Quote :

""According to a letter I received from Liddy Dole, only 40-80 of the detainees are expected to be charged with war cimes. So what about the other prisoners? Are they just at the day spa?""

1/15/2007 6:47:22 PM

Quote :

"According to a letter I received from L. Ron Hubbard, Xenu is going to get you"

1/15/2007 6:48:38 PM

so you are going to discredit the US Sentator from North Carolina like that? Want me to quote it directly? "In fact, it is estimated b the Department of Defense that there are 40 to 80 detainees expected to be charged with war crimes."

What more do you want? There are currently hundreds of detainees. Are they just on a long vacation or what?

1/15/2007 6:56:11 PM

Principles are only for times when it's convenient, and terrorists simply hate our freedom.



[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 6:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 6:56:15 PM

Quote :

"No, the terrorists will hate us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. We can do no right as far as they are concerned. They can't possibly hate us any more because they already hate us with all of their being."

they hate us for our freedom so we have to deny them freedom

1/15/2007 7:01:46 PM

Quote :

"because it doesn't matter, evidence or no evidence, in some respects. People don't recognize the nature of the "war" we are fighting, nor do they recognize that fighting terrorism is fundamentally different than fighting a war against an actual nation. People want to be comfortable at the end of the day, and this "war on terror" makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it has no easy answers, possibly even no palatable answers. People point to Geneva or they point to the Constitution, but those two entities don't really apply, not because I want to be a bastard, but rather because both of those entities assume some basic level of humanity and civility. Terrorism, by its very nature, lacks those two things."

I'm starting to have a hard time telling if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll pretend that you've been drinking, and are not being sarcastic.

But, first of all, what is the nature of the war on terror, and how exactly is the war in Iraq coincident with the war on terror?

Secondly, how did the people in Iraq come to be terrorist?

Thirdly, what were the people know in Gitmo doing before we invaded Iraq, that makes them terrorists?

Quote :

" Quote : "By keeping them there without giving a solid reason, we're doing far more harm to America, because they real terrorist are just going to hate us more." No, the terrorists will hate us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. We can do no right as far as they are concerned. They can't possibly hate us any more because they already hate us with all of their bein"

Ha, your entire preceding post seems to be a product of small mindedness rather than logical ideas based in reality.

You seem to feel that people are stuck one way, and they can't change. You don't seem to be able to fathom the connection between actions and reactions on a large scale.

You've heard this before, but i'll say it again... the little people on the other side think the same way that YOU do. They think that WE hate them unconditionally. Do you hate the Iraqis? Do you hate them no matter what they do? Is there something that the Iraqis can do that would end this war and bring peace between our 2 countries?

Do you even feel that peace in Iraq is even possible?

Terrorism isn't a nebulous concept that you think it is. It has specific causes and there are specific actions that can be taken to control it. Trying to portray it as some kind of epic battle between good and evil is not only idiotic, it's dangerous.

1/15/2007 7:35:58 PM

Quote :

"which has nothing to do with the rights of detainees. "

And which right was being violated by saying "you guys should be ashamed of defending terrorists, and you ought not do it"

Do the lawyers of the inmates have the right not to have their feelings hurt or something?

1/15/2007 11:11:34 PM

the right to counsel is being denied. That is a right.

1/15/2007 11:22:40 PM

Quote :

"Greg, you bitching about gun rights in every thread is getting really old. This thread has nothing to do with guns."

it's not every thread, but I am extremely tired of hearing people bitch and moan about rights when they don't give a shit about some of the rights of actual law abiding american citizens


it's pretty sad, but I guess certain rights don't fall under the lefts list of "things that the ACLU cares about"

whatever...

not like you people on the left don't bitch about the same things over and over again anyway


yall have fun complaining about me some more, I care oh so much

1/16/2007 12:07:52 AM

Why should the ACLU be concerned with gun rights? Isn't that under the purview of the NRA? Besides, the ACLU's purpose is to go after the fringe cases in order to sure up our rights. There are voices for the gun lobby, there aren't voices for people who have had their right to habeus corpus removed.

1/16/2007 12:12:09 AM

maybe the civil liberties thing


I dunno

1/16/2007 12:14:36 AM

Quote :

"And which right was being violated by saying "you guys should be ashamed of defending terrorists, and you ought not do it" Do the lawyers of the inmates have the right not to have their feelings hurt or something?"

The problems I have:

1) He's making the assumption that they're all guilty before they've had a trial.
2) His point is not to shame the lawyers. It's to deny the detainees their right to council by scaring away lawyers.

1/16/2007 12:28:32 AM

Quote :

"maybe the civil liberties thing"

The ACLU doesn't agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Besides, they have said that if the NRA and other gun owner rights organizations didn't exist they would support 2nd amendment cases. But as it stands they have limited resources and focus on other rights. Don't blame the ACLU for the failings of the NRA.

1/16/2007 2:14:14 AM

"it's ok, the NRA has this so we don't care"

sounds like a cop out and an excuse not to concern themselves with something that's not under their political agenda


the ACLU has no problem joining up with multiple other special interest groups


and every lefty on here still avoids what I am talking about

you bitch, scream, throw temper tantrums about people that aren't citizens, never been here, have actively fought against our military and openly admit to wanting americans to die because of some bullshit religious reasoning but yet don't stand up, sit idly by, and don't say a goddamn thing about other rights that have been taken away from everyday law abiding american citizens since 1934...

it's a shame, some of you people pay no attention to history, despite being such history buffs


and don't give me that "america wouldn't violate a citizens rights" crap

unless you slept though US history in grade school

you people can think what you want of me, i don't really care because none of you have control over whats important to me, but where one draws a line about his/her rights being violated is their personal decision, and after my little trip to NJ and some reading I've been doing... I've had more than enough at this point

1/16/2007 4:01:44 AM

Quote :

"you bitch, scream, throw temper tantrums about people that aren't citizens, never been here, have actively fought against our military and openly admit to wanting americans to die because of some bullshit religious reasoning but yet don't stand up, sit idly by, and don't say a goddamn thing about other rights that have been taken away from everyday law abiding american citizens since 1934... "

That doesn't mean they should not be treated according to the Geneva conventions. Likewise, the rights of the constitution are not denied to people just because they aren't citizens unless it is written accordingly. Guns are not the issue with Gitmo detainees.

Bitch all you want about the ACLU, but they play an extremely important role in protecting American freedoms. They've even written friends of the court briefs on behalf of conservatives. Just because they agree with the Supreme Courts decision of 1934 doesn't mean they want to get rid of your constitutional rights. It's not like the ACLU is actively trying to curtail your rights to bear arms. they just chose not to get involved in the debate. And as I said, they have limited resources so if another organization can take care of a certain issue or right then the ACLU has a tract record of doing so. Blame the NRA not the ACLU for not protecting your gun rights.

1/16/2007 5:49:28 AM

Quote :

"you bitch, scream, throw temper tantrums about people that aren't citizens, never been here, have actively fought against our military and openly admit to wanting americans to die because of some bullshit religious reasoning but yet don't stand up, sit idly by, and don't say a goddamn thing about other rights that have been taken away from everyday law abiding american citizens since 1934..."

Jesus. You mean the year they banned machine guns and silencers? After what had just happened while under prohibition. Yes, what a tragic day for civil rights. Next thing you know they're going to take away my God-given right to own biological weapons.

Quote :

"it's a shame, some of you people pay no attention to history, despite being such history buffs and don't give me that "america wouldn't violate a citizens rights" crap unless you slept though US history in grade school"

Dude, I'm a US History teacher.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 6:57 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 6:56:53 AM

Quote :

"the right to counsel is being denied."

How was it denied again?

Quote :

"The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties. "

Where is the denial? Sure, some of them have been denied rights and they deserve them, but this article isn't an example of it.

1/16/2007 8:17:08 AM

Quote :

"so you are going to discredit the US Sentator from North Carolina like that? Want me to quote it directly? "In fact, it is estimated b the Department of Defense that there are 40 to 80 detainees expected to be charged with war crimes." What more do you want? There are currently hundreds of detainees. Are they just on a long vacation or what?"

what, so every other person in Gitmo is 100% innocent of everything, I guess... notice that she said charged. I didn't claim that the situation was perfect. In fact, I said it sux. But I also understand that we can't look at this through the rose colored glasses of utopian ideals, either.

Quote :

"But, first of all, what is the nature of the war on terror, and how exactly is the war in Iraq coincident with the war on terror?"

