Frightening news in Cuba from Rumsfeld

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
Quite frankly, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than that.

The WHOLE basis of your argument is that they are terrorists. And WHO deemed them to be terrorists? You? The members of this board? The CIA and FBI? The argument here isn't how terrorists should be treated. The argument is how POTENTIAL terrorists should be treated and how to go about determining IF they are terrorists.

Excuse me, Mr. Taliban type guy. Are you a terrorist? No? Oh, ok. Thank you come again.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
Quite frankly, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than that.

The WHOLE basis of your argument is that they are terrorists. And WHO deemed them to be terrorists? You? The members of this board? The CIA and FBI? The argument here isn't how terrorists should be treated. The argument is how POTENTIAL terrorists should be treated and how to go about determining IF they are terrorists.

Feel good saying that. Thanks for being so smart.

The war isn't over, no trials till it is. If the war never ends, tough.

[Qwikshot]

Hey, if I let you go, will you promise on Allah not to attack us again...okay, this one's good...okay next...

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Excuse me, Mr. Taliban type guy. Are you a terrorist? No? Oh, ok. Thank you come again.

Umm...excuse me Mr. ShavedHead, we like the Swastika tattoo on your forearm, but we assume you are a racist and guilty of hate crimes so therefore we must kill you.

Your comment was cute, but there is one flaw:

"Excuse me, Mr. Taliban type guy. Are you a terrorist? No? Oh, ok. Thank you come again."

Determination of guilt.

[Bonegavel]

Mr. Taliban type guy, Mrs. Smith here says she saw you coming out of the Sizzler in Mozul followed by Bin Laden's 3rd in command. Is this true?

No.

Ok, thank you. Come again.

[heybrad]

Bonegavel and Quikshot would make a couple of pretty shitty lawyers.

Its amazing how you are afraid of giving someone due process.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
Umm...excuse me Mr. ShavedHead, we like the Swastika tattoo on your forearm, but we assume you are a racist and guilty of hate crimes so therefore we must kill you.

Your comment was cute, but there is one flaw:

"Excuse me, Mr. Taliban type guy. Are you a terrorist? No? Oh, ok. Thank you come again."

Determination of guilt.

Don't judge me and my words. You are determing that I am making fun of the situation. How do you know this is true?

[Bonegavel]

dola

I am slowly going bald, so please don't call me shavedhead. That hurts my feelings.

[edit added smiley dude thingy]

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
The war isn't over, no trials till it is. If the war never ends, tough.

And I don't have a problem with that. I do question how we will determine when the war is over. I do believe that it CAN get to a level where the possiblity of terrorist attacks are reduced enough for it to no longer be a concern. However, to me, determining when it is over is a line in the sand.

[Bonegavel]

Is it in our constitution that we must put non-americans on trial?

Serious question, I'm dumb.

Better yet, the PC phrase would be, "I'm ill-informed".

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Don't judge me and my words. You are determing that I am making fun of the situation. How do you know this is true?

Not judging you or your words. Nor am I determining anything. Simply using your example in a different way.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by heybrad
Bonegavel and Quikshot would make a couple of pretty shitty lawyers.

Its amazing how you are afraid of giving someone due process.

I would make a shitty &ltinsert occupation here&gt so don't go pigeon-holing me Bradley.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Is it in our constitution that we must put non-americans on trial?

Serious question, I'm dumb.

Better yet, the PC phrase would be, "I'm ill-informed".

But the more appropriate phrase was your first one.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
But the more appropriate phrase was your first one.

True.

[sabotai]

(*Tries to remind BoneGavel that the Al-Qaeda are terrorists and the the Taliban is not*)

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
But the more appropriate phrase was your first one.

But, do you know the answer?

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by sabotai
(*Tries to remind BoneGavel that the Al-Qaeda are terrorists and the the Taliban is not*)

Right. Read post above from BuzzBee.

[Bonegavel]

I had forgotten that the Taliban had no ties to Al-quesadia.

[Bonegavel]

The Taliban didn't harbour them.

[Bonegavel]

The Taliban didn't fund them.

[heybrad]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
I would make a shitty &ltinsert occupation here&gt so don't go pigeon-holing me Bradley.

I just want to point that I've noticed that its usually women who call me by my full name. Is there something you want to tell us?

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
Hey, if I let you go, will you promise on Allah not to attack us again...okay, this one's good...okay next...

Not what I'm saying at all.

Can it be proven that you attacked us or assisted others in doing so? Yes? Ok, here is another for the firing squad.

Can it be proven that you attacked us or assisted others in doing so? No? Ok, you are free to go.

[Bonegavel]

How much of an ass can one man be? (i'm sure you'll let me know in a post or two. Dont' hold back.)

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by heybrad
Bonegavel and Quikshot would make a couple of pretty shitty lawyers.

Its amazing how you are afraid of giving someone due process.

I'm not a lawyer.

Where does it state that POW's have a right to fair trial?

Aren't we using these guys to gather information to prevent further attacks because the U.S. has a terrible intelligence system when it comes to the Middle East?

Tell you what, I'm out of this discussion, because you are right, they deserve be treated better than the victims of 9/11, they deserve the right to be treated better than all of our fallen coalition members, they deserve to be treated better than the Bali victims, they deserve to be treated better than the families of these victims, they deserve to be treated better than the political prisoners under the Taliban, and Iraqi Baath regimes, they deserve to be treated better than all the Americans or other nations and individuals that they've attempted to harm because their "God", leader, prophet, or Koran told them too...

You are correct heybrad, John, Buzzbee, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I interest in being a lawyer for a bunch of terrorist, who were incarcerated to be interogated on a premise from either intelligence sources, military sources, informants, or interpol information that they needed to be arrested. Perhaps they were rounded up after a firefight, perhaps they just looked suspicious...
who cares except maybe lawyers and Amnesty International.

At some point you all have to come to a realization. Do you inhibit the rights of others to protect our freedom, or do you give up your own personal rights of freedom to protect society at large (the Patriot Act)...

But hey, enjoy feeling good arguing the merits of morality and ethics over holding terrorists for an indefinite period of time.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by heybrad
I just want to point that I've noticed that its usually women who call me by my full name. Is there something you want to tell us?

Yes. I'm guilty of being a father and am used to using full names when speaking thusly.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
But, do you know the answer?

Yes.

You are not ill-informed. You are dumb.


Oh, you meant about the Consitution. No, I'm afraid Constitutional law isn't my specialty.

[daedalus]

The problem isn't the guilt or innocence of the naughty people caught doing naughty things . . . it's the precedence of "we don't need proof, we can just hold you."

My views can probably be classified as "liberal" and I'm not the biggest fan of Bush the Younger but I don't think he's The Ultimate Evil nor do I think his peons are. But setting a precedence of allowing ANYONE (current administration or otherwise) to merely incarcerate without having to actually provide any evidence or reason is a dangerous, dangerous one.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by heybrad
I just want to point that I've noticed that its usually women who call me by my full name. Is there something you want to tell us?

Sorry if I pressed your "gay" button. I thought you liberals were better than to wonder if somebody was gay? Does it matter?

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
I'm not a lawyer.

Where does it state that POW's have a right to fair trial?

Aren't we using these guys to gather information to prevent further attacks because the U.S. has a terrible intelligence system when it comes to the Middle East?

Tell you what, I'm out of this discussion, because you are right, they deserve be treated better than the victims of 9/11, they deserve the right to be treated better than all of our fallen coalition members, they deserve to be treated better than the Bali victims, they deserve to be treated better than the families of these victims, they deserve to be treated better than the political prisoners under the Taliban, and Iraqi Baath regimes, they deserve to be treated better than all the Americans or other nations and individuals that they've attempted to harm because their "God", leader, prophet, or Koran told them too...

You are correct heybrad, John, Buzzbee, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I interest in being a lawyer for a bunch of terrorist, who were incarcerated to be interogated on a premise from either intelligence sources, military sources, informants, or interpol information that they needed to be arrested. Perhaps they were rounded up after a firefight, perhaps they just looked suspicious...
who cares except maybe lawyers and Amnesty International.

At some point you all have to come to a realization. Do you inhibit the rights of others to protect our freedom, or do you give up your own personal rights of freedom to protect society at large (the Patriot Act)...

But hey, enjoy feeling good arguing the merits of morality and ethics over holding terrorists for an indefinite period of time.

Nowhere have I said ANYTHING about their treatment. I'm glad they are in Guantanamo and believe they should be there. However, I do believe that at some point there has to be some sort of determination of innocence or guilt.

I do not know how this should be done. I do not know when this should be done. But I do believe that it should be done.

[daedalus]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
Where does it state that POW's have a right to fair trial?

Qwikkie: It has been pointed out a few times in the thread that they have gone through great lengths to NOT call these folks "POW's" but "detainees". It may sound like I'm playing a game of semantics but it's not. A "POW" have a certain amount of rights under the Geneva Convention (how much each country choose to respect it, of course, is another question) while a "detainee" does not. The precedent is a bit of a dangerous one.

[Bonegavel]

Rummy, just let 'em go bud.

