OPC: No problem...and I do enjoy your contributions
Rooster: We have been told since the 1970s that we will end our dependence on foreign oil. During the 1973 and 1979 oil crisis our leaders continually promised us progress in this arena. Nothing happened. 35 years later we are dealing with the same problem. Why can't we as Americans see beyond the brush and have vision into the future?
0
OPC: No problem...and I do enjoy your contributions
Rooster: We have been told since the 1970s that we will end our dependence on foreign oil. During the 1973 and 1979 oil crisis our leaders continually promised us progress in this arena. Nothing happened. 35 years later we are dealing with the same problem. Why can't we as Americans see beyond the brush and have vision into the future?
man i have nothing for ya, i personally feel our political process has been hijacked by career criminals and big business, the two party system is a one party system, two sides of the same coin. however i do feel there are good people on both sides of the isle, just none with balls
once upon a time greed and coruption could bring down the greedy and guilty and the innocent were not expected to bail them out
0
man i have nothing for ya, i personally feel our political process has been hijacked by career criminals and big business, the two party system is a one party system, two sides of the same coin. however i do feel there are good people on both sides of the isle, just none with balls
once upon a time greed and coruption could bring down the greedy and guilty and the innocent were not expected to bail them out
11. 18 June2008: Vetoed H.R. 6421, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[24] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.
11. 18 June2008: Vetoed H.R. 6421, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[24] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.
Kennyvegas- I also respect you and recognize you as being one of the more inteligent members of this forum.
Speaking again on Guantanamo. I dont feel that US taxpayers should have to foot the bill of hundreds of captured detainees to try to prove their innocense or guilt when the majority of the people they detain are guilty.
What incentive does our government have of detaining innocent people from Iraq or Afghanastan? I dont think Bush or cheney are just grabbing everybody wearing a turbin and throwing them in GITMO. How expensive and counterproductive would it be to have to try every one of these guys when there is little doubt in our outstanding military personels motives? Surely we have had a few bad apples but not many.
I think you are completely wrong with the bolded part. It is my understanding that there has only been 1 person found guilty that has gone to trial at Guantanamo Bay. So far every person that has had their trial has been found innocent. So basically what we know so far is we are holding innocent people and withholding them of any rights that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.
775 detainees have been held in Guantanamo, about 420 of whom have been
released without charge
90% of detainees
are innocent civilians with no ties to terrorism. They abducted
from their own country, not someone else's..
0
Quote Originally Posted by jopiscopo:
Kennyvegas- I also respect you and recognize you as being one of the more inteligent members of this forum.
Speaking again on Guantanamo. I dont feel that US taxpayers should have to foot the bill of hundreds of captured detainees to try to prove their innocense or guilt when the majority of the people they detain are guilty.
What incentive does our government have of detaining innocent people from Iraq or Afghanastan? I dont think Bush or cheney are just grabbing everybody wearing a turbin and throwing them in GITMO. How expensive and counterproductive would it be to have to try every one of these guys when there is little doubt in our outstanding military personels motives? Surely we have had a few bad apples but not many.
I think you are completely wrong with the bolded part. It is my understanding that there has only been 1 person found guilty that has gone to trial at Guantanamo Bay. So far every person that has had their trial has been found innocent. So basically what we know so far is we are holding innocent people and withholding them of any rights that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.
775 detainees have been held in Guantanamo, about 420 of whom have been
released without charge
90% of detainees
are innocent civilians with no ties to terrorism. They abducted
from their own country, not someone else's..
On September 12, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of a terror suspect to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to DoD, Inayatullah, an Afghan national, had been captured as a result of ongoing DoD operations in the struggle against violent extremists in Afghanistan and had admitted that he had been the Al Qaeda Emir of Zahedan, Iran, and planned and directed Al Qaeda terrorist operations. Inayatullah collaborated with numerous Al Qaeda senior leaders, to include Abu Ubaydah al-Masri and Azzam, executing their instructions and personally supporting global terrorist efforts. Inayatullah attested to facilitating the movement of foreign fighters, significantly contributing to trans-national terrorism across multiple borders. Inayatullah met with local operatives, developed travel routes and coordinated documentation, accommodation and vehicles for smuggling unlawful combatants throughout countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq.
