Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......  
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

But that's pretty much what they'll be, just we won't have military officers in charge. This could well turn into President Elect Obama's "don't ask don't tell" policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_el_pr/obama_guantanamo

WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent what happens to them then? They can easily plead political asylum if they come from any one of a number of countries in which they can claim they face death if returned to. Nice way to set them up right here at home!

A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

I guess the name "tribunal" is a little too tarnished for them. Why is it that wonder kids always feel they have to reinvent the wheel when the wheel is still the most efficient way of moving things around?

Just let them all go. Play it the way they did in the 19th century. We let you go on the condition you don't fight anymore. We catch you fighting again, we execute you on the spot.

112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7563 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2375 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent what happens to them then? They can easily plead political asylum if they come from any one of a number of countries in which they can claim they face death if returned to. Nice way to set them up right here at home!

Since you arrested and detained them if they are innocent then the US needs to compensate them for the amount of time they were locked up. Asylum is the least you can offer.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2370 times:



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 1):
Asylum is the least you can offer.

Yep, why make them travel across continents and oceans to come here and cause trouble, just park them in a government run housing and allow them to attend Mosques and spread radicalism unchecked. It's what America is all about right?


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2317 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
just park them in a government run housing and allow them to attend Mosques and spread radicalism unchecked.

Obama has not even taken office and it is all his fault. Nice.

Let's not forget which administration "detained" people without cause. Some even Americans. Let's not forget which administration actually started the "fight" against Americans. Obama, right? Don't forget the spying on all communications. The government already has records on everything from Aunt Maybell's chicken soup recipie to where all the people with the same name as any felons are.

The new administration is trying to show he is willing to take the country in a different direction: innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty by lineage. If these people actually commit crimes, they will be dealt with. Until then, they can prove themselves.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2307 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
Yep, why make them travel across continents and oceans to come here and cause trouble

If they aren't guilty of anything then why should they be treated like criminals?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
It's what America is all about right?

Closer to what we're all about than holding them indefinitely without any charges.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2303 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 3):
Obama has not even taken office and it is all his fault. Nice.

 checkmark 
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...themedia9-2008nov09,0,800478.story
And Rush is blaming the recession squarely on the back of Obama. I don't think Rush has ever met an African-American that he liked.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
close the Guantanamo Bay prison

Boy, I thought closing of Guantanamo Bay and upholding the values of America would be a good thing..


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2299 times:

Here's a poignant snippet from that article AirCop:

But many on the losing end of last week's election want to hold on to their anger. And there are those in the media -- led by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity -- only too ready to feed that animus, along with their own ratings.

Translation: Bitter angry people falling for the vitriolic nonsense of pill popping loudmouths who profit from divisive politics and stoking rage.


User currently offlineKlima From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2238 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 2):
Yep, why make them travel across continents and oceans to come here and cause trouble, just park them in a government run housing and allow them to attend Mosques and spread radicalism unchecked. It's what America is all about right?

Well, it would be a lot easier to keep tabs on them in the US than in NW Pakistan.

Should some of these individuals be found innocent, and they are allowed to stay in the US, I'm sure someone will have a watchful eye on them for at least sometime, even if the government says otherwise.


User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2229 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent what happens to them then? They can easily plead political asylum if they come from any one of a number of countries in which they can claim they face death if returned to. Nice way to set them up right here at home!

I don't understand your point, should we lock up anyone ever accused of a crime? What about all the people who are found innocent and released onto our streets everyday. You're still innocent whether you were on trial for being a burglar, murderer, or terrorist.

What do you suggest we do, put them on trial in Guantanamo, then if they are found to be innocent we either send them back to be killed in their country or we let them stay in prison in Guantanamo?

I really don't understand your viewpoint. Once we accuse someone of terrorism we should lock them up forever regardless of guilt?


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2183 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 8):
Once we accuse someone of terrorism we should lock them up forever regardless of guilt?

That's basically the argument. The mentality is that its better safe than sorry, and we should trust our government to know enough that they'll only accuse those that are mostly likely really guilty.

The sad part about this, is that those that espouse this view will then turn around and tell you horror stories of what will happen if we let the government get more involved in health care. So, the feds aren't competent to administer national health care, but we should trust them completely in deciding who should be locked up for life. . . .



