definition, which is recognized by the international community. Waterboarding is, by definition, torture.

It is morally repugnant, and more importanly it DOES NOT WORK. Here is an enlightening read from a lead interrogator in Iraq. This was published in Sunday's Washington Post, and is worth reading if you think that waterboarding is either effective or otherwise 'okay'.



AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

I should have felt triumphant when I returned from Iraq in August 2006. Instead, I was worried and exhausted. My team of interrogators had successfully hunted down one of the most notorious mass murderers of our generation, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the mastermind of the campaign of suicide bombings that had helped plunge Iraq into civil war. But instead of celebrating our success, my mind was consumed with the unfinished business of our mission: fixing the deeply flawed, ineffective and un-American way the U.S. military conducts interrogations in Iraq. I'm still alarmed about that today.

I'm not some ivory-tower type; I served for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force, began my career as a Special Operations pilot flying helicopters, saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, became an Air Force counterintelligence agent, then volunteered to go to Iraq to work as a senior interrogator. What I saw in Iraq still rattles me -- both because it betrays our traditions and because it just doesn't work.
....

Entire article can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html

Cue the 'eye for an eye' crowd....

Doood it is not even a real person.



Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He is the author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." He is writing under a pseudonym for security reasons.
Gee how convienent, he claims a lawsuit as well ....how secure is that?







G
BU-38 on the building located at [show location on an interactive map] 33°48′02.83″N 44°30′48.58″E / 33.8007861, 44.5134944. Six others - three male and three female individuals - were also reported killed (see below).[119] Among those killed were his wife and their child.

The joint task force had been tracking him for some time, and although there were some close calls, he had eluded them on many occasions. United States intelligence officials then received tips from Iraqi senior leaders from Zarqawi's network that he and some of his associates were in the Baqubah area.[120] The safehouse itself was watched for over six weeks before Zarqawi was observed entering the building by U.S. AFSOC 720th Special Tactics Group Combat Controllers. Jordanian intelligence reportedly helped to identify his location.[121] The area was subsequently secured by Iraqi security forces, who were the first ground forces to arrive..


Cocky bugger left out a few people.






I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.

This is total B.S. Whatever it takes to sell a book though right?


President-elect Barack Obama has promised to outlaw the practice of torture throughout our government.


Oh yes, the widespread use of torture throughout our government.
A free college education, three squares, and cable tv for murderers. The horror.

K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 02:32 PM
Please understand that your agreement or disagreement with me means precious little to my thought process. When I read your posts I instantly recall the Book of Daniel, Chapter 5, 25-28. As you have professed to be a Christian, I'm sure you will recognize the verse.

Daniel
Chapter 5

25 "This is the inscription that was written:
Mene , Mene , Tekel , Parsin [e]

26 "This is what these words mean:
Mene [f] : God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

27 Tekel [g] : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

28 Peres [h] : Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."


Fill me in ...I don't get it.




What I am saying is torture is torture. The use of torture is beneath the dignity of, and in direct opposition to the founding principles of, the United States of America.

There is no proof, other than the word of our government, that it was not used liberally and that the information gathered has saved non-combat lives. Now, you may call me cynical, but I need a bit more than that before I buy into a process clearly in violation to our way of life and ratified international agreements.
As there is no proof to the contrary yet many still yell long an dloud that our government is evil ...why? To win an argument?



You seem to think that people who oppose the use of torture are lock-step political pawns. It is worth considering that some people who oppose torture do so despite what the politicians on either side of the aisle think.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.
No I don't, McCain opposed it from the beginning. Many democrats screaming against it now, quietly supported it at the beginning and have changed position.

I respect McCain for holding his ground. It so happens I disagree with him, but I understand his reasons. I have little respect for people who must be told what their convictions are.

Joe S.
12-02-2008, 02:33 PM
I guess the question remains to be answered....
how do we get information from captured terrorists (or presumed terrorists)? Or are we supposed to?

I haven't read this whole thread....but in what I have read, no one has come up with any brilliant ideas.....

let's hear them!

Juli


Lawfulness of Interrogation Techniques under the Geneva Conventions

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32567.pdf

This is a link to a report from the Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress. It is my understanding CRS does the non-partisan background research for Congress. I have used many CRS reports for papers I've written and have never had a citation rejected.

Please do not let the fact it is hosted on the Federation of American Scientist web site throw you.