On March 14, 2008, DoD announced that it had custody of Muhammad Rahim al-Afghani, a high-level member of al-Qaida captured in the War on Terror,previously held in CIA custody, and had placed him under control of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
On June 22, 2007, DoD announced that terror suspect Haroon al-Afghani had been tranferred to Guantanamo Bay. Accodring to DoD, Haroon al-Afghani was captured as part of the Global War on Terror, was said to be associated with high-level militants in Afghanistan, and admitted to serving as a courier for al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). In addition, DoD claimed that Haroon al-Afghani was a senior commander of Hezb-e-Islami/Gulbuddin (HIG), a declared hostile terrorist group associated with AQ in Afghanistan and commanded multiple HIG terrorist cells that conducted improvised explosive device (IED) attacks in Nangarhar Province. He was assessed to have had regular contact with senior AQ and HIG leadership.
On June 06, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of Abdullahi Sudi Arale, suspected of being a member of the Al Qaeda terrorist network in East Africa, and of serving as a courier between East Africa Al Qaeda (EAAQ) and Al Qaeda in Pakistan, to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
On April 27, 2007, DoD announced that it had it taken custody Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a high-level member of al-Qaida captured in the War on Terror and placed him under control of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Prior to his arrival at Guantanamo Bay, he was held in CIA custody
I found these cases in less than five minutes. Are you sure you want to keep insisting that our fine military is just plucking civilians off the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan and letting them rought ag GTMO?
0
On September 12, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of a terror suspect to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to DoD, Inayatullah, an Afghan national, had been captured as a result of ongoing DoD operations in the struggle against violent extremists in Afghanistan and had admitted that he had been the Al Qaeda Emir of Zahedan, Iran, and planned and directed Al Qaeda terrorist operations. Inayatullah collaborated with numerous Al Qaeda senior leaders, to include Abu Ubaydah al-Masri and Azzam, executing their instructions and personally supporting global terrorist efforts. Inayatullah attested to facilitating the movement of foreign fighters, significantly contributing to trans-national terrorism across multiple borders. Inayatullah met with local operatives, developed travel routes and coordinated documentation, accommodation and vehicles for smuggling unlawful combatants throughout countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq.
On March 14, 2008, DoD announced that it had custody of Muhammad Rahim al-Afghani, a high-level member of al-Qaida captured in the War on Terror,previously held in CIA custody, and had placed him under control of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
On June 22, 2007, DoD announced that terror suspect Haroon al-Afghani had been tranferred to Guantanamo Bay. Accodring to DoD, Haroon al-Afghani was captured as part of the Global War on Terror, was said to be associated with high-level militants in Afghanistan, and admitted to serving as a courier for al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). In addition, DoD claimed that Haroon al-Afghani was a senior commander of Hezb-e-Islami/Gulbuddin (HIG), a declared hostile terrorist group associated with AQ in Afghanistan and commanded multiple HIG terrorist cells that conducted improvised explosive device (IED) attacks in Nangarhar Province. He was assessed to have had regular contact with senior AQ and HIG leadership.
On June 06, 2007, DoD announced the transfer of Abdullahi Sudi Arale, suspected of being a member of the Al Qaeda terrorist network in East Africa, and of serving as a courier between East Africa Al Qaeda (EAAQ) and Al Qaeda in Pakistan, to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
On April 27, 2007, DoD announced that it had it taken custody Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a high-level member of al-Qaida captured in the War on Terror and placed him under control of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Prior to his arrival at Guantanamo Bay, he was held in CIA custody
I found these cases in less than five minutes. Are you sure you want to keep insisting that our fine military is just plucking civilians off the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan and letting them rought ag GTMO?
