Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on June 11, 2007, 12:33:31 AM
-
At least that's what I expect to hear from the Bushboiz. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State and possibly the most respected (well at least he was before Bush made him dance like a monkey at the UN) unofficial voice of The United States of America says it's time to close Gitmo, "it's causing us far more damage than any good we get from it".
Oh the terrorist lovin', Amerihating horror...
link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-powell11jun11,0,4328062.story?coll=la-home-center)
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june04/mar26_powell_bhead.jpg)
^This man knows his ****. Pay attention.
-
Sure, close the detention center there.
After you take everyone of those terrorists outside and shoot them in the base of the skull.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Sure, close the detention center there.
After you take everyone of those terrorists outside and shoot them in the base of the skull.
:aok
-
Just out of curiousity, Bodhi, do you feel confident that every single person being detained there is a fighter?
I have my doubts, considering that the US paid cash bounties for people described as insurrectionists when they were turned in. For some of the people there, the US was not involved in determining their initial status, and there may have been conflicts of interest that led to people being rounded up and turned in whether or not they were actually combatants.
The people detained by the US military are one thing, and I know and trust that the best effort would be made to only rope the bad guys, but the other folks... a doubt is reasonable and prudent.
-
Feel free to join the other side, I'm sure they'd be glad to kil..err have
you.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Just out of curiousity, Bodhi, do you feel confident that every single person being detained there is a fighter?
shoot them anyway, it is the will of Allah.
-
Their continued imprisonment there, he said, has "shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system."
====
Most americans belief in our system of justice was shaken to the core when OJ simpson was aquitted. Gitmo has restored much of that belief in a "No BS system of justice". Hang em high.
I really believe Powell has lost so much credibility that his opinions are, unfortunately, almost without value.
-
Clip here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW992-5zNg)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Gitmo has restored much of that belief in a "No BS system of justice". Hang em high.
Maybe among the thirty-percenters. To the rest of the planet it just looks 1939 all over again.
-
Colin Powell Joins AlQueda
At least that's what I expect to hear from the Bushboiz. - rpm
Senator Joe Lieberman (recommends preperation for "aggressive military action" that may be necessary in Iran) Bloodthirsty Satan
At least that's what I expect to hear from the liberal "Hate America First" crew - at least until after the '08 election, anyway...
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
To the rest of the planet it just looks 1939 all over again.
At it's very worst the current mire is misguided, misjudged, and misunderstood. But enough to spook me from time to time.
At it's very best, no.
What's missing the the whole living space thing and a few other parts. Which is my beef with "globalization." Which at its worst and by any other name is living space.
Also, just goes to show looking at some of the posts on this thread that madness knows no borders.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Their continued imprisonment there, he said, has "shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system."
====
Most americans belief in our system of justice was shaken to the core when OJ simpson was aquitted. Gitmo has restored much of that belief in a "No BS system of justice". Hang em high.
I really believe Powell has lost so much credibility that his opinions are, unfortunately, almost without value.
Interesting attitude considering our entire justice system's back bone is based on a principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Maybe you should look up how many of those there terrorist have released after being held captive for 2 and 3 years after they figure out the guys were innocent.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Sure, close the detention center there.
After you take everyone of those terrorists outside and shoot them in the base of the skull.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Sure, close the detention center there.
After you take everyone of those terrorists outside and shoot them in the base of the skull.
would not waste the bullets .. give them a free helicopter ride and drop them off 200 miles from shore
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Just out of curiousity, Bodhi, do you feel confident that every single person being detained there is a fighter?
I have my doubts, considering that the US paid cash bounties for people described as insurrectionists when they were turned in. For some of the people there, the US was not involved in determining their initial status, and there may have been conflicts of interest that led to people being rounded up and turned in whether or not they were actually combatants.
The people detained by the US military are one thing, and I know and trust that the best effort would be made to only rope the bad guys, but the other folks... a doubt is reasonable and prudent.
Personally I really do not give one rats butt about the welfare of any of those in detention at Guantanamo. I wish we would surmarily execute every last one of the bastards. Our troops receive no quarter when they are captured, and we need to do the same.
Once all intelligence value is gained from them, a bullet to the base of their terrorist skulls while they are dropped into a grave of pig guts and blood would be just fine by me.
-
/\
|
|
Compassionate Conservatism
-
Bodhi, for the actual fighters, sure, that makes sense. But _some_ of the people being detained have been found innocent, and there could be more. We were paying Pakistanis and Afghans for people they delivered that they said were terrorists, and that word was the only evidence.
