POLL: Extending Constitutional Protections

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn


So, if detainees are treated according to the principles in those documents, it's likely constitutional. But that's not what's being advocated, is it?

I posed a question to Bow earlier, before he ran away. I think you called it "Nicely obfuscational"

You just opened the door for the same question, Jhhnn. Claiming that you know what is being advocated.

As a matter of simple logic, for you to come to that conclusion and be able to defend your thought process, you would need to know what the current procedure is for the people that are detained without constitutional protection. The rules, the regulations, the whole nuts and bolts of the process that they go through currently.

Its time to ante up, Jhhnn.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Also note how the terrorist apologists don't like to entertain the fact that terrorists could be guilty.

CsG

Who is this and why are they terrorist apologists?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Now answer my question that I posed twice.
"Are you trying to imply(claim) that we do advocate torture?"/"Or are you one of those who think us on the right want to torture prisoners?"

CsG

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"We" don't advocate torture, whether the "we"= the left, right, fence sitters, or America as a whole. Take your pick of who "we" or "you guys" are and then answer the question. No, not "all" - if I wanted to say "all" - I would have said it and your little game might have had some merit -but as it sits it is just childish nitpicking to create an argument.

CsG

Gonna answer yet?

CsG

 

[Gaard]

How can I answer your question if I don't know who 'we' is?

This is as close an answer as I can give. I can't get any more specific without your help on who 'we' is...

If you are speaking only for those who agree with you, then no, I'm not implying that you're advocating torture. If, by 'we', you mean all Republicans, I have to tell you that you are mistaken...and if you were an honest person, you'd agree.

Now, could you answer my question please..."Who is this and why are they terrorist apologists? "

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Once a person is in custody, then they should have the right to legal counsel, to be charged if held captive, a speedy trial and the opportunity to plead their case before a jury.

Maybe they do....

Maybe isn't good enough. Our traditional system of justice can deal with this. If it cannot, then it isn't fit for anyone.

No it can't.


Two letters.

O and J...

You have tremendous faith in the President and none in our system of justice.

You will have to demonstrate that it cannot before I throw it away, or bastardize it. Seems I have more faith in my country than you.

Demonstrate in fact that it cannot work.

Is it perfect? Never said so. But it's better than any alternative. It is as fundamental to freedom as the right to vote. What good is electing an official when that person can decide you fate arbitrarily.

If OJ is your rational, then overturn the whole thing, and have everyone presumed guilty, and then they must prove themselves innocent. That way the guilty never get away. The Constitution is "quaint" anyway.

A simple scenerio.

A Saudi ambassador smuggles in a Nuclear device and detonates it in NYC. 3,000,000 are killed.


What would you do Winston?

Do you honor his Diplomatic Immunity or do you strip him of the rights afforded to him under the constitution?

I believe you will find that a diplomat commiting an act of war is not entitled to unlimited protection.

We can construct scenarios all day. I can make one of Bush declaring martial law and locking up anyone in opposition, including the other two branches of government making this country a military dictatorship.

Rather that, I prefer to deal with the here and now, and let justice decide as it always has.

This conversation has been had. I know it to be so in the 60's when we "needed" to lock up the "communists".

McCarthy tried. He eventually failed, but not until much damage was done. I would not have that again for the world. I'll sacrifice some security, thank you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
How can I answer your question if I don't know who 'we' is?

This is as close an answer as I can give. I can't get any more specific without your help on who 'we' is...

If you are speaking only for those who agree with you, then no, I'm not implying that you're advocating torture. If, by 'we', you mean all Republicans, I have to tell you that you are mistaken...and if you were an honest person, you'd agree.

Now, could you answer my question please..."Who is this and why are they terrorist apologists? "

I know you keep claiming you can't answer -but it's more that you don't want to answer. Take your pick, right, left, America, people who want terrorists to have Constitutional protections, those that don't - take your pick.
If that is too hard for you(like it's hard to pick one), then just use me.

*******

Ozoned - seems we have another case...


CsG

 

[Gaard]

Lets see...

CAD - "Answer the question"
Gaard - "I can't. I don't know who 'we' is. Tell me."
CAD - "Just answer it."
Gaard - "Tell me who 'we' is and I will. I promise."
CAD - "I shouldn't have to tell you. Just answer it."
Gaard - "Just tell me and I swear I'll answer your question."
CAD - "Hey Ozoned, look, Gaard refuses to answer the question."

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Once a person is in custody, then they should have the right to legal counsel, to be charged if held captive, a speedy trial and the opportunity to plead their case before a jury.

Maybe they do....

Maybe isn't good enough. Our traditional system of justice can deal with this. If it cannot, then it isn't fit for anyone.

No it can't.


Two letters.

O and J...

You have tremendous faith in the President and none in our system of justice.

You will have to demonstrate that it cannot before I throw it away, or bastardize it. Seems I have more faith in my country than you.

Demonstrate in fact that it cannot work.

Is it perfect? Never said so. But it's better than any alternative. It is as fundamental to freedom as the right to vote. What good is electing an official when that person can decide you fate arbitrarily.

If OJ is your rational, then overturn the whole thing, and have everyone presumed guilty, and then they must prove themselves innocent. That way the guilty never get away. The Constitution is "quaint" anyway.

A simple scenerio.

A Saudi ambassador smuggles in a Nuclear device and detonates it in NYC. 3,000,000 are killed.


What would you do Winston?

Do you honor his Diplomatic Immunity or do you strip him of the rights afforded to him under the constitution?

I believe you will find that a diplomat commiting an act of war is not entitled to unlimited protection.

We can construct scenarios all day. I can make one of Bush declaring martial law and locking up anyone in opposition, including the other two branches of government making this country a military dictatorship.

Rather that, I prefer to deal with the here and now, and let justice decide as it always has.

This conversation has been had. I know it to be so in the 60's when we "needed" to lock up the "communists".

McCarthy tried. He eventually failed, but not until much damage was done. I would not have that again for the world. I'll sacrifice some security, thank you.

Its my scenario, Winston. It wasn't an act of war.
He was upset because his wife didn't turn you down either. Just your ordinary everyday diplomat.

Now, you get your butt back in here and answer the question. Our past cordial relationship on this board warrants an honest answer. At the very least, in a PM.

 

[Jhhnn]

Now your reasoning, Ozoned, is becoming circular, rather than merely obfuscational. Nobody knows the nuts and bolts of the proposed methodology for determining who's a terrorist and who's not, simply because the Admin is witholding that information. I think we all have some rudimentary understanding of how that would work in a normal court of law, or even in a military court martial.

Clearly, however, their methodology is something other than the provisions of the usual legal system, whether that's within the criminal justice or military justice systems. For which there is no constitutional basis whatsoever. If Congress and the Admin want to renounce the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions and pass new laws, test their constitutionality before the SCOTUS, have at it. Until that time comes, we're all bound to live within the laws we have, including the Prez and his inner circle.

As for CsG's remark-

"Also note how the terrorist apologists don't like to entertain the fact that terrorists could be guilty. "

They may well be, but nobody should be satisfied that they are until such is proven beyond reasonable doubt within the strictures of our legal system.

As for their status as "illegal enemy combatants", I'd appreciate it if you'd cite chapter and verse of the statute making such a definition...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
How can I answer your question if I don't know who 'we' is?

This is as close an answer as I can give. I can't get any more specific without your help on who 'we' is...

If you are speaking only for those who agree with you, then no, I'm not implying that you're advocating torture. If, by 'we', you mean all Republicans, I have to tell you that you are mistaken...and if you were an honest person, you'd agree.

Now, could you answer my question please..."Who is this and why are they terrorist apologists? "

I know you keep claiming you can't answer -but it's more that you don't want to answer. Take your pick, right, left, America, people who want terrorists to have Constitutional protections, those that don't - take your pick.
If that is too hard for you(like it's hard to pick one), then just use me.

*******

Ozoned - seems we have another case...


CsG

[cross-eyed -douche-face] Ayup, another one for the list..[/cross-eyed-douche-face]


Heh heh...

 

[Gaard]

I don't understand why CAD will take the time to respond with his "take your pick" BS, yet won't simply tell me who he was talking about.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Now your reasoning, Ozoned, is becoming circular, rather than merely obfuscational. Nobody knows the nuts and bolts of the proposed methodology for determining who's a terrorist and who's not




Clearly, however, their methodology is something other than the provisions of the usual legal system, ...

Carefully selected words Jhhnn. None the less, Me being the master of "Nicely obfuscational" I was able to read between the lines.


Here is what I read:

I DON"T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, BUT CLEARLY IT IS WRONG.

Good grief and goodnight, Jhhnn, unless you want a shot at the question that I put to Winston.

 

[Jhhnn]

The govt, Ozoned, is required to act within the confines of the law, plain and simple. To do otherwise IS wrong. What the Bush admin is doing IS otherwise, and therefore wrong.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Also note how the terrorist apologists don't like to entertain the fact that terrorists could be guilty.

CsG

Who is this and why are they terrorist apologists?

 

[Baldeagle76]

Okay let me start this off with a footnote : I did not read every post. After page 3, I could pretty well guess what the next 3 pages were going to say. CsG says he wants everybody to post their comments and then as soon as they do, if they disagree with him they are immediately trashed for being an idiot. Wow man you are insightful and right. Wish we had more like you in charge /sarcasm off.

The only reason I felt composed to post here is because I saw posts talking about the Geneeva conventions and blah blah blah. I would like to post another question but this is pass or fail not a poll : Has the United States of America ever ratified/passed/accepted the geneeva conventions? If you don't know the answer look it up.

Next subject : Anyone know the guiding principle behind our traditional humane treatment of prisoners? To save American lives. You say you don't understand, okay this one I will explain. If we treat prisoners of war they way we would want our husbands/fathers/sons treated after capture then the enemy is more likely to surrender than fight to the death. If an enemy surrenders that is one less person we have to kill to accomplish our goal and therefore one less person putting rounds down range and possibly harming an American. At least that is the theory they teach in boot camp. It is possible that some us of in the military were sleeping during that class. This is not my made up theory, this is what they told me when I asked why can't we just shoot them all. I know, I know, the people we are currently engaged in military action are fanatics and they won't surrender even if we did treat them humanely, instead of rewriting rules of military justice as we are now. Don't you think that argument was brought up when we were fighting against the Japapnese? They thought similar to our current foe, that to die fighting for your cause was an honor. Now we did do a great injustice to those of Japanese heritage in the United States but when a soldier was captured during the US Marines Island Campaign he received better treatment than those at Gitmo today.

Anyone familar with the Marine Corps in the last 10 years knows who Gen Anthony Zinni is. He was considered a very influential man in the Marine Corps and still is, though he no longer wears the uniform. Type Anthony Zinni into Google and see what the results say. This is a man who made a famous career of refusing to serve in the Pentagon and continously found himself at the tip of the spear. He spent his life in service to this country so go ahead and call him unpatriotic. When he and many other retired Generals in the US armed service say it is dangerous to treat people as enemy combants and keep them detained without legal recourse indefinetly I tend to sit up and pay attention. The only reason Generals still serving military can't say that to the press is because according to UCMJ officers in the military aren't allowed.

To answer your poll is to allow that thought to even be considered, and I won't. If one service man/woman dies because an "enemy combantant" doesn't want to surrender because he knows he will go to Gitmo forever then this policy is a huge failure. On the other hand if even one "enemy combantant" surrendered by allowing them representation and it saved one service man/womans life then our normal policy would be a success. Which side would you err on if it was your life? I think I will take the advice of people much smarter than I. I don't need to make the mistake for myself, I don't have that much time in my life, so I will learn from others. Anywho I didn't intend this to be preaching, though it probably sounds like it, I just want anyone who take the time to get this far in the post to actually think rather than to just react out of fear.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Lets see...

CAD - "Answer the question"
Gaard - "I can't. I don't know who 'we' is. Tell me."
CAD - "Just answer it."
Gaard - "Tell me who 'we' is and I will. I promise."
CAD - "I shouldn't have to tell you. Just answer it."
Gaard - "Just tell me and I swear I'll answer your question."
CAD - "Hey Ozoned, look, Gaard refuses to answer the question."

Except you are leaving out very relevant portions. Infact in the post just abover yours I explicitly told you that you could use me if you didn't understand what choose one meant.