I think you are completely wrong with the bolded part. It is my understanding that there has only been 1 person found guilty that has gone to trial at Guantanamo Bay. So far every person that has had their trial has been found innocent. So basically what we know so far is we are holding innocent people and withholding them of any rights that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.
775 detainees have been held in Guantanamo, about 420 of whom have been released without charge
90% of detainees are innocent civilians with no ties to terrorism. They abducted from their own country, not someone else's..
The problem here is the same as Nam, it's impossible
to know who is the Enemy. But, they are not US citizens. I lost
alot of buddies in Nam and until you've been in a WAR it's hard
for me to accept any of your objections. WAR is HELL !!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by jpero:
I think you are completely wrong with the bolded part. It is my understanding that there has only been 1 person found guilty that has gone to trial at Guantanamo Bay. So far every person that has had their trial has been found innocent. So basically what we know so far is we are holding innocent people and withholding them of any rights that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.
775 detainees have been held in Guantanamo, about 420 of whom have been released without charge
90% of detainees are innocent civilians with no ties to terrorism. They abducted from their own country, not someone else's..
The problem here is the same as Nam, it's impossible
to know who is the Enemy. But, they are not US citizens. I lost
alot of buddies in Nam and until you've been in a WAR it's hard
for me to accept any of your objections. WAR is HELL !!!
Kenny Vegas: "Why are you a Republican or a Democrat?"
very good question, Kenny... getting to the bottom of this question is the secret to understanding why are country is on its last years of being the dominant world power/economy...
why would anyone be a Republican or a Democrat...
to call yourselves either of these things is to identify yourselves with a sect of the population that views the world as black and white... even if you call yourselves a moderate Republican, you are identifying with the far right, because Republicans are defined by the ideals of the far right... same goes for Democrats on the far left...
you cannot be either of these things without contributing to our downfall... the two-party system has to die, or else we will die as a country...
of course, it is the nature of humans (and esp. Americans) to make adjustments out of necessity, not foresight... in other words, the two party system will not die until the entire system itself is dead...
still... props to Kenny for asking the right question... the secret to all of life's important answers is in asking the right questions...
0
Kenny Vegas: "Why are you a Republican or a Democrat?"
very good question, Kenny... getting to the bottom of this question is the secret to understanding why are country is on its last years of being the dominant world power/economy...
why would anyone be a Republican or a Democrat...
to call yourselves either of these things is to identify yourselves with a sect of the population that views the world as black and white... even if you call yourselves a moderate Republican, you are identifying with the far right, because Republicans are defined by the ideals of the far right... same goes for Democrats on the far left...
you cannot be either of these things without contributing to our downfall... the two-party system has to die, or else we will die as a country...
of course, it is the nature of humans (and esp. Americans) to make adjustments out of necessity, not foresight... in other words, the two party system will not die until the entire system itself is dead...
still... props to Kenny for asking the right question... the secret to all of life's important answers is in asking the right questions...
Shep-- Thanks for the shout...I agree with you fully but must state it is also human nature to want to be part of a group. That said these two parties have derailed the American Dream (as they like to refer to it) for special interest and self interest. They use this party system to divide us on emotional issues and an "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality. I would hypothesize this is why 30+% of the population identifies themselves as independent.
Apache: I have to respectfully disagree. I do not believe that the fairness that our constitution inspires has borders, nationality, or ethnicity. The Declaration of Independence clearly states,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights-- That among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Self-evident means that any human should understand that these Rights are Human Rights and not American Rights. Thus, when we capture individuals-- some of which are captured not in Iraq or Afghanistan but in non War Zones-- it is our duty to apply what they fail to apply...to raise ourselves above the fray of countless nations who fail to apply any human rights to any individuals.