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2165 times:



Quoting Searpqx (Reply 9):
The sad part about this, is that those that espouse this view will then turn around and tell you horror stories of what will happen if we let the government get more involved in health care. So, the feds aren't competent to administer national health care, but we should trust them completely in deciding who should be locked up for life. . . .

I would rather have the government focus on national security than a national health care system. Leave the health care system up for the free market (consumer choice), leave the security up to the government. In fact, isn't this supposed to be written in the Consititution?

Oh, by the way; Hawaii tried a universal child health care system and guess what? It failed. After 7 months.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...Sr7A7sLEd5t6wAG8jdaXxhR7QD93S3VNG0

Any you seriously want the government to take over health care? Good grief man...



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2142 times:

There's a serious touch of irony in this. Of the 250 or so detainees, all but a small minority are probably innocent of the terrorism activities they were accused of. They must be because no charges have been laid and no trials conducted.

But when those 250 are let go -- after 5-6 years of abuse at the hands of Americans -- there's a better than even chance they'll want some revenge. I sure as hell would. So they weren't terrorists to begin with, but they probably are now. What a pickle.

My solution? Obama should order a special compound built at Crawford, Texas -- maybe on somebody's ranch -- and send them all there. And there's a couple of guys I know, soon to be unemployed, who would make ideal wardens.


Quoting Searpqx (Reply 9):
The sad part about this, is that those that espouse this view will then turn around and tell you horror stories of what will happen if we let the government get more involved in health care. So, the feds aren't competent to administer national health care, but we should trust them completely in deciding who should be locked up for life. . . .

Now now; we don't want to shine too bright a light on those glaring inconsistencies; a whole bunch more might pop up.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineSkyyKat From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2133 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
And once those that face criminal trials are found innocent

If they are innocent you need to applaud your justice system, if they are really guilty and found innocent then it needs to be reviewed.. You yourself expressed concern within your own justice system, so do you still support capital punishment?


And are you really contesting 'innocent until proven guilty'? Whatever they did or did not do, being held without trial leaves the option open for many innocent people having their lives destroyed on the basis of suspicion....


I FULLY support Obama on this initiative, although I am not a full supporter of the man... This is an attempt to bring justice to the guilty and the innocent being held without trial, and to eliminate interrogation centers in in places such as my home country of Poland that I believe you have no business conducting this activity in.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2097 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 5):
And Rush is blaming the recession squarely on the back of Obama. I don't think Rush has ever met an African-American that he liked.

And this has what to do with tribunals?

Quoting Klima (Reply 7):
Well, it would be a lot easier to keep tabs on them in the US than in NW Pakistan.

It just gives them a head start is all.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 8):
I don't understand your point, should we lock up anyone ever accused of a crime?

No, they should have had their day in court long ago and would have except so many liberals got all wound up about using military tribunals. But now that they are in charge what are they going to do?

Quoting Max550 (Reply 8):
What do you suggest we do, put them on trial in Guantanamo, then if they are found to be innocent we either send them back to be killed in their country or we let them stay in prison in Guantanamo?

As I said, let them go. Tell them that if we catch them on the field of battle again or engaged in terrorist activities again we will execute them summarily.


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2093 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
No, they should have had their day in court long ago and would have except so many liberals got all wound up about using military tribunals. But now that they are in charge what are they going to do?

So... the Bush administration sets up Guantanamo and stocks it with detainees - - charged with nothing. For years. At the outrage of many people in this nation - - mostly liberals. And now you have the gall to blame them (liberals) for the fact that there are potentially innocent people still in there? Do you blame them for the weather too?

Your logic is akin to: I'm raising taxes 10%. Wait, Republicans slowed me down, now it's 70%. Blame Republicans for the tax increase.


User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5861 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2087 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
No, they should have had their day in court long ago and would have except so many liberals got all wound up about using military tribunals. But now that they are in charge what are they going to do?

day in court for what? you seem to be missing the fact that a majority have been charged with nothing.



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2082 times:



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 14):
So... the Bush administration sets up Guantanamo and stocks it with detainees - - charged with nothing. For years. At the outrage of many people in this nation - - mostly liberals. And now you have the gall to blame them (liberals) for the fact that there are potentially innocent people still in there?

