If Bush/the Justice Department has its way, it will be (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_go_ot/enemy_combatant;_ylt=AgTEAvhNA3GUmX9U4FhHg6Ss0NUE) :



"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.
"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.


Good stuff.

:(

So, his attorney is fighting the Constitutional right of the President to have him held in a military brig without the benefits of due process.

Nothing is mentioned about the evidence against him as a potential terrorist and his affiliation with Bin Laden and friends, which looks pretty damning.

It seems to me that if we have solid evidence that a foreign citizen now living in our country has ties to AQ, or similar terrorist organizations, and has received training from or alongside terrorists, and subsequent to arrest more evidence is found in his possession linking him to said terror organizations, than yeah, the President is doing the right thing removing him from a local jail and putting him in military custody where he can be isolated from contact with others.

I don't consider this anywhere even close to martial law. We are at war in two countries in the mid-east, and a mid-east citizen linked to OBL and AQ with training in terrorist operations was taken into custody in our country; not some innocent citizen working at a donut shop with nothing in his history to give pause, but a foreign born Bin Laden associate. People would be screaming bloody murder if it was after he had caused an event and the public learned he was known about beforehand and not picked up.

I understand all this, and it's in the article. The above was not particularly related to my point, which is what I quoted in my original post.

A Justice Department lawyer stipulated, very clearly to a judge, that he believed that the military, under direction of the president, had a right to detain indefinitely a US citizen on suspicion of being an enemy combatant.

And that doesnt scare you?

it scares the crap out of me. Basically the government was setup so one branch cant have that kind of power wasnt it. Where is the check and balance for this, in a long list, of King George shitting on the consitution.

When he was failing in school, and rarely showed up to class. They should have booted his ass out of the country at that point. He was here on a visa to go to school, you best be going to school.

I understand all this, and it's in the article. The above was not particularly related to my point, which is what I quoted in my original post.

A Justice Department lawyer stipulated, very clearly to a judge, that he believed that the military, under direction of the president, had a right to detain indefinitely a US citizen on suspicion of being an enemy combatant.

And that doesnt scare you?


Nope, it does not, based on the fact that was pointed out by one of the judges that it is not being widely used to round up people; it is being used in a very precise manner based on evidence.

If it becomes an indiscriminate tool to go after folks like us pointing out our disgust and disdain for the buffoons in our capitol, then I will look at it a bit differently.

Nope, it does not, based on the fact that was pointed out by one of the judges that it is not being widely used to round up people; it is being used in a very precise manner based on evidence.

If it becomes an indiscriminate tool to go after folks like us pointing out our disgust and disdain for the buffoons in our capitol, then I will look at it a bit differently.
By the time that that happens, it's doubtful that anyone will be able to do anything about it.

So, you're satisfied that giving this kind of power to the Executive Branch is "ok" because King George isnt abusing it yet?

Let's say your faith in King George is well-placed, for the sake of argument. What about any of his potential successors? Will they all be as benevolent? Additionally, how do we know he's not currently using it to "round up" various people? It's not like he cant claim secrecy and gag everyone from speaking about it.

Finally, the longer that this power would be left in the hands of the Executive, the harder it would be to revoke that power.

It still amazes me how people are just so willing to let things like this go with "well, they're using it for our security/not abusing it right now - I trust them not to abuse it in the future". When has the government EVER been trustworthy?

It still amazes me how people are just so willing to let things like this go with "well, they're using it for our security/not abusing it right now - I trust them not to abuse it in the future". When has the government EVER been trustworthy?

This.

well, they're using it for our security/not abusing it right now - I trust them not to abuse it in the future"

I pointed out the same fact about the Patriot Act and BOOM, it got abused, misused. Again its not a matter IF it willb e abused but when.

our whole system is setup for checks and balances between the branches and the executive branch is very much the bully on the block atm.

If it becomes an indiscriminate tool to go after folks like us pointing out our disgust and disdain for the buffoons in our capitol, then I will look at it a bit differently.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


I love this quote. I can't rep hit ya though, so I'll just give this comment.