I fail to see the relevance of questioning Iraq to the discussion. Nice try at a herring, buddy.

Quote :

"Secondly, how did the people in Iraq come to be terrorist?"

Strawman.

Quote :

"Thirdly, what were the people know in Gitmo doing before we invaded Iraq, that makes them terrorists? "

Strawman.

Quote :

"You've heard this before, but i'll say it again... the little people on the other side think the same way that YOU do. They think that WE hate them unconditionally. Do you hate the Iraqis? Do you hate them no matter what they do? Is there something that the Iraqis can do that would end this war and bring peace between our 2 countries?"

Iraq is not equivalent to the war on terror. I know that you like to reduce the entire situation down to that, because it makes it convenient and it's an easy rallying cry of NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!! OMFG!!! against the bushies and such (I'm not a Bushie, btw), but get that through your thick skull.

Quote :

"Terrorism isn't a nebulous concept that you think it is."

I'm not saying it's nebulous. I'm saying that it is uniquely different from a traditional war and a traditional enemy. And because of that, it requires us to look at the situation differently and outside of our comfort zone. We have to make some shitty choices, and a lot of libbies don't want to make those choices because it puts them outside of their utopian happy la-la land comfort zone.

Quote :

"It has specific causes and there are specific actions that can be taken to control it."

Oh, really, Einstein. Care to enlighten us on how to solve the terrorism problem? Should we go up and give them all cookies and ask them not to hate us irrationally anymore?

Quote :

"Trying to portray it as some kind of epic battle between good and evil is not only idiotic, it's dangerous."

If you don't think that terrorists are some kind of evil, then you are creating an even more dangerous situation.

Quote :

"the right to counsel is being denied. That is a right."

I wasn't aware they were American citizens. In fact, I seem to recall that the detainees are likely to be against that right anyway, so why give it to them?

Quote :

"Besides, they have said that if the NRA and other gun owner rights organizations didn't exist they would support 2nd amendment cases."

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough**cough*LIPSERVICE*cough*

Quote :

"That doesn't mean they should not be treated according to the Geneva conventions."

Geneva was meant to apply to people who fought under the flag of sovereign nations. Get that through your thick skull.

Quote :

"Likewise, the rights of the constitution are not denied to people just because they aren't citizens unless it is written accordingly."

This logic is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but why the FUCK should we extend the rights of CITIZENS to non-citizens who want to KILL CITIZENS? You don't get it. The Constitution was NOT meant to be applied to non-citizens in general. You can't treat terrorists or suspected terrorists as common criminals because they are NOT common. They are a different breed of criminal, one that the Constitution simply wasn't written to handle. I'm not saying that we should treat these people like dogs. Rather, I'm saying that we need to understand that this situation is legitimately and fundamentally different than bleeding hearts want to make it out to be. This isn't little Timmy stole some bread. This is these people want to KILL US IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE. It's fundamentally different, and we can't treat it the same way that we treat little Timmy. Like it or not, we have to come up with new rules for this situation, and I don't think that the liberal pansy bleeding heart methodolody is smart, nor do I think it will keep us safe, nor do I think it will help solve the problem. All it will do is the same thing it has done in the US: release terrible criminals back onto the streets who will simply go out and commit more heinous crimes. You might free one innocent, but you will pay with the lives of a hundred more as you release two or three guilty at the same time.

1/16/2007 10:37:43 AM

jason, you still ignore the whole principle about why I have an issue because you and everyone else know thats it's hypocritical

Quote :

"Jesus. You mean the year they banned machine guns and silencers? After what had just happened while under prohibition. Yes, what a tragic day for civil rights. Next thing you know they're going to take away my God-given right to own biological weapons."

I don't think any law abiding citizen wants to own biological weapons, nukes, or any weapons of mass destruction.