I can't imagine being a soldier in war and trust you that war is hell but that situation does not supersede the right to treat suspects with a level of humanity and provide them with a fair hearing to weigh the evidence...not find guilt or innocence...but to find whether there is sufficient evidence to continue to detain them. Furthermore, I think your point loses much credibility when one of our finest War Heroes in John McCain (a point everyone can agree on) has continually fought against the treatment of individuals at Gitmo. To quote John McCain:
Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us -- every single one of us -- knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. - John McCain, Republican US Senator
I again apologize for ranting but this issue is truly an issue that defines us as a people...not as a country...but as a people. We should not and cannot continue to play by there rules that lack decency and humanity. It detracts from our history and the American gift provided to us by those who died through the years to keep it safe.
0
Shep-- Thanks for the shout...I agree with you fully but must state it is also human nature to want to be part of a group. That said these two parties have derailed the American Dream (as they like to refer to it) for special interest and self interest. They use this party system to divide us on emotional issues and an "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality. I would hypothesize this is why 30+% of the population identifies themselves as independent.
Apache: I have to respectfully disagree. I do not believe that the fairness that our constitution inspires has borders, nationality, or ethnicity. The Declaration of Independence clearly states,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights-- That among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Self-evident means that any human should understand that these Rights are Human Rights and not American Rights. Thus, when we capture individuals-- some of which are captured not in Iraq or Afghanistan but in non War Zones-- it is our duty to apply what they fail to apply...to raise ourselves above the fray of countless nations who fail to apply any human rights to any individuals.
I can't imagine being a soldier in war and trust you that war is hell but that situation does not supersede the right to treat suspects with a level of humanity and provide them with a fair hearing to weigh the evidence...not find guilt or innocence...but to find whether there is sufficient evidence to continue to detain them. Furthermore, I think your point loses much credibility when one of our finest War Heroes in John McCain (a point everyone can agree on) has continually fought against the treatment of individuals at Gitmo. To quote John McCain:
Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us -- every single one of us -- knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. - John McCain, Republican US Senator
I again apologize for ranting but this issue is truly an issue that defines us as a people...not as a country...but as a people. We should not and cannot continue to play by there rules that lack decency and humanity. It detracts from our history and the American gift provided to us by those who died through the years to keep it safe.
I agree with you fully but must state it is also human nature to want to be part of a group.
indeed... i refer to this as "flocking behavior"... most people are not secure enough to 1) stand on their own, or 2) challenge their own beliefs or the beliefs of their affiliation...
We should not and cannot continue to play by there rules that lack decency and humanity.
we love to suckle at the teat of the media... and our media are nothing more than extensions of political ideals that are defined by left-wing and right-wing fanatics...
i tell people constantly... do not ever swallow what the media is trying to feed you... if the media is trying to feed you something, spit it back in their face! the worst thing you can be in this day is a sucker... and people who swallow the media's tripe are suckers!
0
Quote Originally Posted by Kennyvegas:
I agree with you fully but must state it is also human nature to want to be part of a group.
indeed... i refer to this as "flocking behavior"... most people are not secure enough to 1) stand on their own, or 2) challenge their own beliefs or the beliefs of their affiliation...
We should not and cannot continue to play by there rules that lack decency and humanity.
we love to suckle at the teat of the media... and our media are nothing more than extensions of political ideals that are defined by left-wing and right-wing fanatics...
i tell people constantly... do not ever swallow what the media is trying to feed you... if the media is trying to feed you something, spit it back in their face! the worst thing you can be in this day is a sucker... and people who swallow the media's tripe are suckers!
I am more of a Republican because I believe more in lower taxes, strong military and I cannot stand this class warfare shit the left engages in. Also not a fan of the gays
I do not like the right in terms of all of the NRA lets kill every animal that moves (I am a vegan
I also do not believe in any religion and the fact that the right jams that shit down everyones throat is annoying.
