Officials: New Taliban chief was once at Gitmo

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

He willfully allowed people to be unlawfully detained for another year. Seems to me that was pretty bad isn't it? Or is it ok to detain people now because Obama says it is?

Are you reading challenged, or are you just so full of shit, my ass is jealous? My previous reply still applies. Obama has directed that Gitmo is to be closed and that torture, including waterboarding, kidnapping and "rendition," is to cease immediately. The entire legal and logistical mess created by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal cannot be phyically unwound and undone in a single day, or week, or month.

Originally posted by: RichardE

What does it accomplish keeping them alive?

It avoids painting our entire society as being murderous fools like you. :thumbsdown: :|

As I said, it is currently still holding detainees unlawfully according to ICC regulations. Promises don't mean shit. Not to mention his "promise" was also an de facto authorization of continuing to hold these detainees for at least a year, which is a war crime under ICC regulations.

Promises might work for voters, they don't do much in courts.

It avoids painting our entire society as being murderous fools like you. :thumbsdown: :|

You going to tell the woman who gets raped by a released sex offender that you are sorry, but you had to release him to avoid looking like a barbarian? I am sure she will understand Harvey.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Except you didn't call me out on it since I have no shame about it and have actively admitted to my preference for killing the scum of the planet. I would probally kill 3/4 of the US prison population plus every prisoner of war taken if it was up to me. Sadly it is not, but in the meantime I can take solace in the fact the Obama adminstration seems the good that gitmo serves.

Now you have stated that a position you cannot seem to defend. So since whatever position you hold would not result in innocent deaths, what would you do? Unless of course you havn't actually thought about this and just jumped in this conversation on some moralistic emotional crusade at outrage that some people think death is a prefered solution to many of the worlds problems. If that was it you can admit that too.

As far as calling me out? I don't know how you can call someone out who actively admits to his stance.

I know other people have said it in this thread, but I still want to point out how absolutely batshit insane this is.

No kidding. It says a lot about Richard and I'll be keeping this thread in mind next time I'm tempted to respond to his particular brand of crazy.

Yah that is a little bit crazy. Perhaps a lot crazy.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

What does it accomplish keeping them alive?

The system can be streamlined with a broader death sentence in my opinion. Not to mention make it more efficient so that the "appeal" process does not last as long. It would be a shock immediately, but all new things are. Eventually things would adjust accordingly. Society would be much better off with a purge of the scum.

As far as innocent people, tragic but necessary expenses in making the world a better place. Hopefully with the expansion of surveillance among other things the instances of convicting innocent people will be greatly reduced. As always discretion would have to be used in cases, this would not be a "minimum" sentence type bullshit. The 18 year old having sex with the 15 year old would be treated differently than the 45 year old fucking the 3 year old. Maybe that is why you think its barbaric? Perhaps you assumed I was advocating a type of Stalinesque wide brush?

I already told you what keeping them alive accomplished. It provides a vehicle by which we can remove people from our society that we deem dangerous more easily than if they were all put to death by all the means I just mentioned. The availability of plea bargains, keeping the court systems from being overburdened, facilitating the jobs of police officers, etc... etc. If you give people nothing to lose, they will act like it.

Do you have any idea how many rapes, fraud cases, etc... etc. occur in the US every year? Can you even comprehend how many court cases this would create, and how much it would COST to try them all? (this is even without appeals) How would you suggest going about limiting the appeal rights of people sentenced to death as to make them take less time? I'd be very interested to hear the details.

I can't believe I'm having to argue why it's a bad idea to sentence people to death for committing fraud. Seriously man, I'm not trying to insult you, but it's not that your ideas are too radical for people, it's that they aren't very well thought out.

As I said, the logistics would be complicated, the notion is sound. I will admit that even I can easily see many faults in these ideas, but again, I said the logistics of such an endeavor would be difficult. I imagine it would take many, many man hours to get through just the preparations for such a switch, its folly to try and compress it into a few paragraphs here.

Either way, I am not advocating mass murder as people seem to get from these posts, it is more along the lines of state sponsored retribution and society cleansing of individuals who will never contribute anything.

 

[BassBomb]

We know how well "intelligence" can be

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Harvey
It avoids painting our entire society as being murderous fools like you. :thumbsdown: :|

You going to tell the woman who gets raped by a released sex offender that you are sorry, but you had to release him to avoid looking like a barbarian? I am sure she will understand Harvey.

Thanks for the straw man bullshit. It has nothing to do with "looking" like barbarians. You already qualify for that.

