Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:52 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 49):
Catch my drift now?

No.

Alluding to dying babies doesn't substitute for logical reasoning. Lose the emotional fluff.

What about a journalist, detained on faulty information?

I have NO sympathy for anyone that we know is a terrorist. I'm not confident that that is the case for everyone in Guantamo. Catch my drift?
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:58 am



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 47):
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 counter-productive.

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 in terrorists, or they do not, or maybe they are just terrorized, that seems to be the case in Iraq. I do not think the teachers of the young who get them to embrace radical ways give a dam one way or the other, they are already extremists, looking to convert more.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:13 am



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 50):


Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 49):
Catch my drift now?

No.

Alluding to dying babies doesn't substitute for logical reasoning. Lose the emotional fluff

Now that is an amazing immature statement, lose the emotional fluff, about children? I would suggest you try to use logical reasoning. With that ridiculous statement, I would only say, You can go to bed with the knowledge that your children are safe from these maniacs for now and only because of the efforts of these big bad soldiers of ours. I know we can trust them and their loyalty to our country. It is reasoning like yours that I fear. I am appalled. My is there something in the water in California?  thumbsdown   thumbsdown 
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:25 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 52):
Now that is an amazing immature statement

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 actual argument in favor of those acts but instead prattling on about dead babies is "emotional fluff" is immature? I don't think so.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 52):
I am appalled

Right back at you.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 52):
My is there something in the water in California?

I don't live in CA anymore.

If someone, somewhere in the middle east tipped off US intelligence that you were involved in terrorist activities and you were suddenly detained - - for 6 years, and tortured - - I'm guessing you'd change your tune.

Innocent until proven guilty? If they aren't caught "red handed", how can any other philosophy apply? You just go on someone's word? Someone who is providing "intelligence" and may not even be a US citizen?
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 18130
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:13 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 49):
So deserving of our concerns about their rights. Catch my drift now?

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 not? You believe in the concept of America as the shining city on the hill, do you not?? To maintain credibility on the values we espouse and to continue standing on the moral high ground, we must ALWAYS stand for what's right. Due process of law is one of those things. Treating people as fellow man, however they may have reduced themselves to garbage, is one of those things. We lose our values, and they will take note and take satisfaction from it. Catch my drift? We stand for the things that make America unique and great, whether we hate our enemy a lot or a little less than the next, now and forever. You defended the values and principles represented by the flag - don't let it go that easily.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:20 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 48):
I am only defending my country again.

Thanks for your service as well, and happy Veterans Day!  Big grin

I guess I took offense at your comments because when I argue for our country to pursue justice within the bounds of the law is only aimed to protect our country from further damage. These folks down in Guantanamo are animals, on that we can agree, but as Aaron747 just posted, we know better and must project to the world that we know better. If we lower ourselves to their level then we do a disservice to the flag, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and ourselves.

Don't worry if they close Guantanamo. I have faith in our military leaders who will be advising Obama, and I'm sure those detainees will never see the light of day again. However, by prosecuting them in an open and transparent way (without compromising classified information of course!) we can gain the trust of those regimes we need the most help from right now.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 54):
You defended the values and principles represented by the flag - don't let it go that easily.

As always you can be counted on for standing for the principles we founded the country on, thanks for your post!
 
RJdxer
Topic Author
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:38 pm



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28):
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 the outcome is, no coming back over it"

For better or worse that is not how our system operates.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28):
What about those who did not try to delay their trials? What about those who actively tried to come to court to plead their case? If these ones are proven innocent, what should we do?

Most of the pleadings were done in the name of all the detainees. What delays weren't caused by court action were caused by political dickering around.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 31):
And frankly, adding "...attend Mosques..." in there was completely unnecessary.

Yes, I forgot about all the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Jewish Synagogues that are flush with radical followers and flood the planet with suicide bombers.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
The end of the shame and embarrassment of Gitmo can't come soon enough.

It would probably already be over with if the democrats had worked with the administration instead of standing in the way. It will be interesting to see how the GOP is percieved when they stand in the way of any thing President Elect Obama wants to do.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 33):
the same way that you KNOW they're guilty....and you don't.

That's right but if the liberals had sat down and shut up we'd know by now.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 33):
Because activity continues whether Gitmo remains opened....or closed. It has changed absolutely NOTHING.

Hmmm..so your opinion is that left in the wild, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been happy growing poppies in Afghanistan and not presented a single problem for the western world?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
If they're INNOCENT then I suppose we don't have to worry about that, do we?

Even if they are innocent they don't belong here unless they immigrate properly.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
Answer: Not liberals.

Of course your right. President Bush stalled and used every delay tactic he could muster to hold up his own policy.

None of which answers the question. If the proposed "special" courts aren't tribunals with a different name, what are they?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24766
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:01 pm



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 10):
Oh, by the way; Hawaii tried a universal child health care system and guess what? It failed. After 7 months

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 it.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 10):
I would rather have the government focus on national security

National security has been a priority for decades. I am still trying to figure out how occupying a foreign land helps keep the United States safe. We are still waiting for proof that Saddam/Iraq were ever going to invade the United States.

Also, how is keeping the American people scared every day since Sept 11, 2001 the same as national security? All we have been hearing is how terrorists are going to terrorize and cause terror so we need to keep obscure people with absolutly any connection in any way, shape, or form to certain types of Islam "detained." The main benefactor of Sept 11, 2001 is still free and the mastermind (Bush II) of keeping the American people in fear does not even care.

What is wrong with treating these people that have been chaged with nothing as human beings? These people are SUSPECTED to have ties to terrorists. As the shining city on the hill, shouldn't we treat our POWs with the same respect as we treat everyone? That is: Innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't we show the attorneys that represent these suspected terrorists what the proof is instead of keeping all that information hidden? How is that fair? "You did it. We have what we think is proof, but you don't get to see it so you have no way to defend yourself." Does that sound fair or does that sound like a police state? I have been scared to do much travelling for fear of being on some watch list because I speak out against the Bush administration instead of conforming. I guess the voice of opposition should only be heard when Democrats are in power.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:06 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):

Wait wait wait...you say:

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):

Oregon has a type of universal health care and it is working just fine.

then followed right after:

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
The biggest problem is, to get on it, people can not work to be eligable for it.