[Bonegavel]

How can anyone think they don't deserve a trial? Due Process. Fairness. The american way. Detaining them, without a reason is just plain wrong.

[Buzzbee]

Going home. I'm out.

[Bonegavel]

The bush administration deserves to be voted out for all their bumblings.

[ctmason]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
I'm not a lawyer.

Where does it state that POW's have a right to fair trial?

And again...for the 114th time...they aren't POW's. If they were classified as POW's, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

If they're POW's, then we're violating International Law (Geneval Convention). You may argue one way or another that we have the right to do this. We hold others accountable to the International sense of Rule of Law, so why should we be any different?

If they are not POW's, then it's difficult to surmise if we are violating any law, US or International.

Oh, and to the poster who likened this to someone being arrested and awaiting trial? Bad analogy. Every person arrested is arraigned and formally charged. This people have had no such process.

The issue that is obvious (to me) is that the United States is detaining people without due process of law. That's what I think we should be discussing as to whether we have the right to do so under these circumstances.

All of the other obfuscation, bad assumptions, and strawmen are hogwash.

[Bonegavel]

Right. Down with Bush.

[John Galt]

Wow, I didn't think the thread was that bad and the discussion was alright, but then I leave work and come home to read this complete devolution. I almost think I should delete the thread (almost ).

[heybrad]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Sorry if I pressed your "gay" button. I thought you liberals were better than to wonder if somebody was gay? Does it matter?

Now thats the funniest thing I've read in a long time. If you read any of my posts in other political threads you wouldnt consider me a liberal.

[The Afoci]

I just deleted a response I thought was funny until I read it.

I got nothing.

[cartman]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
The Taliban didn't fund them.

Before you go down that road, remember who funded the Taliban again the Soviets...

[RendeR]

Originally posted by cartman
Before you go down that road, remember who funded the Taliban again the Soviets...

and before you start waving the "its all america's fault for training them in the first place" bag of shit, remember, we were aiding them to oust and INVADING army, just as we did in other forms for many countries throughout history.

Turning on your benefactor and blaming them for the troubles in your life because your social system is fucked in the head is NOT a real good excuse.

[RendeR]

I apologize for the crudity of my comment, I'm tired, my back is killing me and frankly I'm too tired to make it all sound pretty anymore.


Also John Galt : kudos on your reply to me, thank you for saying what you did. I can understand the urge to instantly respond to some peoples comments with ongoing comments

[EagleFan]

A little over 2 years ago John would have probably been fighting for the release of the terrorists involved in 9/11 had they been captured.

Or on the other hand, if they were all released and went out and killed a bunch of innocent civilians than Galt would be complaining that the Bush administration let them go.

Of course he's happy comparing apples to oranges by comparing this to a citizen getting arrested and held for no reason. Common sense be damned.


Of course we could treat the prisoners like their people do and torture them until they all die. Not sure if Galt would complain about that since he doesn't seem to complain about it when it's done elsewhere in the world, unless he could find a way to blame the Bush administration for it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by EagleFan
A little over 2 years ago John would have probably been fighting for the release of the terrorists involved in 9/11 had they been captured.

Or on the other hand, if they were all released and went out and killed a bunch of innocent civilians than Galt would be complaining that the Bush administration let them go.

Of course he's happy comparing apples to oranges by comparing this to a citizen getting arrested and held for no reason. Common sense be damned.


Of course we could treat the prisoners like their people do and torture them until they all die. Not sure if Galt would complain about that since he doesn't seem to complain about it when it's done elsewhere in the world, unless he could find a way to blame the Bush administration for it.

I agree with John on basically no issues but this one. Human rights dictate that a person deserves some form of defense. These men deserve some sort of hearing even if it is a military tribunal. No one should be held forever without some ability for a defense. If we do this, what will stop other nations from doing this to our citizens? All they have to say is "they were suspected terrorist" and then we would have no justification for calling for fair trials.

Not single person has suggested that these people be simply freed. There is just no way we can call ourselves a just country if we give these prisoners no fair hearing.

[Chief Rum]

Wow, I went away for work and this thing exploded.

I am surprised that the views of a known Republican moderate such as myself supporting some further resolution of this issue hasn't given any of you pause. It's not just the bloody liberals re-thinking this issue.

You all know I stand behind the war on terror and the war in Iraq. I have written many posts defending both. I also still plan to vote for Bush in the 2004 election, not because he's Republican, but because he represents my core beliefs better than any other candidate offered thus far. That is how I vote on all my cards.

Does it bother any of you that someone as relatively conservative and Republic as I am bothered by this?