Are you going to tell the woman who gets raped by a released sex offender that he was released because our own officials commited horrendous violations of his rights, possibly including torture, that barred prosecuting him for his crimes and allowed him to be released early or to evade any prosecution?

Are you going to tell the next person falsely accused and imprisoned for crimes he didn't commit that he should be executed because affording him his rights is too inconvenient?

If so, it would be interesting to know your opinion if YOU were the next to be so falsely accused, convicted and imprisoned... Or since you're in such a blood thirsty hurry to execute those at Gitmo, maybe we should wait until after your execution to find out. :roll:

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

I noticed you ignored my response earlier to you. As I stated, you guys all have some great emotion to the death penalty but have yet to actually state how keeping the people I referenced alive accomplishes anything.

Speaking of emotion, you're the guy who is talking about wanting to go into jails and shoot people. Pretty creepy, man.

Keeping those people alive accomplishes a lot. Like I said before, it seems like you haven't thought through the consequences of your ideas. Efficient you say? As it currently stands about 95% of convictions are reached through plea bargain and still our court system is overloaded. If we're putting all these people to death, they are all obviously going to trial. This will create a completely unsupportable strain on our judicial system, one that would cost obscene amounts of money to fix. Furthermore, considering the fallibility of our justice system, you're going to be executing large numbers of innocent people, something our society is completely unwilling to support as a moral issue. In addition, you will create an environment where criminals will have little to no incentive to surrender to police, which will also create massive problems.

I am in absolutely no way convinced that mass executions would be in any way more 'efficient' than our current system, and it would be barbaric to boot. Like I said before, you gotta think these things through.

What does it accomplish keeping them alive?

The system can be streamlined with a broader death sentence in my opinion. Not to mention make it more efficient so that the "appeal" process does not last as long. It would be a shock immediately, but all new things are. Eventually things would adjust accordingly. Society would be much better off with a purge of the scum.

As far as innocent people, tragic but necessary expenses in making the world a better place. Hopefully with the expansion of surveillance among other things the instances of convicting innocent people will be greatly reduced. As always discretion would have to be used in cases, this would not be a "minimum" sentence type bullshit. The 18 year old having sex with the 15 year old would be treated differently than the 45 year old fucking the 3 year old. Maybe that is why you think its barbaric? Perhaps you assumed I was advocating a type of Stalinesque wide brush?

What does keeping you alive accomplish? You call for the death of millions simply to make things more streamlined and make you feel better, and you claim you have some sort of moral high ground. I guess the killing of innocents explains the blind support of Israel at every turn though.

 

[Lemon law]

In the final analysis, both Iraq and Afghanistan are wars. Both sides want to win, both sides think they hold the moral highground, and both sides cite some reasons to justify their position.

And in the of war, both sides recruit their people to participate in the war and pay the prices the leaders usually do not, crying my country right or wrong all along.

Its why we have a Geneva convention, because following every war which is supposed to have an outcome, we have to have a way to handle the prisoners of war taken on both sides. Because after the war, we recognize the difference between a civil crime, the legitimate rights of soldiers on both sides of the war to commit the crime of murder against each other in fair combat, and legitimate war crimes that are associated with totally illegal human rights violations by various military combatants or commanders.

Only opinionated fools think their my country right or wrong viewpoints are right in these situations.

At the end of WW2 we released millions of soldiers we had held prisoners of war and only prosecuted a few for legitimate war crimes.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: RichardE
...

...

The constitution grants protections to enemy soldiers? No, the only thing that does is an international law that declares that soldiers are servants of the state which means they cannot be tried for acts committed in the pursuit of legitimate aims or war. The problem is these individuals do not belong to a state.

Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

places international law within the jurisdiction of the United States judiciary. Guantanamo, as established by the Bush administration, is an attempt to subvert that jurisdiction by the pretense that a United States military facility on foreign soil is not U.S. territory, and is not subject to U.S statute.

Originally posted by: RichardE
So where did I offend the constitution. Someone as intelligent as yourself who can correct my grammar and spelling errors will surely be able to point this out for me.

You might remember your post:

Originally posted by: RichardE
I would probally kill 3/4 of the US prison population...

which is a de jure violation of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto legislation; you had not yet posted

Obviously to the people already incarcerated it would be inhumane and I am sure illegal to change the current prison terms to "death" due to new laws

in which you acknowledge that violation.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RichardE
What does it accomplish keeping them alive?

The system can be streamlined with a broader death sentence in my opinion.

Is that your final solution?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RichardE
What does it accomplish keeping them alive?

The system can be streamlined with a broader death sentence in my opinion.

Is that your final solution?