I am in favor of being able to take a person with this kind of evidence against him and isolating him in a military brig, and preventing or at the least limiting his contact with his associates. I support the President (whoever he or she may be) having powers granted by Congress during a time of war that under ordinary circumstances would not be acceptable, such as denial of due process to an enemy whether in this country or another.

Again, if this person had launched an attack within our borders before being apprehended, and it came to light that the government had known about him and had evidence of AQ affiliation, how many of you would be ranting at the government for not taking action?

I do understand the arguments against this power, but I have my opinion. What I am not seeing is any alternative methods being proposed. For those who don't want to allow this practice, how about suggesting something else; how do you think this person should be treated, what conditions should he be held under, or should he be confined at all?

Basic problem solving. You have defined the problem, now let's hear some solutions, or alternative approaches, that would be more acceptable.

I am in favor of being able to take a person with this kind of evidence against him and isolating him in a military brig, and preventing or at the least limiting his contact with his associates. I support the President (whoever he or she may be) having powers granted by Congress during a time of war that under ordinary circumstances would not be acceptable, such as denial of due process to an enemy whether in this country or another.

I do understand the arguments against this power, but I have my opinion. What I am not seeing is any alternative methods being proposed. For those who don't want to allow this practice, how about suggesting something else; how do you think this person should be treated, what conditions should he be held under, or should he be confined at all?

Basic problem solving. You have defined the problem, now let's hear some solutions, or alternative approaches, that would be more acceptable.

Why do you need an alternative? We already have laws that cover these things. This isn't the first time we've had "bad guys" on our soil. Why should our existing system of government suddenly be irrelevant?

It's especially troubling to hear that ends-justifies-the means attitude when we're in an indefinite war. This "war on terror" has absolutely no end in sight. So, you're effectively advocating the indefinite sacrifice of basic Constitutional rights to an administration's subjective whims.

Doesn't due process count as the alternative?

We're not in a war. Well we are, in Iraq, but we supposedly won that a while ago. The War On Terror (TM) is nothing more than a spin pulled by the current administration to basically do whatever they want. Not only is it never ending, it's against a faceless enemy. That means they (Bushco) can paint an evil face on anyone they want, call them a terrorist, and do whatever they want to that person.

A different argument might involve the police and crime. If someone mugs me I don't blame the police for not arresting them in advance, and I certainly don't want the police profiling and arresting people without evidence or a warrant. If there were grounds to suspect they would mug me, then I want an investigation and evidence. We are giving our government carte blanche to do as they see fit in this "war."

during a time of war

We are not at war. Congress has approved a military engagement, which is not war. So IMO, i do not believe the President should have the ability to suspend things in a war time situation without a formal declaration from congress. Even more so in a engagement that was declared a victory by its architect.

The system that we have, which i agree is better than any alternative is broken and is being abused by a "war" on an ideal, which in itself is hilarious. The concept of a war on terror is almost contradictory. Shock and awe are a big factor of our military superiority, which in essence causes terror to those we fight...

Which is better, then? A reactive form of enforcement, or a proactive form of enforcement?

There are pros and cons of both.

and yet you claim to be libertarian

I'm pretty sure Sixee has no idea what Libertarianism entails. = /

Libertarians can't look at both sides of an issue?

As a Libertarian, I prefer the government out of my business. Less intrusion is better. It also means people deal with each other, respectfully.

However, I also recognize the state of current affairs, and realize that not everyone that is in the U.S. has the best interest of this country in mind. To think otherwise is to bury my head in the sand.

The question still stands (personal attacks do not equal debate).

A reactive form of enforcement, or a proactive form of enforcement?


How, pray tell, do you proactively enforce a law someone has, by definition, not broken yet?

If you're talking about proactively prosecuting a "war on terror" by going out ... try building roads and schools. There aren't very many terrorists in Vermont, Auckland and Switzerland.