Exactly what has the Bush administration proposed doing since setting up Gitmo? Tribunals were suggested before the first prisoner even arrived. Through litigation and political game playing the liberals have succeded in delaying the start of virtually all of them up until this past year. Now who's to blame? And now that they are in charge what are their plans? A "special" court? One that is not as open as a normal court to handle sensitive materials, gosh that sounds familiar.


User currently offlineFruteBrute From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2058 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
Just let them all go. Play it the way they did in the 19th century. We let you go on the condition you don't fight anymore. We catch you fighting again, we execute you on the spot.

I could live with that. Cheaper.

That or airdrop them into the center of Africa. Don't ask. Don't tell. Then pull a Cheney.... deny, deny, deny. Hell, just have Cheney do it on his way out of office and going back to Wyoming on Inguaration Day.


User currently offlineSkyyKat From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2057 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
A "special" court? One that is not as open as a normal court to handle sensitive materials, gosh that sounds familiar.

I don't think I fully understand your opinion here. What is it you would like to see happen to detainees in gitmo and other prisons? What do you think is the best solution?

Although I am fairly informed on this topic, you might be a better candidate to explain a better alternative than the new proposal.

I don't think the current approach is sufficient, but once again I am no expert on the topic


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2050 times:



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 15):
day in court for what? you seem to be missing the fact that a majority have been charged with nothing.

They, for the most part, are being held as enemy combatants. That has been the charge against most of them since day one. The Bush administration wanted to set up military tribunals to determine their guilt or innocence but due to litigation and political interference, that has been next to impossible.

Quoting SkyyKat (Reply 18):
What do you think is the best solution?

As I said, cut them loose. Give them the warning that soldiers of 19th century got, that if we catch them again, they will get a summary execution.

Quoting SkyyKat (Reply 18):
Although I am fairly informed on this topic, you might be a better candidate to explain a better alternative than the new proposal.

The new proposal, at this point as described in the article, is no different than the old proposal, it just won't be called a military tribunal.


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2038 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
Exactly what has the Bush administration proposed doing since setting up Gitmo? Tribunals were suggested before the first prisoner even arrived.

Kangaroo courts. No transparency, military attorneys. Lax rules of evidence. A sham.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
A "special" court? One that is not as open as a normal court to handle sensitive materials, gosh that sounds familiar.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
The new proposal, at this point as described in the article, is no different than the old proposal, it just won't be called a military tribunal.

You seem to think this is all a bit more defined that it actually is at this point.

"the plan being crafted"

...

"Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final."

And this doesn't even apply to all of them. For others:

"some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials.

Lets see how the details of the plan shakes out, eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/...;_ylt=AjZK_f_f3sO2q0IFMef4.8Ks0NUE


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2018 times:



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 20):
Kangaroo courts. No transparency, military attorneys. Lax rules of evidence. A sham.

And how is that different than.....

Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few options

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 20):
Lets see how the details of the plan shakes out, eh?

I think I already know how they are going to "shake" out.

BTW, as the story relates, all they are doing is trying to reinvent the wheel when for over 200 years the wheel (military tribunals) has been the most efficient form of dealing with these types of people.


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5618 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2006 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 21):
BTW, as the story relates, all they are doing is trying to reinvent the wheel when for over 200 years the wheel (military tribunals) has been the most efficient form of dealing with these types of people.

" the wheel (military tribunals) has been the most efficient form of dealing with these types of INNOCENT people"

Really?

Because Gitmo has deterred...nothing.


BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13138 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

We have tried terrorists in the Federal trial courts for years and got convictions still protecting security of evidence and witnesses. .
Perhaps a hybrid court could be a branch of a Federal District Court (Northern District of Virginia) within Quantico Military Base (in Northern Virginia) and judges selected by lot to serve trials there. If held on a Military base, that would mean good security and limiting public access. The defense attorneys may have to be Military lawyers to protect military and national security.


User currently offlineWunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2007 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
As I said, cut them loose.

I assume you are talking about the ones that would be found innocent after trial. I agree with you.

But wouldn't you say that locking up innocents in Guantanamo for years would require the "Coalition of the willing" to compensate these innocent people? Somewhat generously?

To add to the pickle, where exactly should we cut them loose? In the US? Back to "where they come from"?

Honestly, that goes against what the US has always stood for in my ideals - freedom and justice.


