Topic: Holding a new administration to their promises (Read 16045 times)

pbsaurus · « **Reply #50 on:** February 25, 2009, 07:00:32 PM »

Quote from: ivan on February 25, 2009, 06:29:38 PM

fucking commie

That needs a fucking comma:

fucking, commie

ivan · « **Reply #51 on:** February 25, 2009, 07:09:48 PM »

That makes perfect, sense.

12AX7 · « **Reply #52 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:52:02 AM »

Quote from: ivan on February 25, 2009, 06:29:38 PM

fucking commie

Coming from you, that's not really an insult, is it?

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #53 on:** February 26, 2009, 10:19:58 AM »

Guantanamo should be closed because next time it could be you or I labeled as an enemy of the state, thrown into some forgotten hole, and have no recourse. I don't think closing the prison equals turning them loose, although if you can't give them a fair trial, they should be!

12AX7 · « **Reply #54 on:** February 26, 2009, 10:31:49 AM »

Why should they be given a trial in the first place? These aren't people 'busted' by the police. These are enemy prisoners of war. You hold them until the conflict is over. How did people get so lame about that? They aren't any more "criminals" than any German or Japanese soldier was in WWII; or VietCong in Vietnam. How many "trials" do you think we conducted on EPW's then or in ANY other conflict (the soldiers; not the commanders. It's normally the people who ordered actions that are charged with war crimes)? So why are these guys so special? What makes these ruthless fighting men any more deserving of a trial?

12AX7 · « **Reply #55 on:** February 26, 2009, 10:34:23 AM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on February 26, 2009, 10:19:58 AM

next time it could be you or I labeled as an enemy of the state, thrown into some forgotten hole, and have no recourse.

Dude, that could happen anywhere, anytime, taken to any prison; Gitmo, Rikers Island, San Quentin, and on and on. Closing one aint gonna make any difference with that argument.

ivan · « **Reply #56 on:** February 26, 2009, 10:49:40 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on February 26, 2009, 02:52:02 AM

Coming from you, that's not really an insult, is it?

Exactly.

And your argument in re: Gitmo is a good one. If Gitmo is neccessary, then our energies should be devoted to ending the conflict that neccessitates measures like that. The evils of war are no less evil for being neccessary.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #57 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:00:52 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on February 26, 2009, 10:31:49 AM

Why should they be given a trial in the first place?

Quote

because next time it could be you or I labeled as an enemy of the state, thrown into some forgotten hole, and have no recourse.

You will want a trial when it's you in there.

Your analogy is, if not outright false, misleading. Japanese, German, etc. were uniformed soldiers of an enemy nation with which we were at war. That is easy to define. Wars on abstract concepts such as terrorism, "drugs", etc. are open ended and enemies in those wars can pretty much be defined however the government chooses to define them at any given time, and there is no end. Are you comfortable with the idea that you could be mistakenly defined as such, arrested, imprisoned, and held without charge until the end of the war on terrorism?

12AX7 · « **Reply #58 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:03:06 AM »

Quote from: ivan on February 26, 2009, 10:49:40 AM

Exactly.

And your argument in re: Gitmo is a good one. If Gitmo is neccessary, then our energies should be devoted to ending the conflict that neccessitates measures like that. The evils of war are no less evil for being neccessary.

Well, thank you.
I agree; I think this conflict should have ... wait. Our conflict with Al Queda and other radicals should have been coming to a close by now. Actually a while back.
As for Iraq . . . I'm torn there. I really think he (Bush) seriously thought there were WMDs still stockpiled there. Hell, I believe there are still some as of yet undiscovered. That he had them at one point is not in question; and I seriously doubt he actually destroyed what he had left. In that light, going into Iraq was a smart, bold move. I would have done the same. In retrospect, however, I think everyone agrees that it wasn't the best thing to have done. The real damage from that move has been in Afghanistan. Currently, I believe it's tallied that we're losing; and that stings since we had that one in the bag; and that was the original direction of our military effort with cause.
At any rate; in both places we shoulda been close to gone by now. Long gone.

12AX7 · « **Reply #59 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:13:08 AM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on February 26, 2009, 11:00:52 AM

You will want a trial when it's you in there.

Your analogy is, if not outright false, misleading. Japanese, German, etc. were uniformed soldiers of an enemy nation with which we were at war. That is easy to define. Wars on abstract concepts such as terrorism, "drugs", etc. are open ended and enemies in those wars can pretty much be defined however the government chooses to define them at any given time, and there is no end. Are you comfortable with the idea that you could be mistakenly defined as such, arrested, imprisoned, and held without charge until the end of the war on terrorism?