I must have missed the part where he proposed the wanton slaughter of 1.2+ billion Muslims... got link?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RichardE
What does it accomplish keeping them alive?

The system can be streamlined with a broader death sentence in my opinion.

Is that your final solution?

I must have missed the part where he proposed the wanton slaughter of 1.2+ billion Muslims... got link?

A better suggestion would be for you to actually read the thread before posting dumb remarks, because they weren't even talking about Muslims.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

RichardE you attitude represents the worst of America.

So tell us why these people are deserving. Explain their terrorist activities

If you had your way they would be dead.

People of your mindset imprisoned Dreyfus because he had to be guilty. He was a Jew after all. Speaking of which, it was people like you who looked at the Jews being persecuted in Germany as "They must have done something because they are accused."

Frankly you are a poster child for everyone who believes that Americans are evil. You certainly go out of the way to encourage the image.

Certainly people are in Gitmo for a reason, but not all of them for a good one.

Rather than determine who is who, you would claim that they are guilty without any knowledge based on the faith in the perfection of your government.

You are merely a Holocaust advocate in different clothing.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
RichardE you attitude represents the worst of America.

So tell us why these people are deserving. Explain their terrorist activities

If you had your way they would be dead.

People of your mindset imprisoned Dreyfus because he had to be guilty. He was a Jew after all. Speaking of which, it was people like you who looked at the Jews being persecuted in Germany as "They must have done something because they are accused."

Frankly you are a poster child for everyone who believes that Americans are evil. You certainly go out of the way to encourage the image.

Certainly people are in Gitmo for a reason, but not all of them for a good one.

Rather than determine who is who, you would claim that they are guilty without any knowledge based on the faith in the perfection of your government.

You are merely a Holocaust advocate in different clothing.

Ah yes, because the killing of 200-300 people is the same as the industrial execution of a race?

You do realize that what represents the "worse" of America was not me, but half the population voting for a president who allowed 200-300 innocent people to be killed a week? Numbers that don't really elicit the same emotional response from you people, I wonder why.

As far as your link to those 5 people, it actually represents *to a point* why Gitmo should remain albeit with changes. If the armies own internal tribunals can objectively dismiss people they originally accused than the system works, what is a travesty though is they have not been released and heads should roll for that. As I said earlier it is a tragedy when innocent people are harmed and the state needs to go to do everything possible while still protecting us to avoid this. It is obvious that during the process some innocent people will be harmed, but hopefully we can prevent most of that abuse.

I have to wonder why you seem to have this strong emotional response to my killing of 200-300 people, or even of killing extremely violent or sex offenders (with discretion) in prison. Combine this with the other posters here comparing me with geonecide, evil, wishing death and execution on me and you with a holocaust in sheeps clothing. So I have to wonder why, when you both seem so up in arms over this you barely cry about the 100 000 civilians killed in Iraq, with additional ones in Afghanistan. If you want genocide and holocaust look no further than the US army who has killed on average 10-15k Muslims a year for the last 7 years. That is a cause you should take up with your own personal words of hate and Judgment. Go look in a mirror, that is what people hate America hate, the American people who enabled this war and voted in the now third president who is continuing it.


Quick Edit: That is not to say I don't support the US army, I do and understand that fact that causalities are avoided yet inevitable. I am merely portraying the absolute outragenous of people being upset so much over an event which is controlled and has oversight yet disregard entirely much bigger issues.

Or even those who use massive labels such a holocaust supported in defense of someone who is willing to expand or use the death penalty that would affect no where near the people killed in the holocaust or the wide brush of people painted.

You people attempting to put these labels on do nothing but show your naked ignorance of history that does not go beyond a Google search in most cases it seems.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So the difference between you and those involved in the Holocaust is scale, not right or wrong. Gotcha. It's a wonderful solution you have.

Effectively you define people being held as guilty, and the evidence for their guilt is that they are being held. Yes, I have an emotional response to those who would murder. I have contempt for Muslims killers and wannabes and for you. Not much difference. You don't have the courage of your convictions I suppose.

BTW, you haven't reconciled the people in my link with your claim that they are terrorists. No, you didn't say THEY were, you just said people in GITMO were terrorists and you had no problem with killing them.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So the difference between you and those involved in the Holocaust is scale, not right or wrong. Gotcha. It's a wonderful solution you have.

Effectively you define people being held as guilty, and the evidence for their guilt is that they are being held. Yes, I have an emotional response to those who would murder. I have contempt for Muslims killers and wannabes and for you. Not much difference. You don't have the courage of your convictions I suppose.

BTW, you haven't reconciled the people in my link with your claim that they are terrorists. No, you didn't say THEY were, you just said people in GITMO were terrorists and you had no problem with killing them.