25 Dougloid : Barack HUSSEIN Obama is going to move the terrorists into the whitehouse and do the boogaloo on the front lawn with the rest of the Knee Grows, RJ. S
26 RJdxer : And you know they are innocent how? And you know that holding them at Gitmo has deterred nothing how? I'm talking about all of them right now. The ti
27 Charles79 : Aren't we all jumping the gun here? The new administration does not take office until Jan 20th, until then it's all speculation. Fact is that we have
28 WunalaYann : Maybe then comes a time when we have to draw a line in the sand and say "ok, this is the time for a real trial, with lawyers and juries, and whatever
29 PPVRA : Ugh, sounds like another excuse to circumvent laws. This kind of attitude if continued will surely lead us to a better tomorrow
30 WarRI1 : I would like to ask, where were these people captured? was it on the streets of New York, or London? I think if my memory serves me, they were captur
31 Vikkyvik : America indeed is all about the ability to express your opinions - even radical opinions, long as you're not breaking any laws. And America is just a
32 Falcon84 : The end of the shame and embarrassment of Gitmo can't come soon enough. It has disgraced this nation, RJ, and flies in the face of everything the U.S.
33 BN747 : the same way that you KNOW they're guilty....and you don't. Because activity continues whether Gitmo remains opened....or closed. It has changed abso
34 WarRI1 : No, this is not conventional warfare. Quite different, and they should be treated unconventionally. This is a terrorist war fought in the name of a p
35 WunalaYann : In which case the US consciously places itself on the sidelines of legality as it signed on it when it created the UN. No easy way out. But of course
36 WarRI1 : I do not know what I can say to restore your faith in this country, maybe the fact that we are still alive and not covered with nuclear ash may help
37 Charles79 : I'm sorry but why the uncalled for attack? Did I call them innocent? Did I ask for unemployment benefits? Where the heck all this BS you are talking
38 Post contains links StuckInCA : "By intelligence operations" is a LOT different than "with weapons in their hands" and in some (or many) cases it was by intelligence only. Our intel
39 DocLightning : If they're INNOCENT then I suppose we don't have to worry about that, do we? Oh no. Don't blame this one on Liberals. Don't even try, amigo. It's a l
40 WarRI1 : I think we can say those poor guys in Cuba do not care a bit about the UN. they follow their own rules, which involve terrorism and killing. You do h
41 WarRI1 : One could say, it is a matter of perception, does one look foolish defending the rights of terrorists? or does one look foolish defending his country
42 Falcon84 : Just say "January 20th, 2009". That will restore a lot of faith, simply because the days of this embarrassment of a President of ours will be gone, a
43 Charles79 : One looks foolish when attacking for no other reason than bitterness. A, I did not defend the rights of terrorists, I called for my government to do
44 WarRI1 : Inform me again, where do you get you inside information about terrorists and their organization? Was it Great Britain, the CIA? Al-Jazeera, man now
45 WarRI1 : On that we can agree.
46 StuckInCA : No, not really. I do. If they are only there on faulty intelligence, haven't been charged, and are being tortured. That's not what the US is about. A
47 WunalaYann : In doing so you actually give fodder to the real fanatics who want nothing more than to make terrorists look like martyrs of the big, bad West. Very
48 WarRI1 : Well as one veteran to another, I thank you for your service and your family, I had four brothers, we all served.(5) Bitterness, I do not know what t
49 WarRI1 : I am trying to stay with the forum rules, how about the innocent victims like children, women, anybody in the way of a bomb. I like the tactic of one
50 StuckInCA : No. Alluding to dying babies doesn't substitute for logical reasoning. Lose the emotional fluff. What about a journalist, detained on faulty informat
51 WarRI1 : There are alot of ignorant people out there, I do not think we are going to change anyones opinion by closing the prison in Cuba. They either believe
52 WarRI1 : Now that is an amazing immature statement, lose the emotional fluff, about children? I would suggest you try to use logical reasoning. With that ridi
53 StuckInCA : That detaining people based on dubious intelligence, not charging them and torturing them is disgusting to me is immature? That I think your lack of
54 Aaron747 : You fought under the red, white and blue, did you not? You believe that we are better as a culture, society, and nation than these whackjobs, do you
55 Charles79 : Thanks for your service as well, and happy Veterans Day! I guess I took offense at your comments because when I argue for our country to pursue justi