You know what happens, though, right, Joe?
Has no one noticed that once our soldiers have seen these detainees at their plush resort with the entire world in rapt attention to their every word and catering to their every whim that we didn't hear of any more "detainees" being brought in?
And the next news story you hear is one of our soldiers charged with murder because his bullet impacted at the end of the firefight.

12AX7 · « **Reply #60 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:17:49 AM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on February 26, 2009, 11:00:52 AM

are open ended and enemies in those wars can pretty much be defined however the government chooses to define them at any given time, and there is no end.

You haven't noticed all the outcry about these very details? Apparently our government CAN'T just define things however and there is no end, etc. Our government (even more so than any other on the fricken PLANET) is checked, and checked, and checked again, and watched, and checked, and watched, and reprimanded, and checked, and watched...
To say they can do whatever they want is what's misleading, if not outright false.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #61 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:18:52 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on February 26, 2009, 11:13:08 AM

You know what happens, though, right, Joe?
Has no one noticed that once our soldiers have seen these detainees at their plush resort with the entire world in rapt attention to their every word and catering to their every whim that we didn't hear of any more "detainees" being brought in?
And the next news story you hear is one of our soldiers charged with murder because his bullet impacted at the end of the firefight.

Sorry man, I don't know what you're talking about, or how it relates to people in prison having the right to a trial.

12AX7 · « **Reply #62 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:22:33 AM »

People? Or Combatants? There's a difference; and if you can't acknowledge that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #63 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:25:07 AM »

Hypothetically, yourself accused of being a combatant. If you choose to define yourself as a non-person under that scenario, so be it.

12AX7 · « **Reply #64 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:33:53 AM »

Huh?

Are you still wanting me to answer the 'if it was me" question? Ok. If it was me, I would hold no hope of whoever had captured me that they will ever do anything nice to/for me except to try and get me to sign something or make a statement; both of which I would refuse to do, and would probably be subsequently beaten. If my captors brought me out of my cell and I saw several of them all gussied up for combat and a video camera nearby; you can beat your sweet ass my demise will come rather quick and off-camera; cos I be bout to go off medieval on em.

So, no, Joe. I don't expect any fair treatment from any captor I can think of. I could only HOPE it would be the US, though, as -compared to the entire rest of the world- we treat our prisoners like fucking kings; both "people" charged with crimes AND combatants.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #65 on:** February 26, 2009, 12:04:07 PM »

We are talking about the US specifically, yes. You would expect a trial for yourself, why would you deny it to someone else?

12AX7 · « **Reply #66 on:** February 26, 2009, 12:09:52 PM »

As I just said; no, I wouldn't. Not if I was a combatant in a war. I would expect to be held until the end of the conflict or until someone negotiates my release, *****. If I have no one to do that; then I would expect to sit in detainment until the war is over.
Now if I were arrested for a specific crime; then yes. I would expect a trial. These guys haven't been arrested for a specific crime; they are battlefield prisoners of war.

edit***- or until I escape.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #67 on:** February 26, 2009, 12:28:36 PM »

That's not what I'm saying. You are not a combatant in a war, as far as you know. Maybe you are an American, maybe not, but some faceless government agency has misidentified you as a "terrorist". You are OK with sitting in prison until the war is over?
You don't strike me as someone who is particularly trusting of the government, so why would you want them to have that type of power?

12AX7 · « **Reply #68 on:** February 26, 2009, 12:44:22 PM »

If I am not on a battlefield, then what crime, exactly, am I being charged with?
You keep wigglewagging the question to get me to say "Yes, I would want a trial". I already said if I was arrested - for anything - by the US, then I would expect a trial. That is what we do when we arrest someone, a.k.a a "criminal". Even terror suspects having been arrested fit this category. The detainees at Gitmo do not. They are battlefield combatants who were captured by our soldiers.
When our soldiers, engaged in a war, capture someone on a battlefield, a.k.a. enemy combatant, we detain them until the conflict is over or until someone negotiates their release.
I honestly don't understand what else you're getting at.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #69 on:** February 26, 2009, 03:31:31 PM »

I'm saying that a powerful central government that has the ability to take away an individual's liberty needs checks on that power. One of the checks is a public trial. Right now, the only way you know that someone was snatched from a battlefield is because some other person said so. You're also saying that no one is in prison who was taken out of their home, accused of planning attacks, coordinating, "being a member", etc, which any reasonable person would agree was not true.

Maybe in the future it is considered a terroristic act to speak out against government policies, or something equally apalling.