Excuse me? First you say its working fine, but then the biggest problem is you cannot work to be eligible for it? That sounds like a pretty big problem to me.

So lets say I'm not working, but you are. You, in turn, since you're working, are going to cover my medical bills because I'm too lazy to work. Hey, if your happy doing that, OK, please feel free to take over my medical payments. I have no problem taking your money.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):

National security has been a priority for decades. I am still trying to figure out how occupying a foreign land helps keep the United States safe. We are still waiting for proof that Saddam/Iraq were ever going to invade the United States.

By your logic, we must criticize Lydon B. Johnson as well. Hey, Vietnam. Worthless war. But I don't see anyone harping on him about it. Yet the soldiers got blamed for it. Gee I wonder who was responsible for that mess for the sake of "national interest"? Also:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm

He had them. Where they went off to, who knows. Plus we gave him six months to smuggle them out of the country, which was a cluster f**k in its own right. Seriously, if you knew a invasion force was coming would you keep your weapons in the country?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
Also, how is keeping the American people scared every day since Sept 11, 2001 the same as national security? All we have been hearing is how terrorists are going to terrorize and cause terror so we need to keep obscure people with absolutly any connection in any way, shape, or form to certain types of Islam "detained." The main benefactor of Sept 11, 2001 is still free and the mastermind (Bush II) of keeping the American people in fear does not even care.

Please tell me the attacks on the various embassies and USS Cole, etc under Clinton's watch before 9/11. Hmmm...whats that? Oh you can't, because your blinded the news media who can't quite grasp that they're people who hate us for who we are.  Smile

You claim Bush is so stupid, an idiot, etc etc. Tell me, if he's such a moron, how in the hell could he mastermind Sept. 11? Seriously, a big idiot like that wouldn't be able to conjure up something that big right?

While we are on conspiracy theories, it was also Bill Clinton as the mastermind of the Oklahoma City bombing. *Big Grin* See how retarded that sounds?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
What is wrong with treating these people that have been chaged with nothing as human beings? These people are SUSPECTED to have ties to terrorists. As the shining city on the hill, shouldn't we treat our POWs with the same respect as we treat everyone? That is: Innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't we show the attorneys that represent these suspected terrorists what the proof is instead of keeping all that information hidden? How is that fair? "You did it. We have what we think is proof, but you don't get to see it so you have no way to defend yourself." Does that sound fair or does that sound like a police state? I have been scared to do much travelling for fear of being on some watch list because I speak out against the Bush administration instead of conforming. I guess the voice of opposition should only be heard when Democrats are in power.

Have you seen our judicial system? Seriously. Have you seen how corrupt it is? We let killers/rapist go on the loose because some lawyer or some jury has sympathy or lack of evidence against the accuser. Never mind the victims, oh no. They don't deserve justice.

But I ask you, when people riot over cartoons, causing destruction and so forth, how can you explain that one away?

I am curious, when bombs start going off, and god forbid if one of your family members is killed, will you still have this opinion? (I am not wishing this, so don't you dare put words in my mouth.)
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24766
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:00 am



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 58):
Have you seen our judicial system? Seriously. Have you seen how corrupt it is?

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 with a population of about 2000 and is treated like the spawn of Satan even though he never laid even one finger on anyone. I know how bad our justice system is.

However, do we, as a country, really need to have the rest of the world think we are even more corrupt by putting these alleged terrorists on trial without them seeing the evidence against them?

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 58):
are going to cover my medical bills because I'm too lazy to work.

Woah, woah, woah.... No one ever said people are lazy. But, once a person is on OHP, how are they supposed to pay for medications once they start working again? Health care at work does not, generally pay for pre-existing conditions. At least, they don't pay much. I have been out of work for almost two years. I could not go back to work because all of my paychecks would go towards medications and doctor visits. Since my take home pay is out of the OHP limit, I would lose that benefit. So, now, if I want to get paid, it has to be in cash. Sad.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 58):
we must criticize Lydon B. Johnson as well. Hey, Vietnam. Worthless war. But I don't see anyone harping on him about it. Yet the soldiers got blamed for it.

Yes, there was a time the soldiers did get blamed for it. Unfortunatly, I think some of them heard the blame so much, they actually believe it. I think the American people now understand that was wrong.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 58):
Oh you can't, because your blinded the news media who can't quite grasp that they're people who hate us for who we are.

How about this: They do not want to see foreign fighters on their soil. They do not want to see foreign fighters near their holy land. Our country talks about religous tolerance then hands out in a predominantly Muslim corner of the world.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 58):
if he's such a moron, how in the hell could he mastermind Sept. 11? Seriously, a big idiot like that wouldn't be able to conjure up something that big right

Huh? Did I ever say Bush masterminded Sept 11? He was enjoying reading "My Pet Goat" while 3000+ innocent people died. What sounds more credible to me is certain associates of his had their hand in it.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:25 am



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 53):


Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 52):
Now that is an amazing immature statement

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 actual argument in favor of those acts but instead prattling on about dead babies is "emotional fluff" is immature? I don't think so.

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 what is important. Happy Vets Day.
 
RJdxer
Topic Author
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:33 am



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
We are still waiting for proof that Saddam/Iraq were ever going to invade the United States.

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 he would crank up his WMD programs again and in doing so could help terrorists attack this country.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
Also, how is keeping the American people scared every day since Sept 11, 2001 the same as national security?

If you've been scared that's you. I've been vigilant, which is what has been asked of the nation by this President, nothing more.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
All we have been hearing is how terrorists are going to terrorize and cause terror

So you think they are finished with us?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
These people are SUSPECTED to have ties to terrorists. As the shining city on the hill, shouldn't we treat our POWs with the same respect as we treat everyone?