Since you are a history teacher maybe you can look up how many murders and crimes were committed with a machine gun... st valentines day massacre, maybe a shootout here and there with prohibitionists, but nowhere near what the movies and tv had you think. and once prohibition ended it was no longer an issue anymore, oh wait, there were thousands of govt revenue agents that would have been out of a job, so the feds decided to say that it was ok to own a silencer or a machine gun, you just had to pay for a $200 or render the weapon "inoperable"

no one was going to pay $200 for a $5 suppressor or a $100 firearm

in 1934, 0 weapons were registered and in 35, 1 weapon was registered

I feel sorry for your kids in class that are getting your little political indoctrination

1/16/2007 10:59:50 AM

Quote :

"what, so every other person in Gitmo is 100% innocent of everything, I guess... notice that she said charged. I didn't claim that the situation was perfect. In fact, I said it sux. But I also understand that we can't look at this through the rose colored glasses of utopian ideals, either. "

we don't know. That's why we need trials.

likewise, I'm glad you learned the term strawman, now if you could only apply it correctly.

Quote :

"This logic is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but why the FUCK should we extend the rights of CITIZENS to non-citizens who want to KILL CITIZENS? You don't get it. The Constitution was NOT meant to be applied to non-citizens in general."

The bill of rights etc, the rights of the people as listed in the constititution are not rights of the few, but rights of the whole. That is why foreign nationals who come to the US and violate laws are still protected under the same rights you and I enjoy. Because the United States believes these rights to be part of natural law, i.e. law that comes from logic and reason.

Quote :

"You can't treat terrorists or suspected terrorists as common criminals because they are NOT common. They are a different breed of criminal, one that the Constitution simply wasn't written to handle."

Neither are seial killers or serial rapists. You don't win an ideological war by removing all your morals.

Quote :

"I'm not saying that we should treat these people like dogs. Rather, I'm saying that we need to understand that this situation is legitimately and fundamentally different than bleeding hearts want to make it out to be. This isn't little Timmy stole some bread. This is these people want to KILL US IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE. It's fundamentally different, and we can't treat it the same way that we treat little Timmy. Like it or not, we have to come up with new rules for this situation, and I don't think that the liberal pansy bleeding heart methodolody is smart, nor do I think it will keep us safe, nor do I think it will help solve the problem. All it will do is the same thing it has done in the US: release terrible criminals back onto the streets who will simply go out and commit more heinous crimes. You might free one innocent, but you will pay with the lives of a hundred more as you release two or three guilty at the same time."

Sure you come up with new rules for this situation, but you don't scrap the old ones either. During every war the enemy wanted to kill us any way possible. The thing you are forgetting is we don't even know if these people are terrorists or illegal enemy combatants or people caught in the wrong spot at the wrong time. That is why you need to investigate the charges and if there are no charges you just hold them perpetually. You forget that these are people who were captured in Afghanistan, not the United States. They weren't in America looking to harm us.

Quote :

"jason, you still ignore the whole principle about why I have an issue because you and everyone else know thats it's hypocritical"

No, it isn't hypocritical. As you said, if it doesn't effect me I don't care. I don't care about machine guns or silencers or whether or not you can have a ccpw in New Jersey. It is off my radar. What I do care about is when the United States government acts in my name and erodes liberties on my behalf and expects me to take it lying down. Fuck that. That is where I act. I'm sorry that I care more about habeus corpus (something that predates guns) and right to trial (something that predates guns) than I do about machine guns and silencers. I'm not being hypocritical. I'm chosing my battles.

Quote :

" in 1934, 0 weapons were registered and in 35, 1 weapon was registered"

so people have been skirting gun laws from the begining. What's the point.

1/16/2007 2:47:18 PM

Quote :

"I don't think any law abiding citizen wants to own biological weapons, nukes, or any weapons of mass destruction."

Way to assume away peoples' right to bear arms. In this day and age, if you think an AK will protect you from a tyrannical government, you're fooling yourself. Only WMDs and privately owned B-52s can protect my freedoms. It's disgusting how you're so willing to stand by idly while others rights are violated because it's those rights don't matter to your agenda.

Quote :

"I feel sorry for your kids in class that are getting your little political indoctrination"

You have no idea what lengths I go through do present a fair view of history, so stfu. Seriously.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 3:02:17 PM

oh stfu,

I do not like citizens of the United States and those that fall under the protections of the us constitution having their rights violated