As for abortion. I used to be big anti abortion but honestly I hate kids and I dont like that many people so if they wanna kill em before they get here go right ahead
When I get into the booth though I end up voting republican
0
I am more of a Republican because I believe more in lower taxes, strong military and I cannot stand this class warfare shit the left engages in. Also not a fan of the gays
I do not like the right in terms of all of the NRA lets kill every animal that moves (I am a vegan
I also do not believe in any religion and the fact that the right jams that shit down everyones throat is annoying.
As for abortion. I used to be big anti abortion but honestly I hate kids and I dont like that many people so if they wanna kill em before they get here go right ahead
When I get into the booth though I end up voting republican
I am more of a Republican because I believe more in lower taxes, strong military and I cannot stand this class warfare shit the left engages in. Also not a fan of the gays
As for abortion. I used to be big anti abortion
When I get into the booth though I end up voting republican
I believe in CHOICE, here. I don't think a child created
by rape should be born.
0
Quote Originally Posted by NJDevils:
I am more of a Republican because I believe more in lower taxes, strong military and I cannot stand this class warfare shit the left engages in. Also not a fan of the gays
As for abortion. I used to be big anti abortion
When I get into the booth though I end up voting republican
I believe in CHOICE, here. I don't think a child created
I am more of a Republican because I believe more in lower taxes, strong military and I cannot stand this class warfare shit the left engages in. Also not a fan of the gays
I do not like the right in terms of all of the NRA lets kill every animal that moves (I am a vegan
I also do not believe in any religion and the fact that the right jams that shit down everyones throat is annoying.
As for abortion. I used to be big anti abortion but honestly I hate kids and I dont like that many people so if they wanna kill em before they get here go right ahead
When I get into the booth though I end up voting republican
I like the honesty.
0
Quote Originally Posted by NJDevils:
I am more of a Republican because I believe more in lower taxes, strong military and I cannot stand this class warfare shit the left engages in. Also not a fan of the gays
I do not like the right in terms of all of the NRA lets kill every animal that moves (I am a vegan
I also do not believe in any religion and the fact that the right jams that shit down everyones throat is annoying.
As for abortion. I used to be big anti abortion but honestly I hate kids and I dont like that many people so if they wanna kill em before they get here go right ahead
When I get into the booth though I end up voting republican
Just to clear up something-- I was not quoting McCain in support of McCain for President. I was just quoting him because he came out against the autrocities and is the current nominee for the republican party. It was to counter apache's point. Detaining prisoners without providing them the right to a habeas hearing is wrong...it is black and white with no gray area and we degrade everything we stand for and uphold in our Constitution when we act without this principle.
0
OPC,
Just to clear up something-- I was not quoting McCain in support of McCain for President. I was just quoting him because he came out against the autrocities and is the current nominee for the republican party. It was to counter apache's point. Detaining prisoners without providing them the right to a habeas hearing is wrong...it is black and white with no gray area and we degrade everything we stand for and uphold in our Constitution when we act without this principle.
I tend to think that making a choice at the voting booth is like choosing a mutual fund: which one is going to give me the best overall performance? Right now, that is the Republican party. People should own guns, it is proven that if more people carried, crime is reduced. Fiscal conservation is good. Republicans moreso believe that people should make their own way finacially. Dems have built a platform that espouses what they can do for you and what you are gonna get, not what obstacles that they will help you overcome to get that for yourself.
I am military, work in International Relations and have spent lots of time overseas working with the politicians and militaries of over 20 different countries in the last five years. The world does not hate the US. In fact, many I have talked to in other countries have asked me to sponsor them into the US so that they can come over to work and enjoy the freedoms that we all have.
The Iraqis were dancing in the streets during the first elections (late 2005). I have pictures with my Iraqi counterparts and their ink-stained fingers: the institutions are the people there who have wanted to be free for years--there is also not one that I met who wanted the US out of there, either. They understand that it is a generational change that will take years. Good example of this where the US and NATO intervened and we have been patient enough to effect a the beginnings of a generational change: the Balkans, where my current focus lies. What reporting do you hear about Kosovo, Croatia, Serbia, etc.? Very little or none. Why? It doesn't suit the media's need to report failure. How many of you know that Kosovo actually declared independence in the last year? Coverage by the media is inversely proportional to success.