They are not POW's. Even if they were the would not be treated the same as "everyone". Even if President Obama chooses the illogical course of bringing them to prisons here on the mainland they still won't be treated like the other prisoners. If they were they would be fodder for the GP.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
I have been scared to do much travelling for fear of being on some watch list because I speak out against the Bush administration instead of conforming. I

I hear a Blackbird calling!
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:41 am



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 55):
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 justice within the bounds of the law is only aimed to protect our country from further damage. These folks down in Guantanamo are animals, on that we can agree, but as Aaron747 just posted, we know better and must project to the world that we know better. If we lower ourselves to their level then we do a disservice to the flag, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and ourselves.

Don't worry if they close Guantanamo. I have faith in our military leaders who will be advising Obama, and I'm sure those detainees will never see the light of day again. However, by prosecuting them in an open and transparent way (without compromising classified information of course!) we can gain the trust of those regimes we need the most help from right now.

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 start talking like we are the monsters for jailing and torturing them. They are not soldiers,they are not worthy of the name, they claim to be holy warriors, they kill the people of their own religion. They are the worst kind of Monster. Happy Vets Day.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:47 am



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 54):
You defended the values and principles represented by the flag - don't let it go that easily.

It is dammed hard, you are right of course on this one issue, but do not look for a pass on the next one.  Smile
 
BN747
Posts: 7940
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:52 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 56):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 33):
the same way that you KNOW they're guilty....and you don't.

That's right but if the liberals had sat down and shut up we'd know by now.

Yeah right! Exactly like how we know where OBL is right now...

..try again Champ, that didn't even land on the firing range...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 56):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 33):
Because activity continues whether Gitmo remains opened....or closed. It has changed absolutely NOTHING.

Hmmm..so your opinion is that left in the wild, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been happy growing poppies in Afghanistan and not presented a single problem for the western world?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , Shake shake Mohammed...what does the difference make? Terrorism isn't designed to be fought in conventional Military means. It is a war that starts in the mind..the sooner you combat it that way..the sooner you can end 'suicide bombers' and jihadists. I remember when we (the world) were to be horrified of those Terrorists - the PLO! Now that's been exchanged for Al Qaida and a slew other names no one can pronounce. After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , OBL and whoever...there will be a new bad guy, then another one with a new name...haven't you figured it out? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is just another guy, another name..who's already been replaced by a badder ass than he was, one badder than OBL....Gitmos won't do thing to deter OR stop them.


BN747
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:36 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 65):
How about we put him up your house for a few nights?

Thats worse than placing him in Gitmo...
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:35 am



Quote:
To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort.

John McCain

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 Rule of Law and Guantanamo. These "terrorists" should have been hauled into a Federal courtroom long ago. I strongly suspect many of them would be sitting on death row, or executed, right now if that had been the procedure. As it stands, I suspect we'll have to release most of them.

Next time, and there will be a next time, we need to do this right from the start. Put them on trial and let our system do its thing.

Some additional words from John McCain:

Quote:
I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength--that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

The Rule of Law.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:56 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61):
The charge was that he had failed to adhere to several UN resolutions, that left to his own devices he would crank up his WMD programs again and in doing so could help terrorists attack this country.

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 should keep looking, you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 58):

Have you seen our judicial system? Seriously. Have you seen how corrupt it is? We let killers/rapist go on the loose because some lawyer or some jury has sympathy or lack of evidence against the accuser. Never mind the victims, oh no. They don't deserve justice.

Well, gee! Let's just do away with it! Let's suspend habeas corpus! Let's make it so that an accusation is enough to get the death penalty! That'll keep us all safe!
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:18 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 62):
I get upset when people start talking like we are the monsters for jailing and torturing them. They are not soldiers,they are not worthy of the name, they claim to be holy warriors, they kill the people of their own religion. They are the worst kind of Monster.

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's right.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the next administration (with the counsel of the military and DoJ officials) will find a compromise where these dangerous men will be escorted to a cozy prison cell. It's a shame that our leaders got tangled up in a battle of wills that stalled the process of bringing justice to these criminals. We need to close this chapter, and locking them and throwing away the key seems like the right place to start.

It is frustrating to see this process being politicized by both parties, placing the blame on each other while both made grave errors of judgement and delayed the process. It's time we, the American public, demand more from our elected officials.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24766
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:18 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61):
The charge was that he had failed to adhere to several UN resolutions

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. Guess what? They found nothing.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61):
he would crank up his WMD programs again and in doing so could help terrorists attack this country.

Funny. Al-Qaida actually did not show up in Iraq until AFTER the invasion by US forces. Don't even use the argument of Islam being a factor. Christians and other minority groups are being persacuted whereas, under Saddam, they were not.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61):
If you've been scared that's you. I've been vigilant, which is what has been asked of the nation by this President, nothing more.

You say potato, I say potahto. It just looks to me like the Bush administration was much more willing to make one group of people the scapegoats in this country. Under Clinton, we were not told to fear Muslims. Under Bush, we ARE told to fear Muslims.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61):
They are not POW's. Even if they were the would not be treated the same as "everyone".

So, we are not at war? Even though, since 2001 we have had the terms "war on terror" and "war in Iraq" thrust upon us?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61):
I hear a Blackbird calling!

I actually need to stop right here and explain something.

Work here is slow. It is silly, but I thought about something in the "Fairness Doctrine" thread. I have a hard time clearly organizing my thoughts. They seem fluid to me, but when others read them, it looks like a mass of confusion. I know what I believe in. There are points I would and could say "that is a good point. Let me explain my view.." or "I never thought of it that way." I should do that more, but, sometimes, especially on an internet forum, that is seen as conceding.

About my above statement: Since you have commented on it, I wrote it wrong. What I should have written is: The reason I am afraid to book any flights is I could be on some terror watch list somewhere and would probably not find out about it until I check in. The fact that it took me so long to get my passport in the first place makes me think twice about booking any flights. That would be a huge waste of my money and time. I am not afraid of actually flying or being in a foreign land.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 64):
Gitmos won't do thing to deter OR stop them.