You're not advocating that the innocents should also be killed, are you? Because that'd be the most likely side effect to a "just shoot them all" policy.
-
To the rest of the planet it just looks 1939 all over again.
====
what a deceitful thing to say. Get OFF my obstacle Private Pyle!
:aok
-
Inaccurate but provocative heading to the thread. Nice troll RPM, particularly since you have had no additional input into it. It could have had some decent discussion had you not poisoned the well so badly. Why did you see fit to shut so many doors to it?
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
/\
|
|
Compassionate Conservatism
Nope, there is not one compassionate bone in my body when it comes to terrorists and terrorism in general. But that comment coming from a shades is about what I expected.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Inaccurate but provocative heading to the thread. Nice troll RPM, particularly since you have had no additional input into it. It could have had some decent discussion had you not poisoned the well so badly. Why did you see fit to shut so many doors to it?
I simply state things as I see them Mav. In this case, no crystal ball was nessessary.
Gitmo is a recruiting tool for terrorists. Gitmo is ruining our reputation of being the good guys. Colin Powell sees it, why can't you? Could it be because he actually knows what he's talking about?
-
Once again you allow your own perceptions and perhaps prejudice to put words in my mouth that I neither expressed, implied or inferred. That was not what I was saying at all. Please quote my post that indicated I was in favor of Gitmo or made a judgement, pro or con, of it.
If you want to state your position, that's fine but please do not presume to express ideas that you think are mine.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Nope, there is not one compassionate bone in my body when it comes to terrorists and terrorism in general. But that comment coming from a shades is about what I expected.
Which definition of "terrorist" do you go by?
Dead innocent Americans are still dead no matter what lame opinion the killer(s) had before doing it. But boiling it down to one ambiguous word makes a better bumper sticker, and since in sounds ominous.. it's easy to rally around.
Collin Powells opinion, as informed as it may be, is just another one to kick around on cable news... nobody that matters is listening.
Our so called political leaders have proven themselves as party motivated incompetent clones, I don't trust king geroge deciding who gets a bullet to the head, and who doesn't... that's what the courts are for.
-
Originally posted by rpm
At least that's what I expect to hear from the Bushboiz. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State and possibly the most respected (well at least he was before Bush made him dance like a monkey at the UN) unofficial voice of The United States of America says it's time to close Gitmo, "it's causing us far more damage than any good we get from it".
Oh the terrorist lovin', Amerihating horror...
link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-powell11jun11,0,4328062.story?coll=la-home-center)
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june04/mar26_powell_bhead.jpg)
^This man knows his ****. Pay attention.
The problem here is that democrats believe that someone of position, is inherently free from bias.
RPM is trying to play that card, and most people here are falling for it, or arguing against Powell's credibility.
However, don't forget that Colin Powell is a democrat.
-
I thought the thread was going to be about him giving advice to his bro obama LOL
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
However, don't forget that Colin Powell is a democrat.
Nope. Republican.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
However, don't forget that Colin Powell is a democrat.
(http://admin.hotkeys.com/template_images/1923615968/wrong.jpg)
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
Maybe among the thirty-percenters. To the rest of the planet it just looks 1939 all over again.
and Powell is playing the part of Chamberlain? peace in our time?
i don't want to be "the good guys", i want to be the guys that win.
-
I enjoy the fact that Lasersailor doesn't let something like credibility get in the way of a post, that's a brave stance to take in this world of ours that puts an inordinate amount of emphasis on the facts and accuracy.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Bodhi, for the actual fighters, sure, that makes sense. But _some_ of the people being detained have been found innocent, and there could be more. We were paying Pakistanis and Afghans for people they delivered that they said were terrorists, and that word was the only evidence.
You're not advocating that the innocents should also be killed, are you? Because that'd be the most likely side effect to a "just shoot them all" policy.
I agree that there may be some innocents caught up in the mess, but I seem to remember that some have been in fact released. It seems that those still in custody have at least some semblance of guilt at this point, and unfortunately for them, if you are involved in any terrorism, then you are guilty of supporting those groups that have defacto declared war on the west. That is unacceptable to me, and they deserve to die.
-
that's a brave stance to take in this world of ours
====
chair, this is a computer cartoon o-club forum. You do realize no one takes anyone seriously here......right?
Unless of course, its a math question......:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I enjoy the fact that Lasersailor doesn't let something like credibility get in the way of a post, that's a brave stance to take in this world of ours that puts an inordinate amount of emphasis on the facts and accuracy.