56 RJdxer : For better or worse that is not how our system operates. Most of the pleadings were done in the name of all the detainees. What delays weren't caused
57 Seb146 : Oregon has a type of universal health care and it is working just fine. The biggest problem is, to get on it, people can not work to be eligable for
58 Post contains links JakeOrion : Wait wait wait...you say: then followed right after: Excuse me? First you say its working fine, but then the biggest problem is you cannot work to be
59 Seb146 : I know first hand from what my brother has been going through how horrible our justice system is. Even worse in rural areas. He lives in a county wit
60 WarRI1 : All intelligence is dubious. Go to bed tonight and just know you and your family are safe because men are dying and being maimed for you, that is wha
61 RJdxer : The charge was never that he was going to invade. The charge was that he had failed to adhere to several UN resolutions, that left to his own devices
62 WarRI1 : Thank you and I cannot disagree with your points. I know the feeling about taking offense at comments, we all do it at times. I get upset when people
63 WarRI1 : It is dammed hard, you are right of course on this one issue, but do not look for a pass on the next one.
64 BN747 : Yeah right! Exactly like how we know where OBL is right now... ..try again Champ, that didn't even land on the firing range... Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
65 JakeOrion : Thats worse than placing him in Gitmo...
66 11Bravo : He is talking specifically about torture in this passage, but I believe his point is right on the mark regarding the more generalized issue of the Ru
67 DocLightning : No. GWB claimed he HAD them. Now, I will admit that there is a finite, non-zero chance that we just haven't found them yet, but if you think we shoul
68 Charles79 : Oh believe me I completely understand how you feel, but like Aaron stated, we are looked up by so many in the world because we always stood for what'
69 Seb146 : Even as weapons inspectors were bulldozing al-Samud missiles? Yes, he failed to adhear to some of the resolutions, but he was also allowing searches.
70 DXing : So what you two are saying is that given the opportunity he woudn't have reconstituted his weapons programs? Given what Iran is doing today? What's t
71 Seb146 : Longer delays than just a few years ago. However, my mom and my partner both got their passports within four weeks. I got mine in four months. Just m
72 DXing : He attempted to have President Bush 41 asassinated. Under sanctions he was unable to reconstitute his weapons. Had the sanctions been lifted do you r
73 Falcon84 : RJ, are you not someone who hates revisionist history when it comes to thngs like World War II against Japan, and the reasons for the bombings of Hir
74 WunalaYann : Virtually every country can decide overnight to sell weapons to terrorist groups. Actually, some states have been declared supporters of terrorism -
75 BN747 : I'm just curious...why do you guys keep playing 'tit-for-tat' with RXJxer, Dxer, EJ or whatever name he's using next? He always goes for the deceptiv
76 WarRI1 : I guess if I cannot be Warden for a week down there, I will say that is solution, I could live with.
77 DXing : Agreed. Why can't liberals agree that there was more to the invasion than just that since in his State of the Union speech 2003 and in his address to
78 StuckInCA : So.... you're saying that's why we invaded Iraq? Interesting as even the Bush administration has stopped coming up with new excus... er uh... reasons
79 DocLightning : Do you know why we invaded Iraq? We invaded Iraq for a few reasons. 1) To get the oil and give it to Cheney and Bush's pals in the oil companies in T
80 DXing : Not in its entirety as you are insinuating. Because Iraq is settling down and victory is almost at hand. It's not even the top reason that people vot
81 Seb146 : All that time the United States was inforcing the No-Fly zones, but I guess that helped him produce WMDs. But, why not simply say "extremists" or "te
82 DXing : I don't think you understand what the no fly zones were instituted for. Again, how many Presbyterian, Mormon, Jewish, Roman Catholic "terrorists" are
83 MD11Engineer : First sort them out and seperate the truly dangerous ones from the innocent ones. From what I've heard, quite a few Gitmo prisoners were handed over
84 Charles79 : Jan, From what I can find that process has already taken place. The numbers I found (on Wiki so they might be off) are the following: - 775 detainees
85 Seb146 : Like the soldiers at Abu Graib (sp) that were told it was okay to humiliate their POWs? Like Department of Homeland Security that feels it is perfect
86 WarRI1 : Good post, from the hysteria we hear, one would think we locked up thousands, and the intelligence is always spotty in any conflict. I sure looks lik
87 WarRI1 : For you to equate one to the other is aburd. My, where do you guys get your self rightous attitude? To equate mass murder to the internment of the Ja
88 Charles79 : They will not be treated as POW's as they were not classified as such by the US (agree or not on that, that was the decision of the US and it's for a
89 StuckInCA : Thanks for the information. Over 54% of those detained have already been released without charges. Does that mean that we picked up mostly innocent f
90 WunalaYann : Indeed. Saddam Hussein gassed 500,000 Kurds. Twenty years ago. North Korea simply decided to starve its own population. And is still doing it now. Wh
91 DocLightning : "Victory"? My definition of "victory" is the installation of a stable democratic government that won't fall apart the instant we pull out. That means
92 Charles79 : I think it's a case like MD11Engineer said, a lot of detainees were handed over by people trying to settle scores or get rid of enemies. In the heat
93 DocLightning : Charles, let's lock you up for 2 years for no good reason and see how you like it. And not just lock up, but during that time you will be humiliated
94 DXing : And who were punished for that. Was Saddam ever going to be punished for the thousands he murdered? Source. Of which an apology and reperations have
95 Seb146 : He was tried in a war zone by a court that was set up by Americans. Are you kidding me? You forgot all about the debates on intercepting any communic
96 DXing : And of course that would have happened without the invasion. You must be kidding me or you are just plain ignoring the idea behind the wiretaps. Evid
97 Seb146 : So, the fact that telecoms are given immunity and no one has to show any records as to who and when they tap any communications is just fine? Maybe f
98 IAirAllie : I don't want them on American soil. Try them there if they must but keep them out of this country.
99 IADCA : This is correct, which is a part of why it would never happen. In order to actually win an application for asylum here, you functionally need to plea
100 Charles79 : I'm curious why would you say that? We already have facilities in here to contain serious criminals and I highly doubt that they'd be placed in a min
101 IAirAllie : They are fine where they are. No point in moving them. Moving them would only serve to their advantage.
102 DXing : They have been given immunity so as not to face civil suits for helping the government at the governments request. Congress can subpoena the records
103 WarRI1 : Without a doubt, a realistic outlook on the situation, such is life, not exactly fair, all we can do is our best.
104 AirCop : Reminds me of someone that got picked on in high school, but in the last few years I've discovered old what's his name this week, is a self proclaime
105 DXing : As usual a day late and a dollar short. Again: But you're getting better, only 29 posts late this time. Have a look at their careers. They didn't act
106 DocLightning : I agree. But it should have been a question of no more than a couple of months. If a guy tells you his name is David Hicks and that he's an Australia
107 AirCop : It's call failure of leadership..and one just needs to look through history, to know there is no difference, when it comes to being responsible for t
108 Aaron747 : What the hell is this shit? You'll bring up anything to make only the most inane of points. Again, the voice of reason strikes again. Hopefully we've
109 DXing : Which has been addressed. They did not tell their subordinates to do the things that they did, they only set up the atmosphere. In tha they are not l
110 AirCop : Right and you were there, so you know for sure.
111 DXing : As much as you were and know they did.
112 WILCO737 : Looks like this thread is getting out of control, will be locked now. WILCO737 (MD11F)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush On Iraq: "We Won't Have Any Casualties" posted Wed Oct 20 2004 15:17:30 by Falcon84
We Won't Rule Out Nuclear Weapons... posted Fri Feb 14 2003 11:39:46 by Manni
Why I Call Them Heroes. posted Wed Feb 5 2003 06:33:40 by Mirrodie
Looks Like We Won Afghanistan posted Sat Nov 24 2001 05:35:54 by Airplanenut
They Can Run & Hide, But It Won't Help Them... posted Sun Sep 16 2001 06:37:54 by The747Man
Celebs, Why Do We Love Them So Much? posted Fri Jul 27 2007 19:54:20 by JamesJimlb
Why We Call It "Football" posted Sun Sep 17 2006 02:01:49 by FlyDeltaJets87
Affectionate Words- How We Use Them posted Wed Aug 2 2006 10:12:57 by Jap
Iran: Yep, We Heard Them Right The First Time posted Fri Oct 28 2005 16:15:32 by Cfalk
Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is? posted Wed Mar 23 2005 17:24:07 by MaverickM11