How about using their own thoughts against them? Isn't there a passage in the Koran about how devout Muslims should treat POWs well? How about if we take that passage, treat suspects well, quoting from the Koran, and, when they are released, they will remember that. Instead of ignoring their religous dietary needs, books, and observances. They would have to think twice about doing damage to a Muslim friendly country. How much bombing did Saddam have to endure from al-Qaida? How much terrorism do Egypt and Jordan go through from al-Qaida?
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:01 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 67):
No. GWB claimed he HAD them.



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 69):
Guess what? They found nothing.

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?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 67):
you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

What's that old line that starts with "it takes one"?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 69):
Funny. Al-Qaida actually did not show up in Iraq until AFTER the invasion by US forces

Which has nothing to do with Saddam helping terrorists to attack this country if left to his own devices.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 69):
Under Clinton, we were not told to fear Muslims. Under Bush, we ARE told to fear Muslims.

Please post the quote and link the source where President Bush said that we are to fear Muslims in general. He has consistently said exactly the opposite.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 69):
The fact that it took me so long to get my passport in the first place makes me think twice about booking any flights.

Everyone has faced delays in getting their passports due to the large increase in volume. I still hear a Black bird calling.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24766
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:47 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 70):
Everyone has faced delays in getting their passports due to the large increase in volume

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 makes me wonder.

Quoting DXing (Reply 70):
Which has nothing to do with Saddam helping terrorists to attack this country if left to his own devices.

Like all those attacks on the United States he helped out with since he camed to power.

Quoting DXing (Reply 70):
Please post the quote and link the source where President Bush said that we are to fear Muslims in general.

Read what I wrote again. I never said Bush himself said that. UNDER Bush, is the case. Extentions of the administration (FOX, Homeland Security) have wanted Americans to be afraid of Muslims. I lived next to a Muslim neighborhood for nearly 3 years. I delivered pizza to Muslims. Some apartment complexes have Orothodox Jews living next to Muslims. I was more fearful of delivering to the rich snobs on the hill. Those a-holes let their children run out of control. Damaging property means nothing to them unless it is their own, then, they sue. The Muslims and Jews, most anyone not living in the West Hills, actually, were very respectful.

Then, listening to reports from DHS and/or FOX, I heard reports with the words "Muslim extremists..." or "Muslim terrorists..." or "Muslims bombed..."
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:38 am



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 71):
Like all those attacks on the United States he helped out with since he camed to power.

He attempted to have President Bush 41 asassinated. Under sanctions he was unable to reconstitute his weapons. Had the sanctions been lifted do you really believe he would have just sat there?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 71):
UNDER Bush, is the case.

Again, please qoute where President Bush, or anyone in his administration said we needed to fear Muslims in general.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 71):
Muslim extremists..." or "Muslim terrorists..." or "Muslims bombed..."

Are there not Muslim extremists? Muslim terrorists? Have not Muslims bombed not only Jews and Americans but other Muslims as well? To believe your line then we have to go back to the Clinton administration when we were supposed to fear militia groups and right wing radio.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:09 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 57):
We are still waiting for proof that Saddam/Iraq were ever going to invade the United States.

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 he would crank up his WMD programs again and in doing so could help terrorists attack this country.

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 Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Then WHY are you the one relying on revisionist history when it comes to Iraq. That's an outright falsehood, and you know it.

Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Powell all said that Iraq HAD the WMD, and that they posed a clear and present danger to the United States. Go look it up. You're peddling an incredible falsehood here-almost as incredible as the falsehood that was peddled on the American people, thorugh fear, by the Bush Administration, to get us into this damned fool of a war.

Again, stop changing history to suit your prejudices. It isn't honest.
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:20 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 70):
Which has nothing to do with Saddam helping terrorists to attack this country if left to his own devices.

Virtually every country can decide overnight to sell weapons to terrorist groups. Actually, some states have been declared supporters of terrorism - Syria, Libya, Sudan, to name a few. Syria and Libya have also more than toyed with the idea of developing WMD over the years. Have we invaded them? No.

So why the double standards?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61):
the charge was that he had failed to adhere to several UN resolutions

By invading Iraq without a UN mandate we also failed to adhere to basic UN rules. Should we get invaded then? No.

This UN resolution charge is very easy coming from an administration that has done nothing to hide its (sometimes legitimate) contempt for the UN.

 Smile
 
BN747
Posts: 7940
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:42 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 73):
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 Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Then WHY are you the one relying on revisionist history when it comes to Iraq. That's an outright falsehood, and you know it.

Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Powell all said that Iraq HAD the WMD, and that they posed a clear and present danger to the United States. Go look it up. You're peddling an incredible falsehood here-almost as incredible as the falsehood that was peddled on the American people, thorugh fear, by the Bush Administration, to get us into this damned fool of a war.

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 deceptive, distorted angles on anything supportive of the right. Arguing/debating with him is absolutely useless. It's clear to me he's one of those 'gotta have the last word' types..at all cost. Why respond..?

His version of Iraq as expressed above..is proof he's just 'out there'.

BN747
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:51 am



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 68):
I'm cautiously optimistic that the next administration (with the counsel of the military and DoJ officials) will find a compromise where these dangerous men will be escorted to a cozy prison cell. It's a shame that our leaders got tangled up in a battle of wills that stalled the process of bringing justice to these criminals. We need to close this chapter, and locking them and throwing away the key seems like the right place to start.

I guess if I cannot be Warden for a week down there, I will say that is solution, I could live with.  Wink
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:19 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 73):
Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Powell all said that Iraq HAD the WMD, and that they posed a clear and present danger to the United States.

Agreed.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 73):
Again, stop changing history to suit your prejudices. It isn't honest.