It's not a personal attack to question your intentions/motivations. You claim to be a Libertarian. Giving big brother the go ahead to detain American citizens/legal residents without council prior to breaking any laws is way way way against any sort of Libertarian belief structure. It's an "authoritarian" belief structure which is completely opposite what that tag under your name claims that you are.

I can explain certain belief structures that I hold that are against that little party tag I list under my name. I'd like to see your explanation about yours instead of non-sequitors and fear mongering. I'd like you to explain why our Constitution was adequate to protect citizens/residents for hundreds of years, but now in an indefinite, but not real 'war' it's not a worthwhile document.

I know it's easier to throw a tag under your name that you think will (in your mind) allow you to argue whatever stance you chose to take for that day. I think it's a crutch for you to hide behind and feel that it will skirt your true belief structure that you post about on these forums. Just about everything you post about is Republican (or gasp neo-con) in belief structure, but it's just easier to attempt to label yourself something you aren't in the hopes that people won't call you on it. If you were true to yourself, I wouldn't have called you out on it here.

I'd just like to know how you can be willing to give up the liberties afforded to an American by the Constitution and yet claim to be a Libertarian.

My intent was to further the conversation, regardless of what you might think.

Personally I think the government is too far reaching, and out of control. I think G.W. and Dick Cheney have tried to put too much into 1 branch of our Government, and taking out the balance that is supposed to be there. However, I don't think they are the boogymen you make them out to be. They are doing what bureaucrats do. It's up to the American people to stop them.

The American people (Remember of, by and for?) have been asleep at the wheel for about 20 years now. Something needs to wake them up.

War on terror and War on drugs and war on (insert something else that is not an entity that can be defeated) is just a slogan. Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity. You can no more have a war on terror than you can have a war on flanking maneuvers.

That makes it a worthless argument in my book to use to excuse unconstitutional behavior.

Define the entity we're at war with, show the possible connection to the entity, and I'm all for allowing the military to detain. Military action and police action should have two different standards of proof, much like civil and criminal court. Another big difference between being held by the military and being held by the courts is that the light of the 4th estate is more likely to have an effect, as it reduces both the need to detain, and the ability of the detainee to operate should the detaining have been valid.

Honestly, I think rather than detain, they should just send their evidence to the 24 hour news channels and give the talking heads meat for the gristle. Convict em in the court of public opinion first.

Define the entity we're at war with, show the possible connection to the entity, and I'm all for allowing the military to detain.


We are at war with AQ, as far as I know, since they conducted an attack on our soil taking over 3000 lives. The detainee in question has been shown to have trained with AQ, been financed to come to America by AQ, had met with the hierarchy of AQ prior to coming to the U.S., and had correspondence further linking him to AQ on his computer hard drive while living in the U.S. His training was in poisons. His purpose for coming to the U.S. was to attend school, which he was only doing sporadically and was failing.

Seems to me he fits your criteria for military detention. And, he was already in custody for another matter, and was simply transferred to military custody. He was not a victim of an assault on his home to drag him out.

The question at hand is whether he should have his constitutional rights taken away by order of the CIC, or should he still have due process available to him. My opinion is that based on the previous actions of AQ in indiscriminate killing and mass mayhem, and his training in poisons, I agree with the decision to suspend his rights and hold him while we are involved in this "war" with Iraq and the hunt for his fellow AQ members and leaders.

How, pray tell, do you proactively enforce a law someone has, by definition, not broken yet?

This is the new progressive republican thinking...get government out of the fortune 100 and place it everywhere else!

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Now that's just wierd - I had written a fairly lengthy post to this thread, starting using the quote function from Sanchek's post, and when I hit post, it said my message was too short and that it needed to be at least 1 character, and promptly ate everything I had written. I was going to say, among other things, that I have that quote in sticker form on one of my journals and that the author was Pastor Martin Niemoller, who despite being both a Protestant minister *and* an outspoken anti-Semite, protested the Nazification of the Protestant churches in Germany and got a trip to Dachau for his trouble. He survived the war, both renouncing his anti-Semitism and becoming a renowned peace activist.