I've always seen him labeled as Democrat.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I've always seen him labeled as Democrat.
Then he must be a democrat.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
that's a brave stance to take in this world of ours
====
chair, this is a computer cartoon o-club forum. You do realize no one takes anyone seriously here......right?
Unless of course, its a math question......:rolleyes:
:rofl some of these postards never fail to amaze me.
-
I've always seen him labeled as Democrat.
====
Powell is a conservative liberal. At a minimum he is a liberal conservative
Or a consiberal erlative......:huh
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I enjoy the fact that Lasersailor doesn't let something like credibility get in the way of a post, that's a brave stance to take in this world of ours that puts an inordinate amount of emphasis on the facts and accuracy.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I enjoy the fact that Lasersailor doesn't let something like credibility get in the way of a post, that's a brave stance to take in this world of ours that puts an inordinate amount of emphasis on the facts and accuracy.
You know I think you've just given laser his career choice. He's qualified to be a politician with those traits.
:O
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Inaccurate but provocative heading to the thread. Nice troll RPM, particularly since you have had no additional input into it. It could have had some decent discussion had you not poisoned the well so badly. Why did you see fit to shut so many doors to it?
You assume he WANTED an intelligent discussion. I saw a troll with some really bad stink bait.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Feel free to join the other side, I'm sure they'd be glad to kil..err have
you.
Thats a nice either your with me or your the enemy statement.
How very republican of you :noid
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I agree that there may be some innocents caught up in the mess, but I seem to remember that some have been in fact released. It seems that those still in custody have at least some semblance of guilt at this point, and unfortunately for them, if you are involved in any terrorism, then you are guilty of supporting those groups that have defacto declared war on the west. That is unacceptable to me, and they deserve to die.
Yea no big deal after all.. I mean who wouldn't want to spend 2 or 3 years waiting to be found innocent in such a great tropical location as Cuba. I mean hell it's like a free vacation isn't it?
I bet your tune would change if it was you sitting there for two years. Hell I bet you would even get all pissy if you had to sit in a normal nice federal prison waiting for two years with no hope of trial in the near future.
I mean I suppose maybe you would understand if 2 or 3 years were taken away from your life and you were given no chance to prove your innocence nor given the reason you were being held. Hell it's just two or three years right? After all gotta support a war on a name right? Terrorist.. I mean they could be anyone hell they might live next door to yea no one is safe..
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You know I think you've just given laser his career choice. He's qualified to be a politician with those traits.
:O
In time...
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Once again you allow your own perceptions and perhaps prejudice to put words in my mouth that I neither expressed, implied or inferred. That was not what I was saying at all. Please quote my post that indicated I was in favor of Gitmo or made a judgement, pro or con, of it.
If you want to state your position, that's fine but please do not presume to express ideas that you think are mine.
Forgive me for taking so long to respond, I work a crazy schedule. As far as putting words in your mouth, I didn't realise I had. I was asking a question that you have'nt answered yet. Could it be that this is a case of trying to shoot the messenger than admit Powell is right? I sincerely hope that it's not.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea no big deal after all.. I mean who wouldn't want to spend 2 or 3 years waiting to be found innocent in such a great tropical location as Cuba. I mean hell it's like a free vacation isn't it?
I bet your tune would change if it was you sitting there for two years. Hell I bet you would even get all pissy if you had to sit in a normal nice federal prison waiting for two years with no hope of trial in the near future.
I mean I suppose maybe you would understand if 2 or 3 years were taken away from your life and you were given no chance to prove your innocence nor given the reason you were being held. Hell it's just two or three years right? After all gotta support a war on a name right? Terrorist.. I mean they could be anyone hell they might live next door to yea no one is safe..
Well, I could also look at the facts that I was not captured in a war zone, and not captured with weapons without a "cause". I might then think my imprisonment was a bit much, but then again, I would be talking to Allah now wouldn't I.
You neglect two main facts:
1. I am not an enemy combatant fighting in Afganistan or Iraq.
2. I am not an outsider "supposedly traveling the lands" while in a war zone and I am also not armed in said area like most were.
So... How would I find myself in a "normal nice federal prison" if I am not breaking the law? Hmm, maybe I find myself walking to the gun range here in Colorado carrying an Ak and I am labeled an enemy combatant... likely not though. As far as I am concerned, I know I have done my part to help the war against terrorism, and I can give many references at 1st SOGt that will verify it.
Again, I say shoot the bastards. They are enemies of our country in a time of war. Our troops receive no quarter, why should they.