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 the country just before commencement of hostilities in March 2003, both of which have had links posted here in this forum numerous times, the President detailed why we were going into Iraq. 1. Because Saddam Hussien continued to harbor WMD (false). 2. to dislodge Saddam Hussien as the leader of Iraq to free the Iraqi people from his oppression (true). 3. Because in this day age of almost instantaneous travel to wait until he had allowed terrorists groups, left undefined, to use that technology against us was a clear and present danger to our national security (true). All three reasons are documented but liberals can only wrap their heads around one. So Falcon, I'm not rewriting history, you are just conveniently forgetting large parts of it.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 74):
Virtually every country can decide overnight to sell weapons to terrorist groups.

True, and many do. Which countries have decided to not only build and maintain a stockpile of chemical weapons but have also used them against their own citizens? Wouldn't you agree that if a leader is willing to use those weapons against his own citizens that the threat level that he would use them against another country is substantially higher?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 74):
Syria and Libya have also more than toyed with the idea of developing WMD over the years. Have we invaded them? No.

Nope, no need to, Libya turned theirs over and Syria has not shown that they have the capability to mass produce them.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 74):
This UN resolution charge is very easy coming from an administration that has done nothing to hide its (sometimes legitimate) contempt for the UN.

Thank goodness for that. What started out as a good thing has become so corrupt over the decades I wonder what good it is at all in the political world. I would agree that as a humanitarian agency it is decent and well meaning.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 75):
I'm just curious...why do you guys keep playing 'tit-for-tat' with RXJxer, Dxer, EJ or whatever name he's using next?

Well that didn't take long. Even though this time I actually started a thread detailing the upcoming user name change and why, and my profile clearly states my former user names, someone decides to try and use that change as a club. Well good luck with that.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:19 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 72):
He attempted to have President Bush 41 asassinated.

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. But you haven't.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:08 pm



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 78):

So.... you're saying that's why we invaded Iraq?

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 Texas, which, in turn would kick back to them. But when it became obvious that 9/11 wasn't going to stop people from seeing through that plot, they decided to...

2) Hire Cheney and Bush's pals at Blackwater and other merc and security firms with the resulting kickback.

You read about cost-plus? If you call yourself a Conservative, that should ENRAGE you.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:29 pm



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 78):
So.... you're saying that's why we invaded Iraq?

Not in its entirety as you are insinuating.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 78):
Interesting as even the Bush administration has stopped coming up with new excus... er uh... reasons. But you haven't.

Because Iraq is settling down and victory is almost at hand. It's not even the top reason that people voted for President Elect Obama and he spent a large part of his primary season running on ending that war. By the time of the general election how often did he mention it? During the supposed "foreign policy" debate what came up more the economy or Iraq?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24766
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:39 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 72):
Under sanctions he was unable to reconstitute his weapons. Had the sanctions been lifted do you really believe he would have just sat there?

All that time the United States was inforcing the No-Fly zones, but I guess that helped him produce WMDs.

Quoting DXing (Reply 72):
Are there not Muslim extremists? Muslim terrorists?

But, why not simply say "extremists" or "terrorists?" That plants the seed in the minds of people that terrorsim/extremism=Muslim. It's like when radio hosts say "Evangelical Christians." It sounds like all Christians are evangelical.

Quoting DXing (Reply 77):
2. to dislodge Saddam Hussien as the leader of Iraq to free the Iraqi people from his oppression (true)

Granted, "vote for me or be murdered" is wrong. But, before the invasion, Iraqis had health care, education, freedom of religion, food, clean water, and electricity. As much as Kurds, Shia, Sunni, and Christians hated each other within the country, they actually found ways to get along enough to have a country.

Quoting DXing (Reply 77):
3. Because in this day age of almost instantaneous travel to wait until he had allowed terrorists groups, left undefined, to use that technology against us was a clear and present danger to our national security (true)

What exactly does that mean? I seem to remember when a group of Quakers in Florida was listed as a terrorist group. Since China, India, France, England, Australia have the thechnology that presents a clear and present danger (they can produce and use WMDs and bombs) why not take them out as well? They are a clear and present danger to our national security. But, since they don't have oil or any resources that can be plundered, they do not present a clear and present danger, I guess.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:28 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 81):
No-Fly zones

I don't think you understand what the no fly zones were instituted for.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 81):
But, why not simply say "extremists" or "terrorists?"

Again, how many Presbyterian, Mormon, Jewish, Roman Catholic "terrorists" are there as compared to Muslim? And if they are Muslim then how is calling them that, especially if their religion is the driving force behind their actions, wrong?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 81):
It's like when radio hosts say "Evangelical Christians." It sounds like all Christians are evangelical.

The radio host would assume you have the brains to differentiate between evangelical and ordinary Christians...oops forgot, you're one of those that thinks the people in the middle of the country are all bumpkins who don't know anything.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 81):
, before the invasion, Iraqis had health care, education, freedom of religion, food, clean water, and electricity.

Rape rooms, mass murder, secret police, threat of genocide.......

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 81):
As much as Kurds, Shia, Sunni, and Christians hated each other within the country, they actually found ways to get along enough to have a country.

Except when Saddam was raining chemical weapons down on you and wiping out whole towns. I really will never understand this "Saddam was an OK guy" line of reasoning. Using it then Hitler was and OK guy. He built the Autobahn, got people back to work, they had health care, just because a few million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and religious people were paying the price....

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 81):
why not take them out as well?



Quoting DXing (Reply 77):
Which countries have decided to not only build and maintain a stockpile of chemical weapons but have also used them against their own citizens?

 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:26 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 76):
Quoting Charles79 (Reply 68):
I'm cautiously optimistic that the next administration (with the counsel of the military and DoJ officials) will find a compromise where these dangerous men will be escorted to a cozy prison cell. It's a shame that our leaders got tangled up in a battle of wills that stalled the process of bringing justice to these criminals. We need to close this chapter, and locking them and throwing away the key seems like the right place to start.

I guess if I cannot be Warden for a week down there, I will say that is solution, I could live with. Wink

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 to the US troops by members of the Northerrn Alliance and accused of being terrorists or Taliban to settle old scores.

Jan
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:58 pm



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 83):
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 to the US troops by members of the Northerrn Alliance and accused of being terrorists or Taliban to settle old scores.