I also wanted to mention that I agreed completely with Maniacles' statement:
War on terror and War on drugs and war on (insert something else that is not an entity that can be defeated) is just a slogan. Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity. You can no more have a war on terror than you can have a war on flanking maneuvers.The 'War on Terror', to an even greater degree than the 'War on Drugs' (which has been a pretty fabulous test case for its architects, if you think about it), has been used cynically and malevolently as a justification/smokescreen for graft on an unprecedented scale, proactive and unilateral violation of the sovereignty of other nations (we now *know* that the case for going into Iraq was fabricated, and yet the same dog and pony are being trotted out in order to justify action against Iran), and the systematic undermining/dismantling of our system of government and its Constitutional protections. We now torture, 'disappear', deny habeus corpus, and otherwise trample on human rights that western civilization has recognized back to the Magna Carta, and are now proactively spying on and restricting the movement of our own citizens (do not fly lists?), as well as exempting the telecoms from any liability associated with these actions. Where does it end?

Regards,
Nydia

Wierd, it just did it again (ate one of my edits). I just wanted to add that I don't think that even our largely sold-to-the-highest-bidder Congress imagined or intended, when they authorized action against Iraq in 2003, that they were giving carte blanche to the administration to conduct an endless, nebulous 'War on Terror' that could be stretched into any shape whatsoever and for any period of time.

Oh, another thing that got eaten from the original post. If these folks being detained at Gitmo (and now, in South Carolina) are 'enemy combatants', why aren't they being accorded the rights and minimum humane treatment accorded to prisoners of war?

However, I also recognize the state of current affairs, and realize that not everyone that is in the U.S. has the best interest of this country in mind.

What do you do when one of those is your president.:devil <joking...for the mostpart

------------------------------

The article says he is a "US resident" not a US Citizen. In this particular case I see nothing wrong with what was done. This gentlemen does not have the same rights granted US Citizens. It appears there is significant evidence he was an operative for AQ.....he should be treated like a foreign spy. However, this passage:

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.
"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.


is scary beyond all reason and it is a clear violation of the sixth amendment:


In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_trial) and public trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trial), by an impartial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impartiality) jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury) of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed

There are two other cases in which this happened to US "citizens", as stated in the article. In those cases they were caught fighting against the US on a foreign battlefield, which, IMO, nullifies their US citizenship either thru:

Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States or

Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces If That Country Is Engaged In Hostilities Or At War With The United States.

So, I am in agreement with By in this case. This clown has no rights under the US constitution...he's not a citizen.

I do not believe the US Government(president) has the right to seize a US Citizen and putting them in a military brig without due process afforded by the constitution. The due process being convicting, in the proper court, that the person should be stripped of their citizenship based on current laws (some mentioned above).

Oh, another thing that got eaten from the original post. If these folks being detained at Gitmo (and now, in South Carolina) are 'enemy combatants', why aren't they being accorded the rights and minimum humane treatment accorded to prisoners of war?

ah, you see, they are not soldiers, they are 'combatants', hudge difference, trust me.

The article says he is a "US resident" not a US Citizen. In this particular case I see nothing wrong with what was done. This gentlemen does not have the same rights granted US Citizens. Which makes for an interesting debate - if you're born outside of the US, are you less of a human? Do inalienable rights only apply if you're born on the right side of the line on a map? I see this argument frequently arise as part of a defense of Gitmo, but then I wonder exactly why we're fighting for democracy and all that jazz.

if you're born outside of the US, are you less of a human? Do inalienable rights only apply if you're born on the right side of the line on a map?

There really shouldn't be much debate. There are human rights and rights granted to you as US Citizen. As far as I'm concerned he has basic human rights....but not many. I consider him, at best, as a spy...and you know what they do to spies right? from the forth Geneva convention:

It should also be noted that paragraph 2 of Article 68 http://www.icrc.org/icons/doclink.gif (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/4e473c7bc8854f2ec12563f60039c738/0950951523e3dcadc12563cd0051bf3e%21OpenDocument) authorizes the Occupying Power under certain conditions to inflict the death penalty on protected persons found guilty of espionage.