Sheperd,
To call myself a Republican is not to corner myself to the far right as you state, that is the definition that you have assigned, possibly from the media?
Also, about the prisoners in GITMO, this is an issue that has no current solution based on current convention and international law. The Geneva conventions have painted the US and every other country that adheres to them into a box when it comes to dealing with war crimes, terrorists and prisoners of war. The prisoners at GITMO have acted as enemies of the United States in some way, but are not organized, do not wear a uniform, or follow any of the other rules associated with the Geneva Conventions. So, how do we deal with this? We put them in a place that is not US territory and hold them as prisoners of war. Affording them the rights of a US citizen and the right to trial is absurd. Anybody have a better solution with what to do with these guys? KennyVegas, you are a lawyer (I am not), you have anything further on this?
Sorry for the long post, guys, but I just read the whole thing and had to comment...
Cheers!
0
I tend to think that making a choice at the voting booth is like choosing a mutual fund: which one is going to give me the best overall performance? Right now, that is the Republican party. People should own guns, it is proven that if more people carried, crime is reduced. Fiscal conservation is good. Republicans moreso believe that people should make their own way finacially. Dems have built a platform that espouses what they can do for you and what you are gonna get, not what obstacles that they will help you overcome to get that for yourself.
I am military, work in International Relations and have spent lots of time overseas working with the politicians and militaries of over 20 different countries in the last five years. The world does not hate the US. In fact, many I have talked to in other countries have asked me to sponsor them into the US so that they can come over to work and enjoy the freedoms that we all have.
The Iraqis were dancing in the streets during the first elections (late 2005). I have pictures with my Iraqi counterparts and their ink-stained fingers: the institutions are the people there who have wanted to be free for years--there is also not one that I met who wanted the US out of there, either. They understand that it is a generational change that will take years. Good example of this where the US and NATO intervened and we have been patient enough to effect a the beginnings of a generational change: the Balkans, where my current focus lies. What reporting do you hear about Kosovo, Croatia, Serbia, etc.? Very little or none. Why? It doesn't suit the media's need to report failure. How many of you know that Kosovo actually declared independence in the last year? Coverage by the media is inversely proportional to success.
Sheperd,
To call myself a Republican is not to corner myself to the far right as you state, that is the definition that you have assigned, possibly from the media?
Also, about the prisoners in GITMO, this is an issue that has no current solution based on current convention and international law. The Geneva conventions have painted the US and every other country that adheres to them into a box when it comes to dealing with war crimes, terrorists and prisoners of war. The prisoners at GITMO have acted as enemies of the United States in some way, but are not organized, do not wear a uniform, or follow any of the other rules associated with the Geneva Conventions. So, how do we deal with this? We put them in a place that is not US territory and hold them as prisoners of war. Affording them the rights of a US citizen and the right to trial is absurd. Anybody have a better solution with what to do with these guys? KennyVegas, you are a lawyer (I am not), you have anything further on this?
Sorry for the long post, guys, but I just read the whole thing and had to comment...
I think this is where you all miss the objective of a hearing....I am not supporting full blown trials for the detainees at Gitmo. A evidentiary hearing is solely to have a gap-stop against holding indiviuals on suspicions alone. There the United States would have to present evidence that presents a reasonable suspicion, not just a mere suspicion, that the prisoner committed an act which the American laws make unlawful. You appoint a tribunal of judges so that no one person is acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
Many of you are presenting evidence that their are evildoers at Gitmo....but that is not the entirety of the individuals held. Many innocents are held because of their affiliations with individuals who may/may not be terrorists i.e. like if your brother was a terrorists and they detained you. yes you may have useful information but in no way does that warrant incarceration.