-
^innocence is overrated.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Well, I could also look at the facts that I was not captured in a war zone, and not captured with weapons without a "cause". I might then think my imprisonment was a bit much, but then again, I would be talking to Allah now wouldn't I.
You neglect two main facts:
1. I am not an enemy combatant fighting in Afganistan or Iraq.
2. I am not an outsider "supposedly traveling the lands" while in a war zone and I am also not armed in said area like most were.
So... How would I find myself in a "normal nice federal prison" if I am not breaking the law? Hmm, maybe I find myself walking to the gun range here in Colorado carrying an Ak and I am labeled an enemy combatant... likely not though. As far as I am concerned, I know I have done my part to help the war against terrorism, and I can give many references at 1st SOGt that will verify it.
Again, I say shoot the bastards. They are enemies of our country in a time of war. Our troops receive no quarter, why should they.
Yea typically when you start dropping bombs on a country and invade it.. That typically makes it a war zone.
-
Originally posted by straffo
^innocence is overrated.
so is an attempt at blind ignorance....
meanwhile you talk from a country that regularly violated the UN embargo on weapons going to Iraq... maybe we should talk more on food for oil... :lol
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea typically when you start dropping bombs on a country and invade it.. That typically makes it a war zone.
I will leave you with this since you have no penchant for discourse other than shaded trolls....
(http://www.consciousevolution.com/metamorphosis/0302/grfx/WTC3a.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You assume he WANTED an intelligent discussion. I saw a troll with some really bad stink bait.
No troll, just the response I expected from the Bushboiz. Looks like I was right afterall. So is Colin Powell.
Bodhi, if we were going after the guy responsable for that, I'd be behind ya 100%.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
so is an attempt at blind ignorance....
meanwhile you talk from a country that regularly violated the UN embargo on weapons going to Iraq... maybe we should talk more on food for oil... :lol
From the poster who is a shade of himself
or should I say a republibot (his master voice ...)
-
Originally posted by straffo
From the poster who is a shade of himself
or should I say a republibot (his master voice ...)
Bodhi struck a nerve eh?
-
Struck what ?
It's so 2003 ,you bots need badly an upgrade
-
hmmm, another potentially promising bash thread??? :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
Struck what ?
It's so 2003 ,you bots need badly an upgrade
or u need a memory upgrade - or once in the past, it's best forgotten - that would explain your history
LOL
-
Originally posted by rpm
No troll, just the response I expected from the Bushboiz. Looks like I was right afterall. So is Colin Powell.
Bodhi, if we were going after the guy responsable for that, I'd be behind ya 100%.
Yeah, it's a troll, designed and expected to elicit a specific "desired":rolleyes: response. You ASKED for that response in the thread title, it's pretty hard for you to HONESTLY deny that.
And you don't have to feel that Colin Powell has aligned himself with alQueada to disagree with him. That position is just stupid, ignorant, or over simplified for political reasons. Pick whichever fits you. I find that in this case, with all due respect to him, that Colin Powell happens to be wrong, while having good intentions. That makes him wrong, but it doesn't make him an enemy sympathizer.
Eventually, people will come to understand that Gitmo is not a recruiting tool for the enemy, any more that POW camps were a recruiting tool for the enemy in World War II. Gitmo is a far bigger story (and driven by the media as well as the liberal agenda) here than it is there. And as far as what "enlightened" and "civilized" people in Europe or elsewhere think of it goes, they'll eventually learn about the kind of people held there, probably the hard way. The enemy does not need Abu Graihb or Gitmo as a recruiting tool, and no one has produced any real evidence that either is a driving factor in either recruiting or attacks. Has it been mentioned? Yes, terrorists tend to list long rambling diatribes full of grievances because they are psychotic murderers, so anything they can possibly think of is added to the list.
By the way, Gitmo and Abu Graihb don't make us "like them":rolleyes: either, since no one has shown where anyone was disemboweled or beheaded at either place, nor were there any amputations, or for that matter much of anything else. Hardly an illustration of how we become "like them":rolleyes: in our treatment of captured enemy combatants.
-
rpm.. lemur....just out of curiosity.. what do you think we ought to do with the prisoners at gitmo?
Should we maybe take them back to where we caught them and release them? Maybe after giving them a big fat check and a world wide apology first?
lazs
-
What Virgil said.
For the love of Pete....MUST we have a catastrophic attack against our citizens every four years to remind us of what TYPE of enemy we have?
As military prisons go, Gitmo is no worse than those of any other major western democratic nation. The very fact that some of those who have been detained there have been released speaks volumes.