Do inalienable rights only apply if you're born on the right side of the line on a map?

In a word....YES!! The rights granted by the US Constitution ONLY apply to US Citizens.

I truly wish our conflict was about "fighting for democracy", but it isn't and never was.

If we were only speaking in terms of confirmed spies or confirmed traitors, I might agree with you. But the issue I see is that we are taking both US and non-US citizens and skipping elements of due process. When found guilty sure, hang 'em if you choose. But why it is that we seem to believe that the human rights extended to US citizens don't apply across the boarder? Sure, there's the argument that US citizens pay into the system they benefit from, but I'm not talking about tax benefits or fancy streets, just simple beliefs about how a government should conduct itself.

I found this floating on the Internet. Not sure if it's of any value or not:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,And oh yes, I believe in all this crap. If a government can start punishing people with impunity, even non-citizens, then I have to wonder what it is we're supporting.

If a government can start punishing people with impunity, even non-citizens, then I have to wonder what it is we're supporting.

I think where I am finding disagreement is with the term "punishing people". Yes, the lawyer for the government said that they felt the President can do as he pleases, blah blah blah... I think just about every poster on this board has said at least once that they disagree with King George doing as he pleases.

BUT, in this particular case, where evidence exists of the detainee being affiliated with AQ, and being transferred from local authority to military authority for purpose of detention, what "punishment" is the problem? He is being held under much more stringent conditions without benefit of U.S. Constitutional Rights.

Honestly, based on the information available regarding his AQ connections and training in poisons, do you really believe we would be better served to allow him to remain in local custody where he can be bailed out for his credit fraud charges, and then be free to possibly contaminate the water supply in your town? Would you not be screaming for someone's head on a platter after a massive poison attack on a city if you find out that he could have been held in military custody based on what was already known about him?

He is AQ, he is the enemy, he was sent here by AQ with AQ funding, and he is trained in poisons! That is all I need to know to say "Good job, keep him locked up".

If a government can start punishing people with impunity, even non-citizens, then I have to wonder what it is we're supporting.

He is a NON-citizen, the quote you posted has absolutely no relevancy what-so-ever!!

I WANT, very much WANT, our government to scrutinize non-citizens like him in our country and if they find them doing the crap this guy did....lock them up for good!!

When it comes to citizens, it's a much different story. They have to prove, in a court of law, treason or some other reason the citizen should lose their citizenship.

The quote says 'all men,' something I've always found interesting. Why shouldn't someone from outside the US be accorded the same rights? We did use the excuse of spreading our views as part of the rhetoric used to enter Iraq, so there is this bizarre precedent for our believe that all individuals somehow possess the same rights to life.

I 100% agree with Ailwon, not much else to say.

Why shouldn't someone from outside the US be accorded the same rights?

They should, but that's not our responsibility. We don't have the right or the means do extend our ideals of "rights" to people outside our borders.....Iraq has proven this over and over and over. That area of the world is not ready,willing, or able to establish a western style, secular, democracy.

When it comes to this case, he's a foreign national conducting operations in our country that could have or will lead to the killing of our people or the destruction of our way of life. He has a right to decent treatment, as any human being would (umm, no torture, Mr. Bush/Cheney), but none of the rights of which you speak.

If we extend the rights you speak of to his ilk they would read something like this:

....life ,liberty to destroy all non-Muslim infidels and their infidel governments and the pursuit of 72 virgins!! :eek:

I had somehow missed the point that he's not a citizen. With that in mind, I'd concede the point that he isn't as fully protected under the Constitution as a full citizen.

However, visa holders do have limited Constitutional rights, and civic responsibilities. For example, the First Amendment does apply to them. They also have to pay taxes and register for selective service.

The argument that he deserves no rights and no due process, just because he's not from here, is not correct. It's also a damned dangerous slippery slope to get ourselves on.

The argument that he deserves no rights and no due process, just because he's not from here, is not correct. It's also a damned dangerous slippery slope to get ourselves on.


