Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. Rainsford brings up a critical, insightful point: the presumption of guilt permeates the Bushies' rationalizations re. our treatment of alleged terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Instead of considering this point, Sir RoboCAD (SrC) picks out a single word -- "torture" -- to duhvert the discussion away from the substance of Rainsford's comment. SrC doesn't want us to talk about his presumption of guilt.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.
How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?
No one is advocating torture. Is "torture" anywhere in the poll questions? Didn't think so. Sheesh, I know you want to play apologist for those fighting against us and that want to destroy us (everyone else catch this smarmy, you're with us or you support terrorism-type smear? Orwellian misdirection at work.) but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.
CsG
Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- that our Constitutional protections for suspects aren't there to protect the guilty nearly as much as they're intended to protect the presumed innocent. We have due process to help keep innocent people from being punished, to help prevent a police state where any authority with an agenda can ruin the lives of anyone, without cause and without accountability. That is exactly the situation we have now with the suspects in Guantanamo and Iraq. They are denied fundamental rights on the presumption of their guilt. That is contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is an example of how we are becoming what we've fought so hard against.
Maybe you forgot the fact that rainsford tried to inject torture as the "duhversion". Nah...you freaks on the left never do that - just the straight and narrow for you...:roll: Maybe you should get with your friend Rainsford and tell him to stop with the "duhversions" and stick with his apologist BS.
Oh, and it's quite hilarious that YOU are trying to lecture me on the protections of the Constitution I know full well their intent - and their intent is not to protect those wishing to destroy us and our way of life. Again, those who are not from here, and were fighting against us - do not get our Constitutional protections. Now if they are fighting for a national Army or have standing to sign treaties - they are afforded the Protections of the Geneva Conventions. So yes Bowfinger - those in Guantanamo are not granted the protections of our Constitution. Don't like it - tough. You can keep whining and throwing a fit, but that's the way it is. The day we allow terrorists to be "protected" by our Constitution is the day they have won because the fight becomes a fight from within rather from the outside.
CsG