Finally, I agree Geneva has painted us in a corner to an extent because we can't act like nations who spit at human rights and care nothing about international law. However, I believe this corner is the right place to be...it proves the difference between Americans and Terrorists...It proves that no matter what terrorists acts are committed against us, we will remain with dignity and honor on the high road. I, for one, do not want to be part of a society that condones the atrocities at Gitmo and Abu Graihb. I think we are better than that or should at least strive to be better than that. I may be an optimist but isn't that the reason my immigrant great-grandparents and grandparents came here.
0
I think this is where you all miss the objective of a hearing....I am not supporting full blown trials for the detainees at Gitmo. A evidentiary hearing is solely to have a gap-stop against holding indiviuals on suspicions alone. There the United States would have to present evidence that presents a reasonable suspicion, not just a mere suspicion, that the prisoner committed an act which the American laws make unlawful. You appoint a tribunal of judges so that no one person is acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
Many of you are presenting evidence that their are evildoers at Gitmo....but that is not the entirety of the individuals held. Many innocents are held because of their affiliations with individuals who may/may not be terrorists i.e. like if your brother was a terrorists and they detained you. yes you may have useful information but in no way does that warrant incarceration.
Finally, I agree Geneva has painted us in a corner to an extent because we can't act like nations who spit at human rights and care nothing about international law. However, I believe this corner is the right place to be...it proves the difference between Americans and Terrorists...It proves that no matter what terrorists acts are committed against us, we will remain with dignity and honor on the high road. I, for one, do not want to be part of a society that condones the atrocities at Gitmo and Abu Graihb. I think we are better than that or should at least strive to be better than that. I may be an optimist but isn't that the reason my immigrant great-grandparents and grandparents came here.
Very interesting political argument going on here.....I would have to agree with those of you that think being neither is better than being one or the other.......if you are a member of either you have to be affiliated with parts of their platform that I'm sure you don't agree with.....I know that I am registered as one...but I could just as easily be registered as the other......I agree and disagree with both partys platforms at various points:
Republicans....too interested in making new laws ta put Americans behind bars
Democrats.....too interested in answering every perceived problem with a new government program
Republicans.....pander a bit too much to big business
Democrats....pander a bit too much to special interest groups
Republicans.....listen way too much to the christian right
Democrats......listen way too much to the atheists and agnostics and anybody with any kind of minority status (real or imagined)
basicly........the only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican....and that phrase could easily be reversed!
0
Very interesting political argument going on here.....I would have to agree with those of you that think being neither is better than being one or the other.......if you are a member of either you have to be affiliated with parts of their platform that I'm sure you don't agree with.....I know that I am registered as one...but I could just as easily be registered as the other......I agree and disagree with both partys platforms at various points:
Republicans....too interested in making new laws ta put Americans behind bars
Democrats.....too interested in answering every perceived problem with a new government program
Republicans.....pander a bit too much to big business
Democrats....pander a bit too much to special interest groups
Republicans.....listen way too much to the christian right
Democrats......listen way too much to the atheists and agnostics and anybody with any kind of minority status (real or imagined)
basicly........the only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican....and that phrase could easily be reversed!
I agree that we should take the high road, that is the society that I want to be a part of and what I have spent the last 22 years doing in the military. The Geneva Convention does not specify the due process these prisoners should receive, however. That is the corner we are in, and the people who have got us there (some who are in GITMO) are plenty smart enough to have figured that out. The terrorists have, for the most part, won the information operations war, very similar to what happened in Vietnam. During Vietnam, the generals were saying that the war was won, that we had it all wrapped up. Then the Tet Offensive happened. If they had it all wrapped up, then how could the enemy launch Tet, even though it turned out to be, militarily, a miserable failure for the north? It was about turning the opinion here in the states, which they succeeded in doing. GITMO is being used for the same purposes by the terrorists. As far as GITMO, I heard a comment by a pundit that went something like this: "If you think those guys being held there are not associated with terrorism or terrorists themselves, then why don't you offer to take them into your own home?" Whether or not this is possible is not even debatable, we know it's not. Point is made though: are you willing? I am not.