I argue that based on his affiliation with AQ, which in my mind makes him an enemy combatant, or prisoner of war, or to get really tight with it, a spy. He is a foreign born national associated with the people who attacked our country, sent here ostensibly to conduct further acts of terror. Based on the evidence already compiled by the government against this man, I have no problem denying him due process, if it could allow him and his lawyers the possibility of getting him outside of a cell, where he would then be free to pursue his mission.

The argument that he deserves no rights and no due process, just because he's not from here, is not correct. It's also a damned dangerous slippery slope to get ourselves on.

Is it? How have we treated spies in the past (this is not a point I really want to know)?. I'll look around and research it a bit...did we, in the past, say during WWII, Korean War, Viet Nam, whatever...give spies that were caught due process? I'm curious if doing this to this guy, who I would more classify as both a spy and saboteur, is a change to what has been done in the past in this country.

I don't think it's a slippery slope because it endangers our spotless record. I think it's dangerous because it sets a bad example and precedent for how our people might be treated should roles be reversed. No different than how dangerous it is for us to so flagrantly flaunt the Geneva convention.

I think it's dangerous because it sets a bad example and precedent for how our people might be treated should roles be reversed.

Oh, I thought the slippery slope was that the "enemy combatant" tag could be applied to US Citizens without due process.

Not sure how it could be reversed unless we have Americans actively engaging in terrorist activities against foreign governments. I'm pretty sure US "spies" know exactly how they'll be treated if caught in most countries and I'd bet no where close to as well as they are in this country.

I don't think it's a slippery slope because it endangers our spotless record. I think it's dangerous because it sets a bad example and precedent for how our people might be treated should roles be reversed. No different than how dangerous it is for us to so flagrantly flaunt the Geneva convention.

By "our" people, are you referring to a journalist having his head severed on camera? Or possibly to American non-military security employees being kidnapped, maimed and disfigured prior to be killed?

Gee, I guess detaining enemies caught on our soil without a speedy trial really is horrendous. It could lead to our enemies doing likewise. Of course, that would be an improvement over how they have treated their prisoners so far.

So you're saying that escalating that sort of activity is a great idea? Two wrongs make a right?

At what point did the actions of fundamental radicals become the template for what we consider acceptable ourselves? Are you kidding?

What happened to the days when we led by example? Telling other societies that they should embrace Democracy is going to be an awfully hard sell when our implementation of it is becoming such a joke.

So you're saying that escalating that sort of activity is a great idea? Two wrongs make a right?

At what point did the actions of fundamental radicals become the template for what we consider acceptable ourselves? Are you kidding?

What happened to the days when we led by example? Telling other societies that they should embrace Democracy is going to be an awfully hard sell when our implementation of it is becoming such a joke.

If anyone is kidding here it has to be you.

At what point did we sacrifice the right to hold prisoners of war, which an AQ member surely is, in order to uphold the shining beacon of Democracy?:rolleyes:


The case being argued in the court is about an AQ affiliate, sent to the US by AQ with AQ monies to pursue an AQ agenda, trained by AQ in the use of poisons, who happened to be arrested for credit fraud and was subsequently transferred to military custody for detention. This is extreme bleeding heart bullshit to say we are violating this poor man's rights. He is the enemy for Christ sakes, and we should be happy we have him in detention before he committed an act of terror with his knowledge.

Would it be leading by example to allow a known AQ operative trained in the use of poisons to have freedom to come and go as he pleased within our borders, at the very time we are actively hunting down members of his terror organization abroad? Would it be a shining example of our Democracy to allow another event like we experienced already at the hands of AQ before we violate this poor soul's "rights" and remove him from the general population?

You talk like we are actively rounding up people left and right and filling the military jails with them. This is one case being argued about one man. Yes, the government lawyer said something extremely audacious, and I think most in their right mind would disagree strongly with the sentiment; but, with regard to the individual the case is about, we did the right thing.



And, try reading my posts before you do your knee-jerk reply next time, because nowhere did I say anything remotely close to what you took from it regarding radical's treatment of prisoners being acceptable, or providing justification for anything we do.