Your attempt above was not only pathetic but entirely dishonest.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
Okay let me start this off with a footnote : I did not read every post. After page 3, I could pretty well guess what the next 3 pages were going to say. CsG says he wants everybody to post their comments and then as soon as they do, if they disagree with him they are immediately trashed for being an idiot. Wow man you are insightful and right. Wish we had more like you in charge /sarcasm off.

:roll: Now like gaard's post - yours is dishonest also. I did not immediately trash them for answering the question. Infact, I was trying to get people to answer if you'd actually read the thread. The people I "trashed" did not respond to the POLL but rather their assumptions and/or nitpicking to create an argument.
You'll note that I was quite civil with DM even though I disagree with him. Also of note - DM and I have gotten into it quite often here - just not as much as Bowfinger and Gaard, but DM atleast had the sense and decency to answer the poll and provide his answers before he goes places with the issues.

Now I suggest you take this as a lesson if you are going to continue to post here - make sure you know the facts before you post something like that again. You are new so you have time to learn.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I don't understand why CAD will take the time to respond with his "take your pick" BS, yet won't simply tell me who he was talking about.

For the hundredth time - "we"="you guys" From Rainsford's context -who do you think he means? It's quite simple reading comprehension gaard. "you guys" is either A: You republicans/Conservatives or B: Bush supporters or even C: you people who support the category of illegal enemy combatant. Any of those three scenarios - my statement stands.

Again, you still have the other choices if you so wish or the offer of "me" is still on the table but like above - my statement still stands.

Care to answer or are you going to continue to play your little games?

***

BTW, look at the post I was responding to for your question. Now does that not look like a namecalling contest? Come on now gaard - you've been on the big WWW for a while now - you've never seen a tit-for-tat pissing contest? Boy, I've never responded in kind before - nah. Now quit taking things so seriously. Do you really think that I consider you, Bowfinger, or others here "terrorist apologists"? Sheesh - you guys aren't near as bad as BOBDN who was about as close as I've ever seen to one.

CsG

 

[Byers]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Now I suggest you take this as a lesson if you are going to continue to post here - make sure you know the facts before you post something like that again. You are new so you have time to learn.

CsG

Whoa..what is that?

Um, yes mom.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Byers

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Now I suggest you take this as a lesson if you are going to continue to post here - make sure you know the facts before you post something like that again. You are new so you have time to learn.

CsG

Whoa..what is that?

Um, yes mom.

Maybe he SHOULD have his mom check his posts. They might be a bit more truthful if she did

CsG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ozoned, I sent you a PM because this could be an unending pissing match. We can continue here in the forums if you wish, but think on what I say.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
Next subject : Anyone know the guiding principle behind our traditional humane treatment of prisoners? To save American lives. You say you don't understand, okay this one I will explain. If we treat prisoners of war they way we would want our husbands/fathers/sons treated after capture then the enemy is more likely to surrender than fight to the death. If an enemy surrenders that is one less person we have to kill to accomplish our goal and therefore one less person putting rounds down range and possibly harming an American. At least that is the theory they teach in boot camp.

The problem with continuing to abide by this principle is that the vast majority of these enemy combatants are supposedly fanatics who have no qualms with dying in order to take some of their foes with them. It would actually be interesting to see data on the number of Afghani and Iraqi detainees who surrendered willingly, and how many were taken captive because they were wounded.

On the flip side, humane treatment of U.S. soldiers in Iraqi or Afghani hands is, well, not going to happen. Taken together these two things negate any positives to the strictly humane treatment of detainees. Of course, there need not be a reason to treat other human beings humanely, but this make it more of a pragmatic question: If you detain X number of combatants until they talk, you might get something valuable out of it. Why hamstring your own side?

Lastly, I have an issue with dubbing these people POWs. POWs need not fight conventional forms, but the targetting of civilians is off-limits. Do that and you simply become a criminal. A number of these detainees simply don't deserve the title of prisoner of war.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
Okay let me start this off with a footnote : I did not read every post. After page 3, I could pretty well guess what the next 3 pages were going to say. CsG says he wants everybody to post their comments and then as soon as they do, if they disagree with him they are immediately trashed for being an idiot. Wow man you are insightful and right. Wish we had more like you in charge /sarcasm off.