It is 39 pages long and provides an interesting background read.

Please don't thank me as I'm just trying to be helpful...it's my nature, you know.

Helpful Regards,

Helpy Helperson

backpasture
12-02-2008, 02:37 PM
This is total B.S. Whatever it takes to sell a book though right?


Give me a break. Don't like the message? Discredit the messenger! Works every time! Now you can sleep easy.

Joe S.
12-02-2008, 02:42 PM
Fill me in...I don't get it.

"Too easy, Drill Sergeant!"

27 Tekel [g] : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Regards,

Joe S.

K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 02:50 PM
"Too easy, Drill Sergeant!"

27 Tekel [g] : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Regards,

Joe S.

Oh man..that changes everything. :o please you can do better.

Joe, when you run out of stuff to say ...why do you get personal?

Joe S.
12-02-2008, 07:07 PM
Oh man..that changes everything. :o please you can do better.

Yeah, but that takes time.


Joe, when you run out of stuff to say ...why do you get personal?

If you think I've run out of things to say, you don't know me.

If you think that was personal, you don't know me.

You Can Add Those To The List Regards,

Joe S.

K.Bullock
12-02-2008, 07:16 PM
Yeah, but that takes time.



If you think I've run out of things to say, you don't know me.

If you think that was personal, you don't know me.

You Can Add Those To The List Regards,

Joe S.

Ahhh ..gotcha. :rolleyes:

John Kelder
12-03-2008, 07:48 AM
RTFA

The reality is that 'buddying up' to detainees is a more effective way of getting info than torturing them. I know it doesn't satisfy your blood lust, but it actually works.

You say this works ? I'm guessing its not from first hand exposure. Since they want us dead , and are willing to meet Allah and the virgins , and we are all infidels , being our
"buddy " under any cicumstance is going to happen how ????
You could save the lives of the detainee's entire family , he witnessed it first hand ,and he still wants you DEAD !!! "Buddying Up " is something you do at the lake in the Boy Scouts

backpasture
12-03-2008, 08:03 AM
You say this works ? I'm guessing its not from first hand exposure. Since they want us dead , and are willing to meet Allah and the virgins , and we are all infidels , being our
"buddy " under any cicumstance is going to happen how ????
You could save the lives of the detainee's entire family , he witnessed it first hand ,and he still wants you DEAD !!! "Buddying Up " is something you do at the lake in the Boy Scouts

I know the article I posted was pretty long but you should take some time and read it (or have someone help you read it - given the grasp of the English language that you display in your postings).

I have not had first hand exposure to interrogations, and I am guessing you have not either. That is why I am relying on what actual interrogators have to say about this.

backpasture
12-03-2008, 08:18 AM
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/torture2.gif

brian breuer
12-03-2008, 09:21 AM
You say this works ? I'm guessing its not from first hand exposure. Since they want us dead , and are willing to meet Allah and the virgins , and we are all infidels , being our
"buddy " under any cicumstance is going to happen how ????
You could save the lives of the detainee's entire family , he witnessed it first hand ,and he still wants you DEAD !!! "Buddying Up " is something you do at the lake in the Boy Scouts

Well since the 60 Minutes transcript didn't convince you. How about something from FoxNews.

"How to Break a Terrorist," Matthew Alexander - was on Hannity and Combs last night. He repeatedly said that torture was not effective for producing information. Hannity asked him this repeatedly and disagreed with his stance at the end of the interview.

Here is a link to FoxNews transcript of the show. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460944,00.html

I found it amusing that Hannity kept coming back to saying that "harsher methods" would be needed and disagreeing with Alexander in their effectiveness. I guess his experience as a talk show host gives him expertise in this area.

Hoosier
12-03-2008, 09:33 AM
I know the article I posted was pretty long but you should take some time and read it (or have someone help you read it - given the grasp of the English language that you display in your postings).

I have not had first hand exposure to interrogations, and I am guessing you have not either. That is why I am relying on what actual interrogators have to say about this.

Do you call everyone who doesn't agree with your twisted, moronic, extreme left view of the world stupid. Not very nice.

backpasture
12-03-2008, 09:54 AM
Do you call everyone who doesn't agree with your twisted, moronic, extreme left view of the world stupid. Not very nice.