For those that remain, I prefer to think that the U.S. authorities in charge have extremely GOOD reasons for keeping them there.
Colin Powell has rendered tremendous service to our country and deserves our thanks and respect. In the matter of Gitmo, I think he is dead wrong. Close it down, and the prisoners would, doubtless, be transferred to a prison on the mainland, where they would become a cause celebre of the critics of the administration, and a rallying point for demonstrations and protests demanding their release.....regardless of how vital to our national interests and safety their continued imprisonment might be.
Security be damned, some of us would be willing to risk getting our throats cut in order to "protect" us from some nebulous "threat to our rights."
-
Originally posted by Eagler
or u need a memory upgrade - or once in the past, it's best forgotten - that would explain your history
LOL
storch is so right when he post
hmmm, another potentially promising bash thread??? :D
Out of argument eagler make yet another non related reference.
-
Originally posted by straffo
From the poster who is a shade of himself
or should I say a republibot (his master voice ...)
I see... you can only try and deal out personal attacks. :rolleyes:
Just one thought for you though.
Maybe if your country and some specific others nearby had not been greedily lining your pockets with cash during the whole weapons for oil schemes, we would not have had to go back into Iraq to depose of that ruthless terroroistic regime. Just maybe more Americans would be alive instead of dead.
-
MY GOD !
A keyboard warrior is questioning me from his computer 9000km away.
I'm terrified.
-
Originally posted by straffo
MY GOD !
A keyboard warrior is questioning me from his computer 9000km away.
I'm terrified.
Nope, just pointing out some things which I and many of my countryman have a problem with. You instead choose to continue the personal attacks. I really can not say I am surprised, but as you really never have anything of importance or intelligence to say, I am done listening to you.
Welcome to my ignore list.
-
In regards to the Gitmo thing, if I may.
Personally I didnt have a problem with the "unlawfull combatants" designation, thats what they are, and its been an issue with military forces since there were standing armies. Those that say it was an invented designation are full of crap. Armies have to deal with non-uniformed, non-recognised fighters, thats nothing new.
You have two basic categories, "guerrilas" (insurgents), and terrorists (A-Q et al). The former should be given some basic protections under military law, and dealt with by the military, the latter, first by the military, and then handed over to the courts for criminal hearings.
As with Gitmo itself...it made sense to send them there as a "detainee camp" during the campaign, and I see no problem with it. Closing Gitmo doesnt really change anything, you just have to send them somewhere else after capture, so thats just window dressing, imho. You cant just say "here is your court date be sure to be there" and release them in Afghanistan or Iraq by the roadside.
...however, I think the US should have expidited the process once they were there. Ie, get the intel you need, then decide on what route to process them: Federal Custody and Trial, a Courts Martial, or Release (if deemed appropriate). The USA is a nation of laws, and it should be no different in this case, emotions aside, but get on with it, dont drag it out for years and years. If they have a date with a court (military or other), then get it done. I have no love for any of them either, but process them and move on.
I think thats partially the point Powell was making, and I understand the US Courts have agreed with some of the above. Essentially you "own the problem" once you decide to take them into custody. It can be a messy process, but thats just the way it is.
In any case, thats how I see some of it for what its worth.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I will leave you with this since you have no penchant for discourse other than shaded trolls....
(http://www.consciousevolution.com/metamorphosis/0302/grfx/WTC3a.jpg)
Is that really the best you can come up with? A picture from 9/11?
Humm so why aren't we trying to find bin Laden? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Why did we pull most of our troops out of Afghanistan so we could put them in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Attacking Iraq after 9/11 is like attacking Canada because of what Timothy Mcveigh did in the Oklahoma bombing. That would make a lot of sense Eh?
Oh and btw...
If 9/11 "changed everything" why is it so cool to support the people whom died with flag waving and bumper stickers. Yet no one including our govt gives a rats bellybutton about all those workers whom worked at ground zero.. Whom are now dieing right now due to health problems related to the air quality that was at GZ?
Guess supporting the rescue workers no longer is needed for anyones bumper stickers..
-
Originally posted by rpm
Forgive me for taking so long to respond, I work a crazy schedule. As far as putting words in your mouth, I didn't realise I had. I was asking a question that you have'nt answered yet. Could it be that this is a case of trying to shoot the messenger than admit Powell is right? I sincerely hope that it's not.
Go back to my first post in the thread and read it please.
Note that in that post I did not take any stance on the subject of the article, just the manner in which you trolled it. Nothing more.