I do not like POWs having their rights violated in accordance to the Geneva convention, even if these same people make no attempt to treat our troops the same, we're above that, and shoudl be above that

and NO ONE is advocating WMDs in the hands of individuals

and do you really think that people with lesser weapons can't fight off our government if need be?
or do you talk out of your ass, because I could swear that smaller less trained, lesser equipped armies do a decent job at kicking our ass when you take the planes, bombs, etc out of the picture

and no one is advocating that anyone should bomb the us, or nuke it, or anything of that matter, it's a personal defense issue, as in... the goverments only form of act right when they cross the lines comes from the citizens via either the ballot box, the soap box, or the cartridge box


there are plenty of well meaning politicans and government officials that want whats best for this country and it's people, or even what they think is best with no foul intentions what so ever, but what happens when someone that doesn't have the best intentions gets into office?

you stick a frog in boiling water and he jumps out, you stick that frog into mild water and set it on a stove and slowly turn the heat up and he'll swim around happily until he dies

but I'm sure you include things like... why hitler chose not to invade sweden, why the first firearms laws were enacted, why the colonies won the revolutionary war, etc etc

jason, you're being a hypocrite...still, and you claim to own firearms (that aren't technically covered under the 2nd at that)

I'm gonna bitch about this because this is what I care about and what affects me in my personal life and day to day life... like I said, if you don't like it, use the user block, or ignore me, but when I feel the need to point out that you're being a hypocrite I WILL do so

1/16/2007 4:33:03 PM

Quote :

" jason, you're being a hypocrite...still, and you claim to own firearms (that aren't technically covered under the 2nd at that) I'm gonna bitch about this because this is what I care about and what affects me in my personal life and day to day life... like I said, if you don't like it, use the user block, or ignore me, but when I feel the need to point out that you're being a hypocrite I WILL do so"

how am I being hypocritical? I don't think my 2nd amendment rights are being abridged in the least.

The thing is, this thread is about pows and not the 2nd amendment.

1/16/2007 4:43:17 PM

Well, the fact still does remain that these Guantanamo prisoners are not American citizens. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees enemy combatants (or any other non-citizens, for that matter) any rights whatsoever. Period, fact, end of sentence.

The Geneva Convention rules are being violated by our enemies to the point at which they are virtually meaningless and almost completely useless. We have violated them many times before ourselves also. It's just business as usual for both sides if you ask me. And I've seen enough beheading videos by those types of people that I really don't care if we're keeping a few of them locked up down in Cuba.


There are a lot of people who work for our government outside our borders that do lots of really bad and mean things to people. Well, we pay them to do that and keep it quiet. And my stance on these issues can be summed up thusly: I don't really care how we treat our deadly enemies and choose to dispose of them, so long as it saves my skin and that of my fellow countrymen.

1/16/2007 4:44:43 PM

^^the last part wasn't directed at you man


and as for what you guys are talking about, I have no problem with you defending people that need it, I am sure there are people there that don't belong there, and it needs to be fixed

I do apologize for this turning into what it did, but it's an issue that pushes me and when I see people being hyporitical(in my eyes, maybe not in your own) it bothers me

it's not that I think i can change any of your opinions, i can't, most of you are so dead set that it doesn't matter until it's too late and may not matter to yall then... it's more food for thought, casual observer types



[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ok]

1/16/2007 4:45:07 PM

Quote :

"Well, the fact still does remain that these Guantanamo prisoners are not American citizens. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees enemy combatants (or any other non-citizens, for that matter) any rights whatsoever. Period, fact, end of sentence."

It most certainly does too. The US constitution is not limiting the scopes of rights and privledges to stictly citizens.

Quote :

"The Geneva Convention rules are being violated by our enemies to the point at which they are virtually meaningless and almost completely useless. We have violated them many times before ourselves also. It's just business as usual for both sides if you ask me. And I've seen enough beheading videos by those types of people that I really don't care if we're keeping a few of them locked up down in Cuba."

Our enemies in this battle are not signers of the Geneva Accords. That does not mean that we should violate our belief system because someone else is doing it. Doing so only puts us on their level. Likewise, as per the supremacy clause of the constitution, the Geneva Accords have become the supreme law of the land.

Quote :

"There are a lot of people who work for our government outside our borders that do lots of really bad and mean things to people. Well, we pay them to do that and keep it quiet. And my stance on these issues can be summed up thusly: I don't really care how we treat our deadly enemies and choose to dispose of them, so long as it saves my skin and that of my fellow countrymen."

When we act like monsters and pay other people to act like monsters on our behalf we become monsters and lose all moral standing or sumpremacy we might have over our enemies.

1/16/2007 4:50:20 PM