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 have been taken to Gitmo since Oct 2001
- 421 have been released; only one of these was charged (David Hicks from Australia)
- As of May 2008 approximately 270 remain; of these, about 50 are free to go but their home countries won't accept them, and of the other 220 the US has concrete plans for a trial for only 60-80 (with the rest potentially being freed).

Which means that even though we did pick up some innocent folks the intelligence agencies have tried to release them as quickly as possible. I'm assuming that the US government feels it has enough evidence to condemn those who will stand trial so that they won't see the light of day again.

And btw, as of June 2008 the US officially classified them as "enemy combatants".
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24766
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:24 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 82):
Rape rooms, mass murder, secret police, threat of genocide.......

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 perfectly acceptable to intercept any conversation it wants? Like the internment of Americans of Japanese/Asian decent during WWII?

Quoting DXing (Reply 82):
I really will never understand this "Saddam was an OK guy" line of reasoning.

Well, let's think about this: How many death camps were there in Iraq? Yes, he had prisons set up for opposition leaders. But, freedom of religion was guaranteed under his constitution. Anyone could access health care. Anyone could access education. There was hell to pay if you opposed him, but I would argue that, as bad as he was (perhaps you missed when I said it before) he was not as bad as Hitler.

Quoting DXing (Reply 82):
you're one of those that thinks the people in the middle of the country are all bumpkins who don't know anything.

No. I never said that. What I did imply is they are not willing to listed to any view other than the ones they are fed by right wing radio.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 84):
And btw, as of June 2008 the US officially classified them as "enemy combatants".

Does this mean they will be treated like POWs per the Geneva Convention? Or will they still be treated the same until Obama takes over?
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:24 pm



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 84):
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 have been taken to Gitmo since Oct 2001
- 421 have been released; only one of these was charged (David Hicks from Australia)
- As of May 2008 approximately 270 remain; of these, about 50 are free to go but their home countries won't accept them, and of the other 220 the US has concrete plans for a trial for only 60-80 (with the rest potentially being freed).

Which means that even though we did pick up some innocent folks the intelligence agencies have tried to release them as quickly as possible. I'm assuming that the US government feels it has enough evidence to condemn those who will stand trial so that they won't see the light of day again.

And btw, as of June 2008 the US officially classified them as "enemy combatants".

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 like the ones held, are not exactly Boy Scouts. The 50 still held that are not wanted back in their home countries? I wonder why that is?
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:45 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
Quoting DXing (Reply 82):
Rape rooms, mass murder, secret police, threat of genocide.......

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 perfectly acceptable to intercept any conversation it wants? Like the internment of Americans of Japanese/Asian decent during WWII?

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 Japanese during a world war. Were they raped tortured , murdered? Was it right ? no. But a lot better than murder, rape and torture.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:37 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
Does this mean they will be treated like POWs per the Geneva Convention?

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 another topic). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they should be treated according to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, though, which allows them only the most basic protections (i.e., shelter, food, and access to medicine). These protections exist even if the prisoners are not classified as POW's.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
Or will they still be treated the same until Obama takes over?

I honestly don't see the Obama administration treating them any different. He promised to close down Guantanamo and move to trials but did not promise to treat them any other way.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 86):
The 50 still held that are not wanted back in their home countries? I wonder why that is?

I couldn't find any info but I'd venture that either they got criminal records back home and their countries are just happy to see them gone or they face extradition to a third country and are caught in the middle of a legal ramble.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:25 am



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 84):
- 775 detainees have been taken to Gitmo since Oct 2001
- 421 have been released; only one of these was charged (David Hicks from Australia)
- As of May 2008 approximately 270 remain; of these, about 50 are free to go but their home countries won't accept them, and of the other 220 the US has concrete plans for a trial for only 60-80 (with the rest potentially being freed).

Thanks for the information.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 84):
Which means that even though we did pick up some innocent folks

Over 54% of those detained have already been released without charges. Does that mean that we picked up mostly innocent folks?

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 84):
the intelligence agencies have tried to release them as quickly as possible

That many have been released 8 years later may not mean that they were released "as quickly as possible." I'd like to think that's the case, but I'm not going to assume it.
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:11 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 77):
Which countries have decided to not only build and maintain a stockpile of chemical weapons but have also used them against their own citizens?

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. When do we invade them?

Quoting DXing (Reply 77):
Wouldn't you agree that if a leader is willing to use those weapons against his own citizens that the threat level that he would use them against another country is substantially higher?

No, I would not agree. Considering said country would risk complete annihilation, I think all countries would simply refrain from using such weapons against any other country that has the implicit or explicit backing of the US. The proof is that, well, when was the last time we had a war when WMDs were used?

 Smile

It's simply deterrence.

Quoting DXing (Reply 77):
Libya turned theirs over

And yet they had no problem bombing two civilian aircraft, killing more than 500 people in the process. We did not invade them.

Quoting DXing (Reply 77):
Syria has not shown that they have the capability to mass produce them.

And yet they have played terrorist factory in the Middle East for 40 years. We did not invade them.

Quoting DXing (Reply 77):
Thank goodness for that. What started out as a good thing has become so corrupt over the decades I wonder what good it is at all in the political world.

Therefore why crank out resolutions that you yourself do not support, and then launch military action based on the same resolutions you do not support, without a resolution that you would not support anyway?  Smile

Make no mistake. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, bloody and corrupt dictator and yes, the world is a better place without him.

I question two things, though:

1) Why Iraq and not one of the countries listed above that have actually supported terrorism and have had more than shady WMD dealings? As I pointed out in another thread, of the 18 9/11 terrorists, 15 were Saudis. None were Iraqis. What is the justification for that?

2) At what human, financial and political cost did we get rid of Saddam Hussein?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:03 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 80):

Because Iraq is settling down and victory is almost at hand.

"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 a stable, self-sufficient economy, reliable infrastructure, a populace with a somewhat unified vision, and a cessation of hatred between Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds.