Your response to me implied that I had taken a stance on it or Mr. Powell's position. I had not posted any position on it. Further I will not presume to state what Mr. Powell knows or does not know. He does not confide in me and I certainly do not claim to read his mind.
Your thread title is both insulting to Mr. Powell as well as innacurate and is not supported by the article.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Attacking Iraq after 9/11 is like attacking Canada because of what Timothy Mcveigh did in the Oklahoma bombing. That would make a lot of sense Eh?
That comparison is very wrong and it continues to prove that people have no clue as to what is going on in Iraq. Try not to be so naive as to believe that Iraq had nothing to do with AlQuaida. That thought process is equivalent to sticking ones head in the sand.
But hey, keep on watching CNN, I am sure you will learn all you need to know. Maybe even give Dan Rather a call, surely he can provide some facts. :lol
-
Originally posted by Squire
In regards to the Gitmo thing, if I may.
Personally I didnt have a problem with the "unlawfull combatants" designation, thats what they are, and its been an issue with military forces since there were standing armies. Those that say it was an invented designation are full of crap. Armies have to deal with non-uniformed, non-recognised fighters, thats nothing new.
You have two basic categories, "guerrilas" (insurgents), and terrorists (A-Q et al). The former should be given some basic protections under military law, and dealt with by the military, the latter, first by the military, and then handed over to the courts for criminal hearings.
As with Gitmo itself...it made sense to send them there as a "detainee camp" during the campaign, and I see no problem with it. Closing Gitmo doesnt really change anything, you just have to send them somewhere else after capture, so thats just window dressing, imho. You cant just say "here is your court date be sure to be there" and release them in Afghanistan or Iraq by the roadside.
...however, I think the US should have expidited the process once they were there. Ie, get the intel you need, then decide on what route to process them: Federal Custody and Trial, a Courts Martial, or Release (if deemed appropriate). The USA is a nation of laws, and it should be no different in this case, emotions aside, but get on with it, dont drag it out for years and years. If they have a date with a court (military or other), then get it done. I have no love for any of them either, but process them and move on.
I think thats partially the point Powell was making, and I understand the US Courts have agreed with some of the above. Essentially you "own the problem" once you decide to take them into custody. It can be a messy process, but thats just the way it is.
In any case, thats how I see some of it for what its worth.
Exactly..
It's not about the fact we operate a prison camp.. That's a natural thing to do and having it out of the country that we are at war with, ensures that no attacks will take place on it. So it's not a totally bad thing.
The entire thing that's wrong with gitmo is the fact it is and was being used as a black hole so to speak. As well as the fact that all the basic rights under the Geneva convention were being ignored.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Oh and btw...
If 9/11 "changed everything" why is it so cool to support the people whom died with flag waving and bumper stickers. Yet no one including our govt gives a rats bellybutton about all those workers whom worked at ground zero.. Whom are now dieing right now due to health problems related to the air quality that was at GZ?
Guess supporting the rescue workers no longer is needed for anyones bumper stickers..
Sorry missed your edit.
Personally I think that the people's families who died in the attacks on 9/11 did not deserve million dollar pay outs from the government. The rescue workers families certainly did, as do all members of the police and other services who gave their lives to try and save others.
As for health problems, I find it staggering to believe that the city and state of NewYork, and the federal government continue to deny that the health problems many rescuers face now are a direct result of exposure to the aftermath of the buildings collapse. Even though that attitude is slowly changing, it is still wrong.
As for a bumper sticker supporting anything, well, if you really believe that the $2.00 goes to where it is needed, then I have a really nice piece of land near Ocala to sell you. :aok
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
That comparison is very wrong and it continues to prove that people have no clue as to what is going on in Iraq. Try not to be so naive as to believe that Iraq had nothing to do with AlQuaida. That thought process is equivalent to sticking ones head in the sand.
But hey, keep on watching CNN, I am sure you will learn all you need to know. Maybe even give Dan Rather a call, surely he can provide some facts. :lol
Funny.. I guess you missed the whole.. 9/11 commission thing..
here.. educate yourself because you seem to need it..
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
-
Originally posted by crockett
Funny.. I guess you missed the whole.. 9/11 commission thing..
here.. educate yourself because you seem to need it..
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
I do not believe most of that comission's finding to be accurate. I think it is filled without right erroneus information and assumptions.
But, as usual, you need to stoop to personal attacks to support your beliefs. Well, I guess you can join Straffo....
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I do not believe most of that comission's finding to be accurate. I think it is filled without right erroneus information and assumptions.