I do not condone Abu Graib. That is a funciton of extremely poor leadership: either the leaders knew what was going on and didn't stop it, or they had no clue what was going on (how could any leader call themselves effective if they don't know what is happening in their unit?) and didn't find out until it was too late. Immoral, illegal, unethical: all of us in the military are taught these things and the vast majority live by them. The people there did not and there is simply no excuse.
0
KennyVegas,
I agree that we should take the high road, that is the society that I want to be a part of and what I have spent the last 22 years doing in the military. The Geneva Convention does not specify the due process these prisoners should receive, however. That is the corner we are in, and the people who have got us there (some who are in GITMO) are plenty smart enough to have figured that out. The terrorists have, for the most part, won the information operations war, very similar to what happened in Vietnam. During Vietnam, the generals were saying that the war was won, that we had it all wrapped up. Then the Tet Offensive happened. If they had it all wrapped up, then how could the enemy launch Tet, even though it turned out to be, militarily, a miserable failure for the north? It was about turning the opinion here in the states, which they succeeded in doing. GITMO is being used for the same purposes by the terrorists. As far as GITMO, I heard a comment by a pundit that went something like this: "If you think those guys being held there are not associated with terrorism or terrorists themselves, then why don't you offer to take them into your own home?" Whether or not this is possible is not even debatable, we know it's not. Point is made though: are you willing? I am not.
I do not condone Abu Graib. That is a funciton of extremely poor leadership: either the leaders knew what was going on and didn't stop it, or they had no clue what was going on (how could any leader call themselves effective if they don't know what is happening in their unit?) and didn't find out until it was too late. Immoral, illegal, unethical: all of us in the military are taught these things and the vast majority live by them. The people there did not and there is simply no excuse.
i have never been in combat or directly had someone trying to kill me
from this vantage point i feel we must take the high road, there is no other road, our whole ideology as a nation is based on this premise, but we havent been staying true to our ideals a great deal lately
we cannot succomb to the lowest levels of humanity to combat the problem
i do believe the media has not fairly portrayed anything regarding our operations in the mid east, they play too much of a role in forming public opinion
0
been reading your guys discussion
i have never been in combat or directly had someone trying to kill me
from this vantage point i feel we must take the high road, there is no other road, our whole ideology as a nation is based on this premise, but we havent been staying true to our ideals a great deal lately
we cannot succomb to the lowest levels of humanity to combat the problem
i do believe the media has not fairly portrayed anything regarding our operations in the mid east, they play too much of a role in forming public opinion
Sumting.......With the exception of some restaurant owners in France, yes....we (the citizens of the USA) are typically well-liked around the world.......it is, however, our government that has the problem......
The book was written in 1958, the movie came out 5 years later, 2 years later I was in Vietnam/Thailand...."The Ugly American"
Rooster: Good news does not sell newspapers...or increase cable tv ratings.......just ask Ruppert Murdoch. The more extreme the media, the more "shaded" the truth, the more people like it.
The Christian Science Monitor has a circulation of under 100,000...do you think that anyone in this forum gets their news from that source??
BTW: I think that poster, a few posts up, in a very simple way...gets it and is 99.9% spot on........
0
Sumting.......With the exception of some restaurant owners in France, yes....we (the citizens of the USA) are typically well-liked around the world.......it is, however, our government that has the problem......
The book was written in 1958, the movie came out 5 years later, 2 years later I was in Vietnam/Thailand...."The Ugly American"
Rooster: Good news does not sell newspapers...or increase cable tv ratings.......just ask Ruppert Murdoch. The more extreme the media, the more "shaded" the truth, the more people like it.
The Christian Science Monitor has a circulation of under 100,000...do you think that anyone in this forum gets their news from that source??
BTW: I think that poster, a few posts up, in a very simple way...gets it and is 99.9% spot on........
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
The problem here is the same as Nam, it's impossible
Hot Forum Topics