Look, your opinion is your opinion, and that is fine, but I really think those of you wanting to keep these guys in prison indefinitely without some form of listed legitimate reason and/or due process really need to consider the ramifications of what you would then be supporting, and also question how much you treasure the very core human rights on which the American legal system is based--and which our Founding Fathers believed all mankind have the right to.

ALL MEN are created equal. All are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights--Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. So says our Declaration of Independence. This is the core representation upon which our government was based eleven years later, and further exemplified by our Bill of Rights.

You say you know of these detainees' guilt. You don't. You weren't there. Neither was I. Maybe even (frighteningly) some of them weren't there. You are ready to throw out the God-given rights our Founding Fathers believed all men, American or otherwise, had a right to, because you are afraid to even give them a trial?

There is law in place to govern these detainees. The problem is the government refuses to establish just what they are. And as members of a nationality that supposedly cherishes human rights so passionately, you should be ashamed if you don't stand up and yell when the rights of any human being are trampled upon unjustly.

All the government has to do is place these detainees in some heirarchy of law, and then the rules of that legal system will take over.

I don't think they can be called POWs because no state of war currently exists between the U.S. and another nation-state. Even if the elusive argument of the "war on terror" is claimed to be the war in which these detainees are held as POWs, there must be some realistic definition for when this war will end. Until then, they can't be termed as POWs.

That means they must be considered criminals. If so, then it must determined what crimes they have commited and under what system they must be tried. Held by the U.S. for U.S. criminal violations? Seems to be a situation where they should be tried by U.S. military or criminal law.

You say they can't be tried as criminals by the U.S. because they aren't U.S. citizens? Well, then, what is due process for non-citizens who break U.S. crimes? You know, for the British guy who runs a red light? The Colombian who gets caught trafficking in drugs? The Mexican immigrant working the illegal immigrant market at the border? I know we have a way of dealing with these criminals. Would they not apply to these detainees then?

Personally, I think that's the end of it right there. But if you still insist they can't be tried in the U.S. courts, than they should be tried in the courts and legal system of their home countries. Or by international law courts, which also exist.

There are ways to remedy this, but the Bush administration refuses to pursue them in favor of playing the role of a dictatorship. And that last decision should be the one you fear the most.

CR

[Killebrew]

Saying there could be an end to the war on terrorism is like saying there could be an end to the war on crime. What I want to see is a war on baggy pants, that's a war that has a chance of being won. Let's go back to the stovepipe pants of the 1950's ferchrisakes, enough with the baggy pants already.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Saying there could be an end to the war on terrorism is like saying there could be an end to the war on crime. What I want to see is a war on baggy pants, that's a war that has a chance of being won. Let's go back to the stovepipe pants of the 1950's ferchrisakes, enough with the baggy pants already.

But baggy pants so give me the interior freedom I need, and it allows my inner thigh skin to breathe. Also, it allows me to hang with my homies without getting weird looks.

CR

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by EagleFan
A little over 2 years ago John would have probably been fighting for the release of the terrorists involved in 9/11 had they been captured.

Or on the other hand, if they were all released and went out and killed a bunch of innocent civilians than Galt would be complaining that the Bush administration let them go.

Of course he's happy comparing apples to oranges by comparing this to a citizen getting arrested and held for no reason. Common sense be damned.


Of course we could treat the prisoners like their people do and torture them until they all die. Not sure if Galt would complain about that since he doesn't seem to complain about it when it's done elsewhere in the world, unless he could find a way to blame the Bush administration for it.

What a remarkably asinine post. You exhibit a severe lack of common sense yourself Mr. Pot. Where exactly have you read anyone in this thread arguing that these detainees should be freed? What is being debated is the fact that there has been no application of any kind of due process.

Are they P.O.W.'s? If so, declare them as such and follow international law protocol for dealing with them. If they are criminal suspects, then run them through a criminal justice system. If they are guilty of what they've been accused of then they will be dealt with accordingly. If by some chance 1 or more of them have been held without cause then they will have an opportunity to defend themselves and escape and unjust imprisonment. Why is this so difficult for people to accept?

For you to insinuate that someone here would've argued to release the terrorists involved in 9/11 is incredibly insulting.

That said, if we were to capture people suspected of planning and carrying out 9/11 then by all means they should be put to trial and then dealt with accordingly. This is one of the core priniciples of what this country was founded on - "...with Liberty and Justice for all."

[NoMyths]

Too many people in this thread barely deserve the kind of responsibility that our founding fathers--not to mention God, if you believe in Him--expected them to value and protect. I suppose they can't be blamed for being immoral fools considering the state of our country's affairs, but one would pray that the world does better than their version would allow.

Nice posts clint, Chief Rum, and others.

[heybrad]

How did you lose a game to Long Beach?