But, as usual, you need to stoop to personal attacks to support your beliefs. Well, I guess you can join Straffo....
Telling you to educate yourself is a "personal attack"? That's a new one..
Of course you calling me a " shaded troll" wouldn't be a personal attack right.
In this topic you also called L'EMMERDEUR a shade.. seems like a personal attack to me.
Maybe you shouldn't look in the mirror Bodhi.. it might look back..
-
Originally posted by Squire
In regards to the Gitmo thing, if I may.
Personally I didnt have a problem with the "unlawfull combatants" designation, thats what they are, and its been an issue with military forces since there were standing armies. Those that say it was an invented designation are full of crap. Armies have to deal with non-uniformed, non-recognised fighters, thats nothing new.
You have two basic categories, "guerrilas" (insurgents), and terrorists (A-Q et al). The former should be given some basic protections under military law, and dealt with by the military, the latter, first by the military, and then handed over to the courts for criminal hearings.
As with Gitmo itself...it made sense to send them there as a "detainee camp" during the campaign, and I see no problem with it. Closing Gitmo doesnt really change anything, you just have to send them somewhere else after capture, so thats just window dressing, imho. You cant just say "here is your court date be sure to be there" and release them in Afghanistan or Iraq by the roadside.
...however, I think the US should have expidited the process once they were there. Ie, get the intel you need, then decide on what route to process them: Federal Custody and Trial, a Courts Martial, or Release (if deemed appropriate). The USA is a nation of laws, and it should be no different in this case, emotions aside, but get on with it, dont drag it out for years and years. If they have a date with a court (military or other), then get it done. I have no love for any of them either, but process them and move on.
I think thats partially the point Powell was making, and I understand the US Courts have agreed with some of the above. Essentially you "own the problem" once you decide to take them into custody. It can be a messy process, but thats just the way it is.
In any case, thats how I see some of it for what its worth.
Well said, good post.
Mav, the Bushboiz have set up the "if you're not with us, you're against us" strategy. Since Powell is obviously not towing the party line in this case he must be against us according to that strategy and that's what the title is about.
I expect a ton of backpeddling, blameshifting and a massive spin cycle from the Bushboiz. There's no way a widely respected, intelligent man like Powell could have come to this conclusion and still be an American icon from the Bushboiz POV. He has to be an Amerihater, that or Bush is WRONG and that's something the Bushboiz could never admit because it would mean they are wrong, too.
-
My GOD (again :))
A republitroll condemned me to the ignore list.
It's not really surprising as ignorance is something republibots seems to master.
-
what Squire said.
In closing, the concepts of due process, Bill of Rights and Human Rights Declaration should mean something to a conservative.
Even if it's the wrong people who benefit from them, they are not optional.
-
I would like to agree with you leitwolf but I've repeatedly seen otherwise here.
-
Even if it's the wrong people who benefit from them, they are not optional.
====
This is an interesting opinion. Personaly, I dont see the point in bringing foreign islamic terrorists into the United States to give them the same rights that I have.
Maybe you have a better angle on this thing. Why should I see it your way?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Personaly, I dont see the point in bringing foreign islamic terrorists into the United States to give them the same rights that I have.
Very good point Yeager.
-
It doesnt matter where they are - they still retain their Humans Rights.
Either they are sentenced to prison in a court under the respectively applicable law (isnt easy to say which laws apply for them though), or they go free.
I'm not defending their actions or terrorism in general, and i think most of them are detained for a reason - but - nothing of that matters.
Taking someone, without court order, no trial, for an arbitrary long time, is the opposite of the essence and intent of the US constitution, Human Rights, and basically everything a western democracy should be standing for.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rpm.. lemur....just out of curiosity.. what do you think we ought to do with the prisoners at gitmo?
Should we maybe take them back to where we caught them and release them? Maybe after giving them a big fat check and a world wide apology first?
lazs
How about putting them on trial?
If these evil doers as a horrifying as advertised, proving them guilty in an open court should be easy.
-
proving them guilty in an open court should be easy.
====
Hmmm........
Personally, I think the military tribunal has a vastly better chance at delivering genuine justice against these religious mad men than any open court in this country could hope for.
I live my life by few rules, but one BIG rule is "Do everything possible to stay away of the criminal justice system".
Leit, I get where your coming from, but thats too cut and dry for me, on this islamic terror matter at least. I believe that the constitution must be bent, here and there, from time to time, in order to preserve it. Like a reed blowing in the wind.......Im pretty sure it has been bent for various emergencies that have threatened the nation in the past.
Your position is commendable.
Sorry :cry
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
Taking someone, without court order, no trial, for an arbitrary long time, is the opposite of the essence and intent of the US constitution, Human Rights, and basically everything a western democracy should be standing for.
Don't bother the bush people with western democracy fairytales, our president thinks it's ok to hold legal US residents and deny them habeas corpus.
http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=6642281&nav=AbC0
Associated Press - June 11, 2007 4:53 PM ET
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The Justice Department plans to fight a federal court ruling that says the Bush administration cannot hold US residents indefinitely without charging them.
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
Taking someone, without court order, no trial, for an arbitrary long time, is the opposite of the essence and intent of the US constitution, Human Rights, and basically everything a western democracy should be standing for.
Think how long some of the Poles sat in POW camps.... almost 7 years. This is a war, and unfortuantely for those captured, it means detainment for the duration.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
proving them guilty in an open court should be easy.
====
Hmmm........
Personally, I think the military tribunal has a vastly better chance at delivering genuine justice against these religious mad men than any open court in this country could hope for.
You're making an assumption these are "religious mad men", and that they have done anything illegal.... unless there are some specific facts and / or evidence that's says otherwise, under the US system of law everyone at getmo is innocent until proven guilty.
This system exists to keep political mad men & politicians from locking up those they just don't like, or assign an subjective label to... like "terrorist".
If they are evil criminals, a trail should leave no doubt, atm the only evidence against them is the word of our .gov.. which is seriously lacking in credibility.
-
when hillary takes over and lets them all out, pulls our troops out of the ME - Peace and Love will fill the world and everyone will love us and we will love everyone
LOL LOL LOL
-
No when Hillary takes over maybe some gun owners will be labeled as terrorists and just detained, but thats ok...government of man rather than law is fine if your man is in power.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Eagler
when hillary takes over and lets them all out, pulls our troops out of the ME - Peace and Love will fill the world and everyone will love us and we will love everyone
LOL LOL LOL
ahhh, "peace in our time", i can't wait, cum ba ya.
-
:lol Thanks john.
-
well....after suffering through all these most fecal and presumptive nonsensical dribblings of excuses of posts Im reminded of why people get constitutional law degrees and become lawyers :aok
Im juss messin witch ewe :D
-
In closing, the concepts of due process,
I don't believe that applies to those captured on a battlefield.
Did Germans, Italians and Japanese captured during WWII get *due process*, I don't think so. They were held in PoW camps until the end of the war, then released.
Why so many Americans (and others) think those held at Gitmo need due process by civilian or military courts is beyond me.
-
xmarine.. are we talking about US citizens here or enemy combatants? shouldn't there be a difference?
I agree that it needs to be established that there is a war and that they were combatants.
lazs
-
There are only three possible categories you can place these people in. They are either:
1. Enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield and subject to imprisonment under the rules of the Geneva Convention.
2. Enemy soldiers not abiding by the GC and thus subject to summary execution as spies or saboteurs. However if they are not executed on the battlefield they are subject to civilian law leading to category 3.
3. Civilians that have committed criminal acts against your people/forces and thus subject to a civilian court of law.
I would say that most of the people captured in Afghanistan and Iraq falls under the first two categories, while people picked up in the US or kidnapped by your intelligence services in Pakistan, Italy, Sweden and other nations fall under the third category.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I don't believe that applies to those captured on a battlefield.
Did Germans, Italians and Japanese captured during WWII get *due process*, I don't think so. They were held in PoW camps until the end of the war, then released.
Why so many Americans (and others) think those held at Gitmo need due process by civilian or military courts is beyond me.
Many were not captured on a battlefield, that's the problem.
Also, comparing US actions today with german camps in WW2 is exactly the downward spiral in the perceptions of what should be considered right and justified vs. something plain wrong.
And the answer to your last paragraph is easy. It's their right as a human person. Only exceptions: See Vikings post.
-
Many were not captured on a battlefield, that's the problem.
Of the total number of prisoners being held at Gitmo, how many were not captured on a battlefield?
Also, comparing US actions today with german camps in WW2 is exactly the downward spiral in the perceptions of what should be considered right and justified vs. something plain wrong.
For the ones that were captured on a battlefield, they should be held w/o trial or charges being brought against them. To charge them with crimes, take them to trial and sentence them, would be exactly what the Soviets did to the Germans at the conclusion of WWII.
And the answer to your last paragraph is easy. It's their right as a human person. Only exceptions: See Vikings post.
If they are combatants, all they get is imprisonment until the conflict is over, it's all they are entitled to.