The only reason I felt composed to post here is because I saw posts talking about the Geneeva conventions and blah blah blah. I would like to post another question but this is pass or fail not a poll : Has the United States of America ever ratified/passed/accepted the geneeva conventions? If you don't know the answer look it up.

Next subject : Anyone know the guiding principle behind our traditional humane treatment of prisoners? To save American lives. You say you don't understand, okay this one I will explain. If we treat prisoners of war they way we would want our husbands/fathers/sons treated after capture then the enemy is more likely to surrender than fight to the death. If an enemy surrenders that is one less person we have to kill to accomplish our goal and therefore one less person putting rounds down range and possibly harming an American. At least that is the theory they teach in boot camp. It is possible that some us of in the military were sleeping during that class. This is not my made up theory, this is what they told me when I asked why can't we just shoot them all. I know, I know, the people we are currently engaged in military action are fanatics and they won't surrender even if we did treat them humanely, instead of rewriting rules of military justice as we are now. Don't you think that argument was brought up when we were fighting against the Japapnese? They thought similar to our current foe, that to die fighting for your cause was an honor. Now we did do a great injustice to those of Japanese heritage in the United States but when a soldier was captured during the US Marines Island Campaign he received better treatment than those at Gitmo today.

Anyone familar with the Marine Corps in the last 10 years knows who Gen Anthony Zinni is. He was considered a very influential man in the Marine Corps and still is, though he no longer wears the uniform. Type Anthony Zinni into Google and see what the results say. This is a man who made a famous career of refusing to serve in the Pentagon and continously found himself at the tip of the spear. He spent his life in service to this country so go ahead and call him unpatriotic. When he and many other retired Generals in the US armed service say it is dangerous to treat people as enemy combants and keep them detained without legal recourse indefinetly I tend to sit up and pay attention. The only reason Generals still serving military can't say that to the press is because according to UCMJ officers in the military aren't allowed.

To answer your poll is to allow that thought to even be considered, and I won't. If one service man/woman dies because an "enemy combantant" doesn't want to surrender because he knows he will go to Gitmo forever then this policy is a huge failure. On the other hand if even one "enemy combantant" surrendered by allowing them representation and it saved one service man/womans life then our normal policy would be a success. Which side would you err on if it was your life? I think I will take the advice of people much smarter than I. I don't need to make the mistake for myself, I don't have that much time in my life, so I will learn from others. Anywho I didn't intend this to be preaching, though it probably sounds like it, I just want anyone who take the time to get this far in the post to actually think rather than to just react out of fear.

Welcome. Good post. By rationalizing away the obligation to treat our prisoners humanely, we jeopardize the health and safety of Americans, both in this invasion and in future conflicts. When we crossed that line, we set the precedent for other, formerly law-abiding countries to follow suit.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Do you really think that I consider you, Bowfinger, or others here "terrorist apologists"? Sheesh - you guys aren't near as bad as BOBDN who was about as close as I've ever seen to one.

CsG

Whoa! I think that was a compliment you guys . . . Heh.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


There are fundamental rights we must grant everyone, if only because we are a civilized, moral society. The Bush apologists want to deny those rights, patting themselves on the back for rationalizing a legal loophole to avoid acting morally. I find this repugnant.

Bow, considering the volume of your opinion, there must be something that cements in your mind that The Bush apologists are denying those fundamental rights that we must grant everyone.

As a matter of simple logic, for you to come to that conclusion and be able to defend your thought process, you would need to know what the current procedure is for the people that are detained without constitutional protection. The rules, the regulations, the whole nuts and bolts of the process that they go through currently.

Its time to ante up Bow.....

No, actually, I don't need to know all the nuts and bolts. All I need to know are the numerous reported examples of abuses coming from Iraq and Guantanamo. All I need to know are the reports of people being detained without access to counsel and without being informed of the charges against them. All I need to know is that countless experts and independent organizations (e.g. the Red Cross) have objected to our treatment of prisoners. All I need to know is that the Supreme Court has twice (IIRC) rebuked the Bush Administration for its acts.

That's all I need to know to believe the Bush administration has abdicated its responsibility to treat our prisoners in a civilized and moral way. That does NOT require that all prisoners to be accorded full U.S. Constitutional protections. It does require we recognize some fundamental human rights, however.