If anyone is kidding here it has to be you.

At what point did we sacrifice the right to hold prisoners of war, which an AQ member surely is, in order to uphold the shining beacon of Democracy?:rolleyes:


The case being argued in the court is about an AQ affiliate, sent to the US by AQ with AQ monies to pursue an AQ agenda, trained by AQ in the use of poisons, who happened to be arrested for credit fraud and was subsequently transferred to military custody for detention. This is extreme bleeding heart bullshit to say we are violating this poor man's rights. He is the enemy for Christ sakes, and we should be happy we have him in detention before he committed an act of terror with his knowledge.

Would it be leading by example to allow a known AQ operative trained in the use of poisons to have freedom to come and go as he pleased within our borders, at the very time we are actively hunting down members of his terror organization abroad? Would it be a shining example of our Democracy to allow another event like we experienced already at the hands of AQ before we violate this poor soul's "rights" and remove him from the general population?

You talk like we are actively rounding up people left and right and filling the military jails with them. This is one case being argued about one man. Yes, the government lawyer said something extremely audacious, and I think most in their right mind would disagree strongly with the sentiment; but, with regard to the individual the case is about, we did the right thing.



And, try reading my posts before you do your knee-jerk reply next time, because nowhere did I say anything remotely close to what you took from it regarding radical's treatment of prisoners being acceptable, or providing justification for anything we do.

How the fuck do we know he is what they say he is IF HE DOESN'T GET A TRIAL???!!

And, try reading my posts before you do your knee-jerk reply next time, because nowhere did I say anything remotely close to what you took from it regarding radical's treatment of prisoners being acceptable, or providing justification for anything we do.

Then, please, explain what your purpose was in posting this:
By "our" people, are you referring to a journalist having his head severed on camera? Or possibly to American non-military security employees being kidnapped, maimed and disfigured prior to be killed?

How exactly else would you expect anyone to take that kind of eye-for-an-eye justification?

The case being argued in the court is about an AQ affiliate, sent to the US by AQ with AQ monies to pursue an AQ agenda, trained by AQ in the use of poisons, who happened to be arrested for credit fraud and was subsequently transferred to military custody for detention. This is extreme bleeding heart bullshit to say we are violating this poor man's rights. He is the enemy for Christ sakes, and we should be happy we have him in detention before he committed an act of terror with his knowledge.
"Patriots" used to make the same arguments about the "Communists" in our country during McCarthyism, you know? Do you also look back on that debacle with pride and support?

If we had a method for determining someone's guilt and intent, with precise accuracy, perhaps due process would not be needed. As long as that's not the case, subjectively picking and choosing when we believe due process is applicable sabotages the entire purpose of it.

If you've let yourself be wrangled into believing it bleeding heart to support one of the most important cornerstones of our entire judicial system, the "terrorists" have already won that battle and you lose.

How the fuck do we know he is what they say he is IF HE DOESN'T GET A TRIAL???!!


That's the whole point...no trial...then the proof is in the press releases. Jedd I can't understand why this would upset you so much, can't you understand that we need to be able to just accuse and convict in one quick motion. If we go back to things like the geneva convention then we are really just placing ourselves on the moral highground and that is not the ground that holds the oil for the wells to be drilled.

For one thing, we need to be able to justify why Blackwater should be hired to do things that the army can do less expensively. We need to protect Halliburton/KBR as they have moved their headquarters offshore and have re-registered as corporations in Dubai, of course this then makes them inelligable to pay taxes in the USA. Jedd you fail once again to understand the importance of protecting corporations and the top 1% of this great nation of ours, it's not about the lowly workers, that would make us commies and we beat those bastards back to the stoneage, it is about protecting those who provide the jobs and live in foriegn countries.

If we had only undestood that one of the greatest things about America is that a business can grow so big that it can then leave the US after getting all of those subsidies that helped it grow, and not pay taxes...thats the reason why we are great.

Oh...and F' that towel head...he couldn't get a fair trial in his own country...why should he get one here?