Vespertine · « **Reply #70 on:** February 26, 2009, 05:26:47 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on February 26, 2009, 12:44:22 PM

<snip
When our soldiers, engaged in a war, capture someone on a battlefield, a.k.a. enemy combatant, we detain them until the conflict is over or until someone negotiates their release.
<snip>

For me, this is part of the problem...many detainees were not captured "on the battlefield". For battlefield detainees, quite clearly the Geneva Conventions apply. This has always been the legal loophole that the government used to justify their torture; that these people were not battlefield detainees (i.e. prisoners of war) and as such, the Geneva Conventions do not apply. Holding them as unlawful combatants was the justification for the suspension of habeus corpus, and the justification for torturing them. Quite specifically, if the Geneva Conventions do not apply then we do not have to treat them with the "respect" those rules require. To suggest that everyone held (currently or in the past) at Gitmo is openly engaged in battle with the United States (i.e. a battlefield detainee) flies in the face of the evidence. There have been too many documents released officially (and leaked in some cases) for me to be able to believe the contrary.

Vespertine · « **Reply #71 on:** February 26, 2009, 05:27:15 PM »

Also, excellent discussion...please proceed.

RelandR · « **Reply #72 on:** February 26, 2009, 06:33:58 PM »

Re: Gitmo:
People or combatants?, that is the question that also haunts the whole affair in my mind. We are not at war with the nation of Iraq, just an often ambiguous group of [insert appropriate term].

The "battlefield" in question here happens to be the streets and neighborhoods that are frequented by the general (Iraqi) population, of whom, some/most may or may not be "combatants". There is no clear, easily definable 'quick-start card' ready instructions for field personnel to use.

Either "solid" intelligence or solid first hand knowledge of combatant activity/behaviour would need to be present to distinguish from "non-combatants". Under the circumstances it is difficult at best to trust that there wouldn't be mistakes made in absolute combatant Identification, and as Ves has pointed out, the ratio of bad guys to goods guys captured is highly questionable. If likely suspects need be rounded up on the fly, a mechanism surely needs be in place to filter out the actual cabdrivers etc. that inadvertantly got caught in the net.

In the spirit of democraticesque fair play, I think it is important that we apply due process to be certain that we are not arbitrarily treating all (Iraqis) as evadoers, especially if we are indeed in the business of winning hearts and minds and trying to lead (spread democracy) by example.

How difficult could it be to err on the side of caution and perhaps give due process to some individuals that didn't necessarily deserve it because of their "combatant status" (which could be proven by said due process) for the sake of ensuring that we aren't wrongly holding others anyway?

My $.02 added

12AX7 · « **Reply #73 on:** February 26, 2009, 07:14:32 PM »

We already decided they get trials. I think everyone is WAS game for that; however now they're simply being released.
That's fine; whatever. We already have seen how many of them have been released and end up captured on the battlefield again. And yes; a battlefield is wherever there's a batttle fought; be it in streets of a city, middle of the desert or deep in a jungle.
So each time we capture some; there'll be a few more killed, then we can release the captured ones to let them cycle back through to the battlefield so we can kill a few more; cycle the ones captured back through again and let em go; then next time we'll kill a few more. . . Or we could just hold them until the conflict's over; or even give them their trials; that would be great- then we get to hold them for many many many years instead of just until the conflict's over.
As for the non-combatants captured on a battlefield; generally these people are identified early on and are let go. Our soldiers aren't stupid; and have no interest in holding someone who isn't in the game to harm them. To have made it to Gitmo means having engaged our troops in some fashion, lost or surrendered, been interviewed on the spot, taken back to base, interviewed some more, and subsequently been interviewed by intelligence personnel several times before being granted access to the Cuban resort. I don't believe for a second that we have some totally innocent people incarcerated at Gitmo. If we do, they sure did a lot of lying and pretending to be a combatant to get through the various interviews, checks on the info given for validity, and apparently posed a further threat - which is the reason for holding them at Gitmo in the first place. There have been more detainees released from US custody, shown back up on the battlefield and captured again than there have been non-combatants mistakenly identified as a threat.
As per trials - again; we already decided they get the trials (MY personal opinion differs from that, but whatever. They didnt consult me). So now - I ask again - why close Gitmo? How does that move us forward in the "due process"? It doesn't. It is us just quitting. Just quitting and releasing everyone there. That helps things how, exactly? There'll surely be no trials now, AND these guy will surely kill more troops and possibly civillians. Win-win, eh?

12AX7 · « **Reply #74 on:** February 26, 2009, 07:52:34 PM »

And now, for something completely different:

How to start each day with a positive outlook

1. Open a new file in your computer.

2. Name it 'Barack Obama'.

3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.

4. Empty the Recycle Bin.

5. Your PC will ask you: 'Do you really want to get rid of 'Barack Obama?'

6. Firmly Click 'Yes.'

7. Feel better?

GOOD! - Tomorrow we'll do Nancy Pelosi

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Holding a new administration to their promises (Read 16045 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7