Yes, I believe they are and would have no problem killing them. Military tribunals luckily can effectively sort them out if they truly do have a inkling of doubt to there guilt. The system is set up perfectly, now the execution of release needs to be worked on.


I suppose it would be good public relations to have military tribunals to at least give an mindset of attempting to ensure they are guilty. If out of these tribunals innocence was established they should be free to go. If not they should be summarily executed.

Does that change pacify you enough?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In response to people being held in Gitmo:

They should be disposed of within the prison. They are in there for a reason.

About family members who might be arrested:

Obviously I would be upset at the idea of a family member there for purely emotional reasons, but logically, they would have done something to deserve it and releasing them would be too much of a risk.

Regarding detainees:

Do you honestly think they were just picked up randomly out of a coffee shop and shipped over? They were in the process of terrorist activities or actively participating in activities and for some reason didn't get a bullet for there troubles.

FWIW, which means nothing to you I'm sure, you accuse those Chinese as being de facto terrorists. After all they were terrorists because they were there. Your own words.


Yet another justification:

these pêople are not innocent, they were sent here because they were caught committing terrorist activities

Confronted with the fallacy of automatic guilt:

You actively want to release people at Gitmo knowing full well they are there for specific reasons. Your argument itself portrays you as taking the side of these terrorists in some moralistic endeavor to uphold some abstract idea of the basis of US law as more important than the repercussions of releasing these people.

BTW, I got more. You've made your position quite clear, and that's why we shake our heads.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
In response to people being held in Gitmo:

They should be disposed of within the prison. They are in there for a reason.

About family members who might be arrested:

Obviously I would be upset at the idea of a family member there for purely emotional reasons, but logically, they would have done something to deserve it and releasing them would be too much of a risk.

Regarding detainees:

Do you honestly think they were just picked up randomly out of a coffee shop and shipped over? They were in the process of terrorist activities or actively participating in activities and for some reason didn't get a bullet for there troubles.

FWIW, which means nothing to you I'm sure, you accuse those Chinese as being de facto terrorists. After all they were terrorists because they were there. Your own words.


Yet another justification:

these pêople are not innocent, they were sent here because they were caught committing terrorist activities

Confronted with the fallacy of automatic guilt:

You actively want to release people at Gitmo knowing full well they are there for specific reasons. Your argument itself portrays you as taking the side of these terrorists in some moralistic endeavor to uphold some abstract idea of the basis of US law as more important than the repercussions of releasing these people.

BTW, I got more. You've made your position quite clear, and that's why we shake our heads.

I have yet to deny that position as I still hold too it. I do agree in hindsight that internal military tribunals should be allowed, that is as much leeway as these animals should be given.

 

[Moonbeam]

What an opportunity we missed to show him real American values. What a disaster we voted for Bush. When you put assholes in charge of prisoners, look out when they get out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
In response to people being held in Gitmo:

They should be disposed of within the prison. They are in there for a reason.

About family members who might be arrested:

Obviously I would be upset at the idea of a family member there for purely emotional reasons, but logically, they would have done something to deserve it and releasing them would be too much of a risk.

Regarding detainees:

Do you honestly think they were just picked up randomly out of a coffee shop and shipped over? They were in the process of terrorist activities or actively participating in activities and for some reason didn't get a bullet for there troubles.

FWIW, which means nothing to you I'm sure, you accuse those Chinese as being de facto terrorists. After all they were terrorists because they were there. Your own words.


Yet another justification:

these pêople are not innocent, they were sent here because they were caught committing terrorist activities

Confronted with the fallacy of automatic guilt:

You actively want to release people at Gitmo knowing full well they are there for specific reasons. Your argument itself portrays you as taking the side of these terrorists in some moralistic endeavor to uphold some abstract idea of the basis of US law as more important than the repercussions of releasing these people.

BTW, I got more. You've made your position quite clear, and that's why we shake our heads.

I have yet to deny that position as I still hold too it. I do agree in hindsight that internal military tribunals should be allowed, that is as much leeway as these animals should be given.

Well some progress at least. Now, how do these Chinese fit into your definition of animals?

 

[RichardE]

Well some progress at least. Now, how do these Chinese fit into your definition of animals?

From your own link, they admitted to spending time at a Taliban training camp. The government has said they would not return to the battlefield if released, which means they were picked up there. Hmm, Muslims spending time at a Taliban training camp caught in a war zone where we are fighting the Taliban. So yes, they are animals.

If the state has decided that they are no threat than they should be released, plain and simple. This case should serve as an example of why the system works.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Except you didn't call me out on it since I have no shame about it and have actively admitted to my preference for killing the scum of the planet. I would probally kill 3/4 of the US prison population plus every prisoner of war taken if it was up to me. Sadly it is not, but in the meantime I can take solace in the fact the Obama adminstration seems the good that gitmo serves.

Now you have stated that a position you cannot seem to defend. So since whatever position you hold would not result in innocent deaths, what would you do? Unless of course you havn't actually thought about this and just jumped in this conversation on some moralistic emotional crusade at outrage that some people think death is a prefered solution to many of the worlds problems. If that was it you can admit that too.

As far as calling me out? I don't know how you can call someone out who actively admits to his stance.

I know other people have said it in this thread, but I still want to point out how absolutely batshit insane this is.

No kidding. It says a lot about Richard and I'll be keeping this thread in mind next time I'm tempted to respond to his particular brand of crazy.

I noticed you ignored my response earlier to you. As I stated, you guys all have some great emotion to the death penalty but have yet to actually state how keeping the people I referenced alive accomplishes anything.

thank god a sick fuck like you will never be elected to anything important

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Except you didn't call me out on it since I have no shame about it and have actively admitted to my preference for killing the scum of the planet. I would probally kill 3/4 of the US prison population plus every prisoner of war taken if it was up to me. Sadly it is not, but in the meantime I can take solace in the fact the Obama adminstration seems the good that gitmo serves.

Now you have stated that a position you cannot seem to defend. So since whatever position you hold would not result in innocent deaths, what would you do? Unless of course you havn't actually thought about this and just jumped in this conversation on some moralistic emotional crusade at outrage that some people think death is a prefered solution to many of the worlds problems. If that was it you can admit that too.

As far as calling me out? I don't know how you can call someone out who actively admits to his stance.

I know other people have said it in this thread, but I still want to point out how absolutely batshit insane this is.

No kidding. It says a lot about Richard and I'll be keeping this thread in mind next time I'm tempted to respond to his particular brand of crazy.

I noticed you ignored my response earlier to you. As I stated, you guys all have some great emotion to the death penalty but have yet to actually state how keeping the people I referenced alive accomplishes anything.

thank god a sick fuck like you will never be elected to anything important

You hope.

I find it funny you think the idea of killing people who harm society greatly is somehow radical.

Either way, I can tell you that I would never run for elected office. The real power is in advising the elected officials. Not nearly the spotlight, but more power since you become the middle man between officials. How hard would it be to expand execution using the save the children banner? All it takes is one ambitious person at a opportune time to change things.

You watch and see if the Mexican drug violence spills over to the point innocent Americans, innocent American female teenagers etc are getting raped, beheaded due to this and see where the American peoples public opinion on crime goes.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

I find it funny you think the idea of killing people who harm society greatly is somehow radical.

I don't find it pathetic, scary and very un-funny that you think the idea of killing people who harm society greatly is somehow acceptable. IT ISN'T, except in the most dire conditions of immediate self defense! :thumbsdown: :|

Either way, I can tell you that I would never run for elected office.

Thanks for small favors. People like you scare me.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

I find it funny you think the idea of killing people who harm society greatly is somehow radical.

I don't find it pathetic, scary and very un-funny that you think the idea of killing people who harm society greatly is somehow acceptable. IT ISN'T, except in the most dire conditions of immediate self defense! :thumbsdown: :|

Either way, I can tell you that I would never run for elected office.

Thanks for small favors. People like you scare me.

Funny, you said it would be better if I was executed earlier Harvey, was that in the most dire needs of self defense?

Face it, you don't mind killing people you consider needing to be killed, just your definitions of the need and mine are different, yet I am only advocating death for people who greatly harm society as a whole. You on the other hand call for death for people who have different ideas than you, who is the monster here. Hell, even worse you want to kill people with not only different ideas, but different politics than you! You want this yet you call me the insane one :laugh:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The system can work, however you had them convicted in prior posts by virtue of their imprisonment. Making an allowance that all aren't guilty and deserving punishment is at odds with your prior statements. That's why you were getting slammed. Most of us expect that there ought to an investigation before anyone is released and that when they are found to be dangerous they will be detained. We also don't believe that if a family member were to be arrested, that means automatic guilt. Likewise, as I have proved by example there are those who aren't a threat and weren't fighting. That's how civilized people act. Before there is punishment, there needs to be a proper determination of guilt. When that is done, the innocent go free. Yes there are innocent in Gitmo, and you have acknowledged that fact even after saying that they are being held as terrorists.

That wasn't so hard, was it?