Had he actually read and responded to the article we were discussing, his response may have been more reasoned, and then my response likely would have been more measured. If you want to just pipe in from the peanut gallery with your preconceived ideas, though, don't be surprise when I respond with a smackdown.

Sorry if I hurt somebody's feelings by being 'not very nice'. Since the person in question is evidently a Marine, though, I think he can probably take it.

Thanks for chiming in and letting us know that speaking out against torture is your idea of a 'twisted, moronic, extreme left view', though! (Although I think we probably could have ascertained that from your previous posts.)

Hoosier
12-03-2008, 10:05 AM
Had he actually read and responded to the article we were discussing, his response may have been more reasoned, and then my response likely would have been more measured. If you want to just pipe in from the peanut gallery with your preconceived ideas, though, don't be surprise when I respond with a smackdown.

Sorry if I hurt somebody's feelings by being 'not very nice'. Since the person in question is evidently a Marine, though, I think he can probably take it.

Thanks for chiming in and letting us know that speaking out against torture is your idea of a 'twisted, moronic, extreme left view', though! (Although I think we probably could have ascertained that from your previous posts.)


You don't "hurt my Feelings" I read that BS you post and get a pretty good chuckle out of it. "Smack down" you may be being a little bit of a drama queen there.

K.Bullock
12-03-2008, 01:05 PM
Well since the 60 Minutes transcript didn't convince you. How about something from FoxNews.

"How to Break a Terrorist," Matthew Alexander - was on Hannity and Combs last night. He repeatedly said that torture was not effective for producing information. Hannity asked him this repeatedly and disagreed with his stance at the end of the interview.

Here is a link to FoxNews transcript of the show. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460944,00.html

I found it amusing that Hannity kept coming back to saying that "harsher methods" would be needed and disagreeing with Alexander in their effectiveness. I guess his experience as a talk show host gives him expertise in this area.


Here is the authors bio from the book.


Bio of Matthew Alexander

No bio available for Matthew Alexander.
Bio of John R. Bruning

John Bruning is a prolific military and aviation historian who is the author of six books, including the critically acclaimed The Devil's Sandbox: With the 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry at War in Iraq. He has also consulted for museums in both the U.S. and Europe, and for computer companies such as Sierra Online and Microsoft, and has helped produce more than a dozen historical documentaries.
Why would this "Mathew Alexander" need a military historian and expert on the gulf war to help him write a book?

backpasture
12-03-2008, 01:19 PM
Here is the authors bio from the book.


Why would this "Mathew Alexander" need a military historian and expert on the gulf war to help him write a book?

Why would John McCain need someone to help him write a book? Or Ronald Reagan? Both had someone ghostwrite their autobiographies for them.

It's not unusual to have an actual writer help you write a book if you have a story to tell. It is helpful if that writer knows something of the subject matter. So, it's not shocking that a book about the military would be written with the help of someone who knows a bit about the military.

Grasping at straws, regards.

K.Bullock
12-03-2008, 03:34 PM
Why would John McCain need someone to help him write a book? Or Ronald Reagan? Both had someone ghostwrite their autobiographies for them.

It's not unusual to have an actual writer help you write a book if you have a story to tell. It is helpful if that writer knows something of the subject matter. So, it's not shocking that a book about the military would be written with the help of someone who knows a bit about the military.

Grasping at straws, regards.
You could be right on this one ...we'll see though. Now I am curious as all get out about this guy.

JDogger
12-04-2008, 10:12 PM
Good Job, Hoosier. I didn't think anyone could bring RTF to a higher level, but you certainly have.
Stand aside conservatives, your new spokesperson has arrived.

JD

Buster Brown
12-04-2008, 10:53 PM
My mom told me years ago during the depression years if the police authorities had a particularly unsavory character that was dagerous and kept causing trouble they would take that individual out in the country and take thier hat off and throw it into a field and tell them to go get it. When they went to get it the police shot them in the back of the head for trying to escape! Kind of like the movie "The Onion Fields".

I think it's time to issue these terrorist scum some turbans and throw them into the ocean and tell them to go get it....

They are terrorists!!! They deserve no pity!!! They would give you none!

They are worse than spies. They should disappear from the face of the earth. They deserve no rights!!!! Except for last rights!!!!!

We let a man named Osama Bin Laden go and we never took him serious....3000 Americans lost their lives because of the subversion these subhumans at Gitmo created.

Toss their turbans into the ocean and tell them to go get them....:mad:

JDogger
12-04-2008, 11:07 PM
Forget what I said. Buster stands above Hoosier.


My mom told me years ago during the depression years if the police authorities had a particularly unsavory character that was dagerous and kept causing trouble they would take that individual out in the country and take thier hat off and throw it into a field and tell them to go get it. When they went to get it the police shot them in the back of the head for trying to escape! Kind of like the movie "The Onion Fields".

I think it's time to issue these terrorist scum some turbans and throw them into the ocean and tell them to go get it....

They are terrorists!!! They deserve no pity!!! They would give you none!

They are worse than spies. They should disappear from the face of the earth. They deserve no rights!!!! Except for last rights!!!!!

We let a man named Osama Bin Laden go and we never took him serious....3000 Americans lost their lives because of the subversion these subhumans at Gitmo created.

Toss their turbans into the ocean and tell them to go get them....:mad:

Buster...I'm sorry, do we live on the same planet?
Summary police judgement, and execution. Brother, believe me. It's not what you want, nor deserve.
You might also update your recollections of 'The Onion Field'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion_Field

Regards from center, believe it or not,
JD

Buster Brown
12-04-2008, 11:45 PM
Buster...I'm sorry, do we live on the same planet?
Summary police judgement, and execution. Brother, believe me. It's not what you want, nor deserve.
You might also update your recollections of 'The Onion Field'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion_Field
JD

J. Dogger: I guess we don't even live in the same dimension.

In my dimension there are 3000 innocent people who died because of those scum bags in gitmo...

and in my dimension terrorism should be dealt with swiftly and severely.

In my dimension those terrorists should not have been allowed to draw air any longer than it took to extract enough information out of them to exact my dimensions justice on their cronies.

In my Dimension "W"'s statenment that the terrorists who committed these heneous acts "will have nowhere on this earth to hide" is taken literally and if that doesn't scare terrorists into in-action then it reduces their number.

In my dimension I see no reason to allow them a day in court or any rights to our legal system at all. In fact I see no reason to allow them to exist any longer unless there is more information to be extracted...in any way...from them!

Perhaps in your dimension you might let these poor misunderstood individuals go. ..and perhaps they wouldn't commit another heneous crime like they did...yeah right (wink wink...)

Buster Brown
12-04-2008, 11:49 PM
J dogger you are right about the movie. It is not a coreect reference but that does not change the intent or tone of my pots.

JDogger
12-04-2008, 11:54 PM
J dogger you are right about the movie. It is not a coreect reference but that does not change the intent or tone of my pots.

Buster, I am sure it does not. I need to go to bed. Let's resume this another time. OK?

JD

backpasture
01-22-2009, 10:39 PM
I'm guessing you wouldn't want to place a wager on whether Gitmo is still open for business one year after Obama is sworn in, would you? I'll cover you on that one.


Hew, FYI. Here is the executive order:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/

Key sentence:
"The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. "

Another executive order requires interrogators to follow the Army Field Manual. (That means no more waterboarding. Sorry, torture fans!)

The rule of law is back.

Hew
01-23-2009, 01:54 AM
Hew, FYI. Here is the executive order:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/

Key sentence:
"The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. "

Another executive order requires interrogators to follow the Army Field Manual. (That means no more waterboarding. Sorry, torture fans!)

The rule of law is back.
Oh, good. Then you should have no qualms accepting my bet. Name the price. Maybe some Florida citrus or seafood put up against whatever it is Vermont is famous for...do they bottle that oh-so-famous Vermonter charm and friendliness? :);)

But before you make any wager you might want to read some excerpts from the White House's first presser:



QUESTION: Robert, how can you say the executive order on Guantanamo Bay -- you can say clearly made America safer today, when it doesn't seem like you really have a plan yet about where the detainees are going to go?

GIBBS: Well, one of the -- I think one of the things that the commission and one of the things that the executive orders does is begin the process whereby the current administration can examine what exactly is going on and who exactly is there. ...

That's why I was careful in saying that the process by which this will undertake over the course of up to one year will determine, as Greg laid out, who's involved in what status of detainee, which group that they're involved in, and ultimately study how best to -- to deal with them in a way that protects our country, protects our values, and administers justice.

QUESTION: So these are terror suspects, and the American people are hearing, "Washington's going to study it." They're going to find out for a few more months, what are we going to do with these detainees? So what...

GIBBS: Well, it is day two. ...

QUESTION: No, but he was talking about it on the campaign for months, on Guantanamo Bay.

QUESTION: But the bottom line is that you've been talking about it -- the president talked about it on the campaign trail. People have studied this for a long time. And you're now signing the executive order without a plan for where the detainees will be. What assurances can you give the...

GIBBS: No. No, we've signed an executive order to establish the plan for what happens.

QUESTION: But what assurance can you give the American people that these detainees just won't wind up out on the streets, won't go back to their home countries and launch new terror attacks?

GIBBS: I can assure them that that -- all of -- all of what you just enumerated will be undertaken and studied as part of a commission to look into these very complex, very detailed questions.

AND THIS:



QUESTION: Just so the American people have an understanding, if, for example, U.S. forces were to capture Osama bin Laden or someone less well known, but of operational significance, are they to understand, the American people, that only the Field Manual and the Field Manual only will be the interrogation method used to interrogate a target as valuable potentially as Osama bin Laden or someone of that operational significance?

GIBBS: Well, as it relates to your first question, let me get some guidance from -- from Greg and members of the NSC.

As a blogger wrote: "Today's executive order can charitably be described as meaningless, but it illuminates the least attractive side of Barack Obama: his tendency to combine self-righteousness with lack of seriousness."

One year. Closed. Kaput. Ghost town. The betting window is still open. ;-)

Hew
01-23-2009, 06:05 AM
I letter went back and read the executive order that was linked by Backpasture and something jumped out at me. Read this part closely:



Sec. 2. Findings.

(a) Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at Guantánamo.

See anything funny? Actually, funny isn't really appropriate. A freakin' typo in one of your first, and certainly most important, executive orders?!? This is the president who is going to return competence to government? :rolleyes:

backpasture
01-23-2009, 08:19 AM
Oh, good. Then you should have no qualms accepting my bet. Name the price. Maybe some Florida citrus or seafood put up against whatever it is Vermont is famous for...do they bottle that oh-so-famous Vermonter charm and friendliness? :);)

But before you make any wager you might want to read some excerpts from the White House's first presser:


AND THIS:


As a blogger wrote: "Today's executive order can charitably be described as meaningless, but it illuminates the least attractive side of Barack Obama: his tendency to combine self-righteousness with lack of seriousness."

One year. Closed. Kaput. Ghost town. The betting window is still open. ;-)


You're on. 1/2 gallon of VT maple syrup. I have little doubt that Gitmo will be shuttered within a year. And, I would expect there to be a plan in place as to how to handle those detainees within a few months. I know we are used to having a President with knee-jerk reactions, so it may take you some to to get used to someone who values well-informed decisions over instant gratification.

As 'a blogger' wrote:
"In addition to the obvious points, it's also worth noting Obama's claim that he wants to win the war on terror "on our terms". One of the maddening aspects of the Bush administration's policies in this area was that they so consistently accepted al Qaeda's terms instead of creating their own. This was not just morally repellent, but stupid: in addition to sacrificing a whole lot of good will throughout the world, it made our actions a lot more predictable, and a lot easier to take advantage of. "

Yes, I can also find 'a blogger' here and there that agrees with me, too. ;-)

If you throw a rock these days, you will probably hit a blogger. So, throw it hard.

/The Great State of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!

K.Bullock
01-23-2009, 08:22 AM
Oh, good. Then you should have no qualms accepting my bet. Name the price. Maybe some Florida citrus or seafood put up against whatever it is Vermont is famous for...do they bottle that oh-so-famous Vermonter charm and friendliness? :);)

But before you make any wager you might want to read some excerpts from the White House's first presser:


AND THIS:


As a blogger wrote: "Today's executive order can charitably be described as meaningless, but it illuminates the least attractive side of Barack Obama: his tendency to combine self-righteousness with lack of seriousness."

One year. Closed. Kaput. Ghost town. The betting window is still open. ;-)
That is what troubles me about Obama, if it sounds good say it, if it looks good do it, are not sound leadership principles. He does not take into account the consequences of his words or actions. It seems like he thinks he will simply cross that bridge when he gets there. This is exactly what our country does not need right now.

Captain Mike D
01-23-2009, 10:26 AM
This links with the discussion very well.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28800516 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28800516)