A decrease in the amount of violence simply means that we wore them out and exhausted their supplies. It means that, in order to maintain the peace, we will have to pour in AT LEAST $50Bn a year. Can we afford that? Can YOU afford that? Can our kids afford that? Where is the money coming from?

DXer, I thought you were a conservative. But I've come to realize that you are no such thing. You're just an idealogue. Facts to you are inconveniences, not guideposts.

Tell me, who will surrender to us so that we can declare "victory"?

No, really. Tell me.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:22 pm



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 89):
Does that mean that we picked up mostly innocent folks?

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 of the battle some may have been taken for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now there could be some cases where detainees were set free not because they are innocent but because of lack of evidence, but I hope those are only a few if any at all.

Obviously this is not what the US stands for (locking up innocent people) and I hope that some form of reparation was provided to those who were wrongly imprisoned.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 89):

That many have been released 8 years later may not mean that they were released "as quickly as possible."

I'm giving the administration the benefit of the doubt in this one. Certainly 8 years after the fact is not quick, but most news reports acknowledge that truly innocent folks were returned within the first year or two.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:39 pm



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 92):

I'm giving the administration the benefit of the doubt in this one. Certainly 8 years after the fact is not quick, but most news reports acknowledge that truly innocent folks were returned within the first year or two.

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 and beaten on a regular basis.

Just because your name is Charles.

It should have been a matter of weeks, not years.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:02 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
Like the soldiers at Abu Graib (sp) that were told it was okay to humiliate their POWs?

And who were punished for that. Was Saddam ever going to be punished for the thousands he murdered?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
Like Department of Homeland Security that feels it is perfectly acceptable to intercept any conversation it wants?

Source.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
Like the internment of Americans of Japanese/Asian decent during WWII?

Of which an apology and reperations have been paid. Was Saddam going to apologize and pay the survivors of his torture, murder, and rape?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
There was hell to pay if you opposed him, but I would argue that, as bad as he was (perhaps you missed when I said it before) he was not as bad as Hitler.

Debate finished. Tell me, for the sake of my own amusement, at what body count does he become as bad as Hitler.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
Saddam Hussein gassed 500,000 Kurds. Twenty years ago.

As well as Irainian troops during the war.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
North Korea simply decided to starve its own population. And is still doing it now. When do we invade them?

We have starving people in this country if you believe the left. Should we invade ourselves?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
Considering said country would risk complete annihilation

A country with mentally stable leaders. Would that include Saddam and his sons? I don't think so since they did risk annilation and were.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
And yet they had no problem bombing two civilian aircraft, killing more than 500 people in the process. We did not invade them.

And yet, although no one knew of the programs, once we invaded Iraq they turned over everything. What does that tell you?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
And yet they have played terrorist factory in the Middle East for 40 years. We did not invade them.

Not with WMD's and that would be the tipping point.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
Therefore why crank out resolutions that you yourself do not support

I assume you are talking about the people in this country indicted for dealing with Saddam. Those were individuals, not national policy.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
1) Why Iraq and not one of the countries listed above that have actually supported terrorism and have had more than shady WMD dealings? As I pointed out in another thread, of the 18 9/11 terrorists, 15 were Saudis. None were Iraqis. What is the justification for that?

As stated Saddam had shown his willingness to actually use WMD's not one other nation you listed has. That the 9/11 hijackers wer Saudi's means one thing, they were from Saudi Arabia and no more. Timothy McVeigh was from Pendleton, New York. By comparison he and Terry Nichols actually killed more people per person than the 9/11 hijackers. Does this mean we should invade Pendleton and wipe all the citizens out? Unless a person is representing their countries leaders where they're from has little to do with their actions.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
2) At what human, financial and political cost did we get rid of Saddam Hussein?

Given the mayhem he was capable of producing, IMO it was worth the cost and long overdue.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 91):
My definition of "victory" is the installation of a stable democratic government that won't fall apart the instant we pull out. That means a stable, self-sufficient economy, reliable infrastructure, a populace with a somewhat unified vision, and a cessation of hatred between Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds.

Then our country is in defeat and has been for decades because 3 and possibly 4 out of the 5 things you identify in summation don't exist in this country.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 91):
DXer, I thought you were a conservative. But I've come to realize that you are no such thing. You're just an idealogue. Facts to you are inconveniences, not guideposts.

Yep, whatever. I'll remember that when you start bad mouthing any GOP member that has the audacity to stand up to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 91):
Tell me, who will surrender to us so that we can declare "victory"?

No one since we are not fighting a country. The citizens of Iraq will declare victory when they realize they have the power to control their future, not some religious idealogue toting an AK-47. Don't see much reporting on Iraq any more, ever wonder why that is? Maybe because the mainstream media doesn't like to report boring? Boring day to day life in Iraq is victory.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24766
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:53 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 94):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
Like the soldiers at Abu Graib (sp) that were told it was okay to humiliate their POWs?

And who were punished for that. Was Saddam ever going to be punished for the thousands he murdered?

He was tried in a war zone by a court that was set up by Americans.

Quoting DXing (Reply 94):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
Like Department of Homeland Security that feels it is perfectly acceptable to intercept any conversation it wants?

Source.

Are you kidding me? You forgot all about the debates on intercepting any communications because they may contain messeges to terrorists? Remember how the telecoms got immunity from procecution?

Quoting DXing (Reply 94):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 85):
There was hell to pay if you opposed him, but I would argue that, as bad as he was (perhaps you missed when I said it before) he was not as bad as Hitler.

Debate finished. Tell me, for the sake of my own amusement, at what body count does he become as bad as Hitler.

Thanks for telling me the debate is finished. I guess my view does not matter. Typical consrvative.

Quoting DXing (Reply 94):
Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
North Korea simply decided to starve its own population. And is still doing it now. When do we invade them?

We have starving people in this country if you believe the left. Should we invade ourselves?

You obviously live in a small town far far away from any city. We have the power to feed our own but choose not to. The government, over the past 5 years, has made war and foreign countries a priority. We have met the enemy and they are us, so to speak.

Quoting DXing (Reply 94):
Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
And yet they had no problem bombing two civilian aircraft, killing more than 500 people in the process. We did not invade them.

And yet, although no one knew of the programs, once we invaded Iraq they turned over everything. What does that tell you?

Our government (mainly Republicans) sees what it wants to see is what it tells me.

Quoting DXing (Reply 94):
Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 90):
Therefore why crank out resolutions that you yourself do not support

I assume you are talking about the people in this country indicted for dealing with Saddam. Those were individuals, not national policy.

Oh, yes. I remember GHW Bush and Don Rumsfeld being indicted for dealing with Saddam. But, oh, wait.... that was national policy...
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:42 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 95):
He was tried in a war zone by a court that was set up by Americans.

And of course that would have happened without the invasion.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 95):
Are you kidding me?

You must be kidding me or you are just plain ignoring the idea behind the wiretaps.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 95):
You forgot all about the debates on intercepting any communications because they may contain messeges to terrorists?

Evidently you decided to ignore the parts about international communications. The government could care less about what topping you get on your pizza.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 95):
guess my view does not matter.

No, it doesn't if you are going to present an irrational argument.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 95):
We have the power to feed our own but choose not to.

North Korea has the power to feed its own. All it has to do is agree to dismantle its nuclear programs and they've been promised all the aid they need.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 95):
Our government (mainly Republicans) sees what it wants to see is what it tells me.

Non answer. BTW since 2006 that would be mainly Democrats.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 95):
Oh, yes. I remember GHW Bush and Don Rumsfeld being indicted for dealing with Saddam.

Perhaps if you stopped listening to liberal radio and actually did some reading you would find that two individuals right here in Houston were convicted of dealing with Saddam Hussien in regards to oil. But I understand that as a liberal you have to get the bash in or risk losing your credibility as one.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24766
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:58 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 96):
Evidently you decided to ignore the parts about international communications. The government could care less about what topping you get on your pizza.

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 for you, but I want my government spending time and money on important things like helping it's citizens work.

Quoting DXing (Reply 96):
And of course that would have happened without the invasion.

Yes, but not in the chaos of war. A trial would have happened in a place and time where cooler heads would prevail.

Quoting DXing (Reply 96):
North Korea has the power to feed its own. All it has to do is agree to dismantle its nuclear programs and they've been promised all the aid they need.

So, NK has the power to feed its own with the help of the world. So, it really does not have the power to feed it's own. Which is it?

Quoting DXing (Reply 96):
Non answer. BTW since 2006 that would be mainly Democrats.

So, everything that happened before 2006 does not matter. Got it...

Quoting DXing (Reply 96):
Perhaps if you stopped listening to liberal radio and actually did some reading you would find that two individuals right here in Houston were convicted of dealing with Saddam Hussien in regards to oil.

Oh, well then, that completely exonerates a former president and former high-profile secretary. Let's just ignore what we see because two people down the pile were convicted. BTW, what do you know about Prescott Bush (yes, that Bush) giving money and services to Hitler? Probably none. He was a great American, after all, right?
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:51 pm

I don't want them on American soil. Try them there if they must but keep them out of this country.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: Well We Won't Call Them Tribunals......

Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:04 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 13):
It just gives them a head start is all.

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 plead far beyond the statute. While what the statute asks for is subjective fear based on one of a few factors that is objectively reasonable. First issue is that none of the factors will fit these guys. Secondly, I doubt any of them would have objectively reasonable fear for their safety/persecution upon their returns. Third, the asylum statute has seven particular exceptions which serve as per se bars to any asylum grant, at least three of which probably apply in this circumstance. Fourth, there's a pretty serious standing issue. Basically, there's barely a snowball's chance in hell any of these guys would get asylum. Someone might try it, but I highly doubt it would work.

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

It's the rules of evidence and transparency (particularly the intersection of the two) that were the problem. There's no issue with military attorneys. They're good folks and competent lawyers. A good number of the ones dealing with Guantanamo were reservists who were very well-respected civilian lawyers. Furthermore, they did a hell of a lot of complaining about the process.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
Perhaps a hybrid court could be a branch of a Federal District Court (Northern District of Virginia)

No such district. It would be the Eastern, the famed "Rocket Docket." I doubt that's where the Obama admin would want to put them, because the appeals would go through the Fourth Circuit. Considering that when you make up a new court system, you can essentially do the jurisdiction and venue rules however you'd like. My bet is it would be something akin to the bankruptcy courts; same jurisidictional lines, different courts. In that case they'll make it parallel to the DDC, so that appeals go to the DC Circuit.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
The defense attorneys may have to be Military lawyers to protect military and national security.

That's tremendously unlikely. For one, the civil litigation was almost all handled by civilian attorneys, so the facts are already out there; they're still covered by all the usual evidentiary privileges. I believe even the last attempt at the military tribunals allowed civilian attorneys, as well.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
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.

They were charged with "conspiracy to commit offenses triable by military commission," which of course is no crime at all since the abolition of the federal common law. It's an interesting turnabout in that under pure common law, the "activist judges" (evil, evil) could have created a charge to fit the evils sought to be prosecuted, and all would have been taken care of. For better or for worse, we moved away from that system gradually over the first 200 years of our history, leaving us a great gap in the law here which we don't allow judges to fix anymore. Those evil, evil judges.

What I will say about the current administration is that they genuinely did try to fix things in light of the legal developments they faced. They just weren't confident enough in their charges to go as far as they should have. Even the last version of the military commissions were almost farcical in the rules of evidence, lack of confrontation rights, etc. It was truly unbecoming of the American justice system. Obviously, I don't support letting terrorists onto the streets of anywhere, and it's not like we should have just let them be in order to gain more evidence against them, but these are the same problems/issues we face in domestic criminal law every day as well. The system of solutions that we have now has been developed over hundreds of years of careful thought, and I don't think there's really a better alternative.

BTW, thanks for starting this thread, DX. At least the beginning part of it was tremendously interesting.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: flyguy89, Snuffaluffagus and 21 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos