POLL: Extending Constitutional Protections

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.

How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?

No one is advocating torture. Is "torture" anywhere in the poll questions? Didn't think so. Sheesh, I know you want to play apologist for those fighting against us and that want to destroy us (everyone else catch this smarmy, you're with us or you support terrorism-type smear? Orwellian misdirection at work.) but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. Rainsford brings up a critical, insightful point: the presumption of guilt permeates the Bushies' rationalizations re. our treatment of alleged terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Instead of considering this point, Sir RoboCAD (SrC) picks out a single word -- "torture" -- to duhvert the discussion away from the substance of Rainsford's comment. SrC doesn't want us to talk about his presumption of guilt.

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- that our Constitutional protections for suspects aren't there to protect the guilty nearly as much as they're intended to protect the presumed innocent. We have due process to help keep innocent people from being punished, to help prevent a police state where any authority with an agenda can ruin the lives of anyone, without cause and without accountability. That is exactly the situation we have now with the suspects in Guantanamo and Iraq. They are denied fundamental rights on the presumption of their guilt. That is contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is an example of how we are becoming what we've fought so hard against.

Maybe you forgot the fact that rainsford tried to inject torture as the "duhversion". Nah...you freaks on the left never do that - just the straight and narrow for you...:roll: Maybe you should get with your friend Rainsford and tell him to stop with the "duhversions" and stick with his apologist BS.

Oh, and it's quite hilarious that YOU are trying to lecture me on the protections of the Constitution I know full well their intent - and their intent is not to protect those wishing to destroy us and our way of life. Again, those who are not from here, and were fighting against us - do not get our Constitutional protections. Now if they are fighting for a national Army or have standing to sign treaties - they are afforded the Protections of the Geneva Conventions. So yes Bowfinger - those in Guantanamo are not granted the protections of our Constitution. Don't like it - tough. You can keep whining and throwing a fit, but that's the way it is. The day we allow terrorists to be "protected" by our Constitution is the day they have won because the fight becomes a fight from within rather from the outside.

CsG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

Who is 'we'?

If you would have read the post I was responding to you'd know "we" is "you guys". Got anything else you don't understand gaard?

CsG

Yes, I don't understand how you can speak for others. Did they give you some kind of power of attorney or something?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The day we allow terrorists to be "protected" by our Constitution is the day they have won because the fight becomes a fight from within rather from the outside.

CsG

Pure tripe. If this comes to pass, it'll be because our goverment/courts say it should be so.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

Who is 'we'?

If you would have read the post I was responding to you'd know "we" is "you guys". Got anything else you don't understand gaard?

CsG

Yes, I don't understand how you can speak for others. Did they give you some kind of power of attorney or something?

I'm quite sure I speak for many on the right(in the right ) when I said that we don't advocating torture. Or are you one of those who think us on the right want to torture prisoners?

What a joke...:roll:

CsG

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that in order to squarely examine the nature of the whole argument that some basic understanding of the constitution needs to be understood. No branch of the govt, not even the military, exists outside its framework.

Within that framework, Congress provided the UCMJ, and adopted the Geneva Conventions, both of which limit and direct the conduct of the military and of the CinC himself when engaged in military operations.

Last June, the SCOTUS ruled very deferentially on the matter, but nonetheless allowed that detainees have certain rights and are entitled to constitutional protections. Essentially, they gave the Admin time to come into compliance with the law before the Court has to rule against them. It's why said admin is now trying to outsource the lifelong imprisonment of the terrorist suspects held in Gitmo, for example- If they're not in US custody, then they definitely have no recourse within the US legal system.

And "suspected terrorist" is definitely the correct term, simply because they've never been tried in any constitutionally established venue, civilian or military.

In many respects, the whole framing and issue avoidance situation wrt this whole WoT rather vividly illustrates just how far Admin supporters are willing to go in their faith-based trust in the Bush regime. Merely the accusation of "Terrarist" is enough for them to sanction any act against the accused, and to trust completely in the judgement and goodness of our leaders.

Hogwash. Washinton, Jefferson, Paine and the rest of the Patriots of the time would be right in your face, CsG- what you and the Admin are attempting is to bring back the kind of "Justice" meted out in the Star Chamber by the minions of the then King George- "Guilty because we say so."

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

Who is 'we'?

If you would have read the post I was responding to you'd know "we" is "you guys". Got anything else you don't understand gaard?

CsG

Yes, I don't understand how you can speak for others. Did they give you some kind of power of attorney or something?

I'm quite sure I speak for many on the right(in the right ) when I said that we don't advocating torture. Or are you one of those who think us on the right want to torture prisoners?

What a joke...:roll:

CsG

So you ARE saying that you speak for others on here?

Mind taking the time to tell me who you do and who you don't speak for? Do you speak for Daniel1113? How about Dari? Or are you just saying that when you said "we don't support terror", you mearly meant those that agree with you?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.

How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?

No one is advocating torture. Is "torture" anywhere in the poll questions? Didn't think so. Sheesh, I know you want to play apologist for those fighting against us and that want to destroy us (everyone else catch this smarmy, you're with us or you support terrorism-type smear? Orwellian misdirection at work.) but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. Rainsford brings up a critical, insightful point: the presumption of guilt permeates the Bushies' rationalizations re. our treatment of alleged terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Instead of considering this point, Sir RoboCAD (SrC) picks out a single word -- "torture" -- to duhvert the discussion away from the substance of Rainsford's comment. SrC doesn't want us to talk about his presumption of guilt.

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- that our Constitutional protections for suspects aren't there to protect the guilty nearly as much as they're intended to protect the presumed innocent. We have due process to help keep innocent people from being punished, to help prevent a police state where any authority with an agenda can ruin the lives of anyone, without cause and without accountability. That is exactly the situation we have now with the suspects in Guantanamo and Iraq. They are denied fundamental rights on the presumption of their guilt. That is contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is an example of how we are becoming what we've fought so hard against.

Maybe you forgot the fact that rainsford tried to inject torture as the "duhversion". Nah...you freaks on the left never do that - just the straight and narrow for you...:roll: Maybe you should get with your friend Rainsford and tell him to stop with the "duhversions" and stick with his apologist BS.

Note how Sir RoboCAD gamely continues his duhversion while evading Rainsford's point. Rainsford's mention of "torture" is incidental to his point, and is only one word of 112, yet it remains the only thing SrC will address. He explicitly ignores his presumption of guilt, both in his duhversion above and his rant below. Typical.

Oh, and it's quite hilarious that YOU are trying to lecture me on the protections of the Constitution

Why? Do you have some special credentials (aside from being a Bush-fluffing, secret decoder ring-wearing member of the official "Goon Patrol" of budding young fascists)?

I know full well their intent - and their intent is not to protect those wishing to destroy us and our way of life(note presumption of guilt). Again, those who are not from here, and were fighting against us (note presumption of guilt) - do not get our Constitutional protections. Now if they are fighting for a national Army or have standing to sign treaties - they are afforded the Protections of the Geneva Conventions. So yes Bowfinger - those in Guantanamo are not granted the protections of our Constitution (note presumption of guilt). Don't like it - tough. You can keep whining and throwing a fit, but that's the way it is. The day we allow terrorists (note presumption of guilt) to be "protected" by our Constitution is the day they have won because the fight becomes a fight from within rather from the outside.

CsG

I have never suggested our foreign prisoners be accorded full Constitutional protections. For example, I'm pretty sure according them the right to bear arms might be unwise. Nonetheless, 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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

Who is 'we'?

If you would have read the post I was responding to you'd know "we" is "you guys". Got anything else you don't understand gaard?

CsG

Yes, I don't understand how you can speak for others. Did they give you some kind of power of attorney or something?

I'm quite sure I speak for many on the right(in the right ) when I said that we don't advocating torture. Or are you one of those who think us on the right want to torture prisoners?

What a joke...:roll:

CsG

So you ARE saying that you speak for others on here?

Mind taking the time to tell me who you do and who you don't speak for? Do you speak for Daniel1113? How about Dari? Or are you just saying that when you said "we don't support terror", you mearly meant those that agree with you?

Yes gaard, one can reasonably argue that what I said as in "we" can be applied to many if not all of us on the right. Are you trying to imply(claim) that we do advocate torture?
Anyway, your little game is silly, although not as amusing as Bowfinger's little hissy fit.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.

How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?

No one is advocating torture. Is "torture" anywhere in the poll questions? Didn't think so. Sheesh, I know you want to play apologist for those fighting against us and that want to destroy us (everyone else catch this smarmy, you're with us or you support terrorism-type smear? Orwellian misdirection at work.) but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. Rainsford brings up a critical, insightful point: the presumption of guilt permeates the Bushies' rationalizations re. our treatment of alleged terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Instead of considering this point, Sir RoboCAD (SrC) picks out a single word -- "torture" -- to duhvert the discussion away from the substance of Rainsford's comment. SrC doesn't want us to talk about his presumption of guilt.

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- that our Constitutional protections for suspects aren't there to protect the guilty nearly as much as they're intended to protect the presumed innocent. We have due process to help keep innocent people from being punished, to help prevent a police state where any authority with an agenda can ruin the lives of anyone, without cause and without accountability. That is exactly the situation we have now with the suspects in Guantanamo and Iraq. They are denied fundamental rights on the presumption of their guilt. That is contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is an example of how we are becoming what we've fought so hard against.

Maybe you forgot the fact that rainsford tried to inject torture as the "duhversion". Nah...you freaks on the left never do that - just the straight and narrow for you...:roll: Maybe you should get with your friend Rainsford and tell him to stop with the "duhversions" and stick with his apologist BS.

Note how Sir RoboCAD gamely continues his duhversion while evading Rainsford's point. Rainsford's mention of "torture" is incidental to his point, and is only one word of 112, yet it remains the only thing SrC will address. He explicitly ignores his presumption of guilt, both in his duhversion above and his rant below. Typical.

Oh, and it's quite hilarious that YOU are trying to lecture me on the protections of the Constitution

Why? Do you have some special credentials (aside from being a Bush-fluffing, secret decoder ring-wearing member of the official "Goon Patrol" of budding young fascists)?

I know full well their intent - and their intent is not to protect those wishing to destroy us and our way of life(note presumption of guilt). Again, those who are not from here, and were fighting against us (note presumption of guilt) - do not get our Constitutional protections. Now if they are fighting for a national Army or have standing to sign treaties - they are afforded the Protections of the Geneva Conventions. So yes Bowfinger - those in Guantanamo are not granted the protections of our Constitution (note presumption of guilt). Don't like it - tough. You can keep whining and throwing a fit, but that's the way it is. The day we allow terrorists (note presumption of guilt) to be "protected" by our Constitution is the day they have won because the fight becomes a fight from within rather from the outside.

CsG

I have never suggested our foreign prisoners be accorded full Constitutional protections. For example, I'm pretty sure according them the right to bear arms might be unwise. Nonetheless, 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.

Note how Bowfinger ignores the fact that this "duhversion" was due to Rainsford's "torture" tripe. Again, for those not paying attention(like the one I'm responding to) - this wasn't about torture - it's about who is afforded what protections and why you think that. My taking Rainsford to task about his BS is stomping out that "duhversion" - but it was drug out by Bowfinger who seems to want to pick a fight. Go figure.

Also note how the terrorist apologists don't like to entertain the fact that terrorists could be guilty. I mean when they shoot at our troops(or plot against us) and are captured - they must be innocent right? I mean normal innocent people shoot at our troops(or plot against us) all the time right? :roll: Yes yes yes, innocent until guilty - we get that Constitutional guarantee -but that is no excuse for you to play terrorist apologist - it's unbecoming and definitely un-American.(doh - did I just question his patriotism? oh teh noesss - here comes another Bowfinger spittle special:roll

No Bowfinger, they are not citizens, they were not in our country - they were captured fighting/plotting against us. But hey, lets bring them into our court system - yeah, that'd be a good idea:roll: The goal here is to keep terrorists away and destroy them - not bring them in. Those of you who wish to appease, coddle, and apologize for terrorists disgust me.

CsG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Note how Bowfinger ignores the fact that this "duhversion" was due to Rainsford's "torture" tripe. Again, for those not paying attention(like the one I'm responding to) - this wasn't about torture - it's about who is afforded what protections and why you think that. My taking Rainsford to task about his BS is stomping out that "duhversion" - but it was drug out by Bowfinger who seems to want to pick a fight. Go figure.

I don't really want to get in the middle of your little cat fight here, but I believe you are ignoring the logical extension of your 3rd question:

Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?

One of the reasons you would ask this, and precisely the reason the U.S. gov't asked it and wrangled with the legal aspects of the Geneva Conventions and whom they apply to, was to determine who was protected and who wasn't. Those who were not protected, could be subject to vastly different treatment and have vastly different rights than those who fell into the legal enemy combatant catagory. So the bottom line is, while you didn't ask specifically about "torture" the logical extension of your question would certainly bring us around to that territory. Frankly, I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up about the fact that someone would venture there.

Also note how the terrorist apologists don't like to entertain the fact that terrorists could be guilty. I mean when they shoot at our troops(or plot against us) and are captured - they must be innocent right? I mean normal innocent people shoot at our troops(or plot against us) all the time right? :roll: Yes yes yes, innocent until guilty - we get that Constitutional guarantee -but that is no excuse for you to play terrorist apologist - it's unbecoming and definitely un-American.(doh - did I just question his patriotism? oh teh noesss - here comes another Bowfinger spittle special:roll

The problem here is that just like our justice system in the U.S., it's very possible for people to get caught up and accused of something they didn't do. In fact, many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence personnel. These were Iraqis that did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet were presumed to be terrorists, just like you seem to be so eager to paint with a broad brush when it comes to terrorists. If you've nabbed an obvious terrorist, great, but I don't think the vast majority of cases would be so cut and dry.

Further muddying the waters is the fact that the U.S. never really declared the war in Iraq to be over. Because of that, you've got former Iraqi military out there, not necessarily fighting in uniform, but fighting the U.S. nonetheless. How do you classify these individuals? Alchemize was right when he said the Geneva Conventions need to be clarified for the kinds of conflicts we're seeing in the 21st century.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. Rainsford brings up a critical, insightful point: the presumption of guilt permeates the Bushies' rationalizations re. our treatment of alleged terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Instead of considering this point, Sir RoboCAD (SrC) picks out a single word -- "torture" -- to duhvert the discussion away from the substance of Rainsford's comment. SrC doesn't want us to talk about his presumption of guilt.

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- that our Constitutional protections for suspects aren't there to protect the guilty nearly as much as they're intended to protect the presumed innocent. We have due process to help keep innocent people from being punished, to help prevent a police state where any authority with an agenda can ruin the lives of anyone, without cause and without accountability. That is exactly the situation we have now with the suspects in Guantanamo and Iraq. They are denied fundamental rights on the presumption of their guilt. That is contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is an example of how we are becoming what we've fought so hard against.

Maybe you forgot the fact that rainsford tried to inject torture as the "duhversion". Nah...you freaks on the left never do that - just the straight and narrow for you...:roll: Maybe you should get with your friend Rainsford and tell him to stop with the "duhversions" and stick with his apologist BS.

Note how Sir RoboCAD gamely continues his duhversion while evading Rainsford's point. Rainsford's mention of "torture" is incidental to his point, and is only one word of 112, yet it remains the only thing SrC will address. He explicitly ignores his presumption of guilt, both in his duhversion above and his rant below. Typical.

Oh, and it's quite hilarious that YOU are trying to lecture me on the protections of the Constitution

Why? Do you have some special credentials (aside from being a Bush-fluffing, secret decoder ring-wearing member of the official "Goon Patrol" of budding young fascists)?

I know full well their intent - and their intent is not to protect those wishing to destroy us and our way of life(note presumption of guilt). Again, those who are not from here, and were fighting against us (note presumption of guilt) - do not get our Constitutional protections. Now if they are fighting for a national Army or have standing to sign treaties - they are afforded the Protections of the Geneva Conventions. So yes Bowfinger - those in Guantanamo are not granted the protections of our Constitution (note presumption of guilt). Don't like it - tough. You can keep whining and throwing a fit, but that's the way it is. The day we allow terrorists (note presumption of guilt) to be "protected" by our Constitution is the day they have won because the fight becomes a fight from within rather from the outside.

CsG

I have never suggested our foreign prisoners be accorded full Constitutional protections. For example, I'm pretty sure according them the right to bear arms might be unwise. Nonetheless, 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.

Note how Bowfinger ignores the fact that this "duhversion" was due to Rainsford's "torture" tripe. (Lie: I directly addressed this. It is Sir RoboCAD who continues to evade Rainsford's point, instead focusing on that one word of 112.) Again, for those not paying attention(like the one I'm responding to) - this wasn't about torture (It really is, of course. SrC is just playing his stupid games again. That is irrelevant to this particular sub-thread, however.) - it's about who is afforded what protections and why you think that. My taking Rainsford to task about his BS is stomping out that "duhversion" (Another lie) - but it was drug out by Bowfinger who seems to want to pick a fight. Go figure.

Also note how the terrorist apologists don't like to entertain the fact that terrorists could be guilty. (I would suggest this is the stupidest, most duhversionary lie SrC has ever used, but we all know it's barely above average for him.) I mean when they shoot at our troops(or plot against us) and are captured - they must be innocent right? (Lie: straw man) I mean normal innocent people shoot at our troops(or plot against us) all the time right? (Presumption of guilt: they are in custody, therefore every single one of them must be shooting at our troops, even the one's we've admitted to randomly grabbing just because they were suspicious.) :roll: roll: is right) Yes yes yes, innocent until guilty - we get that Constitutional guarantee -but that is no excuse for you to play terrorist apologist (More duhversionary lies from SrC. Go figure.) - it's unbecoming and definitely un-American.(doh - did I just question his patriotism? oh teh noesss - here comes another Bowfinger spittle special:roll (I believe a simple FU is all that is needed here.)

No Bowfinger, they are not citizens, they were not in our country (Another straw man, I did not suggest otherwise. It is so much easier to attack others when you just make up stuff. Don't have to bother with honesty and that pesky reading comprehension. It's hard work, you know.) - they were captured fighting/plotting against us More presumption of guilt. It's surely true for many of them; just as surely false for all of them. But hey, let's not let honesty get in the way of a good duhversion.). But hey, lets bring them into our court system - yeah, that'd be a good idea:roll: (Another straw man. SrC is on a roll.) The goal here is to keep terrorists away and destroy them - not bring them in. (And another.) Those of you who wish to appease, coddle, and apologize for terrorists disgust me. (And another.)

CsG

Byte me. You are a blithering idiot. You have become incapable of honest, on-topic discussion. If you're not man enough to address the issue of your presumption of guilt, kindly slink back under your rock. You are dismissed.

 

[dahunan]

How do you conclude with 100% certaintty that these people you speak of are truly
Terrorists
foreign enemy comatants
enemy combatants

Is this sort of like the Internment Camps?

Why were 90% of the people in abu ghraib SET FREE?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.

How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?

I'd say in 99.8% of cases the issue of suspicion is not a real factor.

For the sake of simplicity, let's define a terrorist as one who directly strikes the violent blow against whomever. A collaborator can be defined as as one who provides planning, supplies or funds but is not directly involved in the physical action. So, do terrorists deserve constitutional protections.

When troops happen upon a terrorist camp, there is likely little hope of a surrender taking place. Also, those camps aren't likely to be in an otherwise law-abiding part of the world; announcing oneself and taking the time a police action would require is probably a bad idea. My guess is for the most part, U.S. or other troops simply raze the place, confirm everyone is dead inside and move on. This is pronouncing guilt by association (at best) and acting as the executioner (the intel people and higher-ups were the judge/jury). The constitution is already lying in pieces when you consider the realistic requirements of this type of action.

When troops engage in an action that leads to the taking of prisoners: One would think that with the physical threat of the captives neutralized, everything will be fine. I agree (except in the case where secrets of national security like the identity of a spy are concerned - their lives are 'more important'). Hold a military commission hearing with due process.

I would quietly advocate torture upon known terrorists. If he has an ounce of useful information inside him...extract it by any means necessary. I hold the same view for combatants in a conventional war for that matter - and history has shown us that the rest of the world does too. Who is going to afford a captured general or major all the niceties of the Geneva Convention when the things they know could avert major losses by your side? The much misused "greater good" argument comes into force.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't really want to get in the middle of your little cat fight here ...

For what it's worth, I don't really want to be in it either. I find it frustrating, however, that there are certain people who routinely try to divert threads like this, and that some, particularly Sir RoboCAD, routinely succeed because no one has the stamina or time to continually deconstruct his tireless flood of bilge. I guess I should just write him off entirely and learn to ignore him. Unfortunately, as this administration has taught us so well, when a lie is repeated enough, or is left unanswered, too many begin to accept it as truth.

Anyway, my apologies.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't really want to get in the middle of your little cat fight here ...

For what it's worth, I don't really want to be in it either. I find it frustrating, however, that there are certain people who routinely try to divert threads like this, and that some, particularly Sir RoboCAD, routinely succeed because no one has the stamina or time to continually deconstruct his tireless flood of bilge. I guess I should just write him off entirely and learn to ignore him. Unfortunately, as this administration has taught us so well, when a lie is repeated enough, or is left unanswered, too many begin to accept it as truth.

Anyway, my apologies.

LOL - you really expect anyone to believe you're sincerely only here to fight for truth and justice when you opened your first reply's paragraphs with:

This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. ...

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- ...

And then you go on to whine about "this administration" when they have absolutely nothing to do with the posts by Rainsford or CADsortaGUY. If you want to act less like a political hack, just turn it off instead of making a big speech about it. :roll:

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign terrorists?
I do not know. It depends on the situation. If you are talking about terrorists that are caught INSIDE the US, YES. If you are talking about terrorists that are caught OUTSIDE the US, NO. Our constitution protects regular foreigners (people visiting this country from another country). Terrorists are people from no country. They have no valid passport, they are not a citizen of any country (for the most part). If we suspend our beliefs to punish a foreign terrorist or abuse their rights (the same rights that are given to domestic terrorists) then we are no better then the terrorists.


A much better question would be, what is the difference between a terrorist and an enemy combatant.

According to Encarta Dictionary:

Enemy Combatant is:
1) somebody who hates and seeks to harm or cause trouble for somebody else
2) military a person or group, especially a military force, that fights against another in combat or battle.

Terrorist is:
1) somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes


I would say that these are almost the same. The only main difference is one seems to just want to fight for the purpose of fighting (enemy combatant) and the other wants to fight for political purposes (terrorist). Overall I would say that a terrorist could also be considered an enemy combatant under part 2, but an enemy combatant could not be a terrorist (because of lack of want for political change, they may want to overthrow a government, which is a bit more drastic than changing political views).


So the answer to question 2 and 3 is a difficult one. I guess I would say No to #2 (because of location where the enemy is found) and Yes to #3 (enemy combatants are by definition a military force, and should fall under POW rules).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't really want to get in the middle of your little cat fight here ...

For what it's worth, I don't really want to be in it either. I find it frustrating, however, that there are certain people who routinely try to divert threads like this, and that some, particularly Sir RoboCAD, routinely succeed because no one has the stamina or time to continually deconstruct his tireless flood of bilge. I guess I should just write him off entirely and learn to ignore him. Unfortunately, as this administration has taught us so well, when a lie is repeated enough, or is left unanswered, too many begin to accept it as truth.

Anyway, my apologies.

Yeah, it really is too bad it had to turn into that - it's a POLL thread. Yes, I let it drag out due to Rainsford's "torture" "duhversion" when Bowfinger picked up the torch and ran with it. The problem is that there seems to be an endless supply of BS from the left that needs to be disposed of. Ofcourse some people don't/won't see that they continue to pile on the tripe -so maybe it's time to just ingnore the extreme Bush-haters instead of trying to help them learn. It'll be hard though because I truly believe that people can be educated and enlighted with reality and truth despite their attempts to ignore or attack it.

Meh, whatever keeps their sheets dry I guess...

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't really want to get in the middle of your little cat fight here ...

For what it's worth, I don't really want to be in it either. I find it frustrating, however, that there are certain people who routinely try to divert threads like this, and that some, particularly Sir RoboCAD, routinely succeed because no one has the stamina or time to continually deconstruct his tireless flood of bilge. I guess I should just write him off entirely and learn to ignore him. Unfortunately, as this administration has taught us so well, when a lie is repeated enough, or is left unanswered, too many begin to accept it as truth.

Anyway, my apologies.

LOL - you really expect anyone to believe you're sincerely only here to fight for truth and justice when you opened your first reply's paragraphs with:

This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. ...

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- ...

Yes?

(Did you have a point?)

And then you go on to whine about "this administration" when they have absolutely nothing to do with the posts by Rainsford or CADsortaGUY. If you want to act less like a political hack, just turn it off instead of making a big speech about it. :roll:

I see you have a reading comprehension problem as well. Some of you here repeat the same lies so often that people begin to accept them as truthful. The Bush administration is a master at this same tactic. I was drawing a parallel. Any other painfully obvious concepts I can explain for you?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, it really is too bad it had to turn into that - it's a POLL thread. Yes, I let it drag out due to Rainsford's "torture" "duhversion" when Bowfinger picked up the torch and ran with it. The problem is that there seems to be an endless supply of BS from the left that needs to be disposed of. Ofcourse some people don't/won't see that they continue to pile on the tripe -so maybe it's time to just ingnore the extreme Bush-haters instead of trying to help them learn. It'll be hard though because I truly believe that people can be educated and enlighted with reality and truth despite their attempts to ignore or attack it.

Meh, whatever keeps their sheets dry I guess...

CsG

What I ran with, Sir DISHONESTsortaGUY, is Rainsford's point about your presumption of guilt. You, and only you, are the one trying to turn it into a discussion about torture. You still refuse to address the issue of your presumption of guilt. Must be because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Just a flesh wound.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. Rainsford brings up a critical, insightful point: the presumption of guilt permeates the Bushies' rationalizations re. our treatment of alleged terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Instead of considering this point, Sir RoboCAD (SrC) picks out a single word -- "torture" -- to duhvert the discussion away from the substance of Rainsford's comment. SrC doesn't want us to talk about his presumption of guilt.

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- that our Constitutional protections for suspects aren't there to protect the guilty nearly as much as they're intended to protect the presumed innocent. We have due process to help keep innocent people from being punished, to help prevent a police state where any authority with an agenda can ruin the lives of anyone, without cause and without accountability. That is exactly the situation we have now with the suspects in Guantanamo and Iraq. They are denied fundamental rights on the presumption of their guilt. That is contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is an example of how we are becoming what we've fought so hard against.

Maybe you forgot the fact that rainsford tried to inject torture as the "duhversion". Nah...you freaks on the left never do that - just the straight and narrow for you...:roll: Maybe you should get with your friend Rainsford and tell him to stop with the "duhversions" and stick with his apologist BS.

Note how Sir RoboCAD gamely continues his duhversion while evading Rainsford's point. Rainsford's mention of "torture" is incidental to his point, and is only one word of 112, yet it remains the only thing SrC will address. He explicitly ignores his presumption of guilt, both in his duhversion above and his rant below. Typical.

Oh, and it's quite hilarious that YOU are trying to lecture me on the protections of the Constitution

Why? Do you have some special credentials (aside from being a Bush-fluffing, secret decoder ring-wearing member of the official "Goon Patrol" of budding young fascists)?

I know full well their intent - and their intent is not to protect those wishing to destroy us and our way of life(note presumption of guilt). Again, those who are not from here, and were fighting against us (note presumption of guilt) - do not get our Constitutional protections. Now if they are fighting for a national Army or have standing to sign treaties - they are afforded the Protections of the Geneva Conventions. So yes Bowfinger - those in Guantanamo are not granted the protections of our Constitution (note presumption of guilt). Don't like it - tough. You can keep whining and throwing a fit, but that's the way it is. The day we allow terrorists (note presumption of guilt) to be "protected" by our Constitution is the day they have won because the fight becomes a fight from within rather from the outside.

CsG

I have never suggested our foreign prisoners be accorded full Constitutional protections. For example, I'm pretty sure according them the right to bear arms might be unwise. Nonetheless, 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.

Note how Bowfinger ignores the fact that this "duhversion" was due to Rainsford's "torture" tripe. (Lie: I directly addressed this. It is Sir RoboCAD who continues to evade Rainsford's point, instead focusing on that one word of 112.) Again, for those not paying attention(like the one I'm responding to) - this wasn't about torture (It really is, of course. SrC is just playing his stupid games again. That is irrelevant to this particular sub-thread, however.) - it's about who is afforded what protections and why you think that. My taking Rainsford to task about his BS is stomping out that "duhversion" (Another lie) - but it was drug out by Bowfinger who seems to want to pick a fight. Go figure.

Also note how the terrorist apologists don't like to entertain the fact that terrorists could be guilty. (I would suggest this is the stupidest, most duhversionary lie SrC has ever used, but we all know it's barely above average for him.) I mean when they shoot at our troops(or plot against us) and are captured - they must be innocent right? (Lie: straw man) I mean normal innocent people shoot at our troops(or plot against us) all the time right? (Presumption of guilt: they are in custody, therefore every single one of them must be shooting at our troops, even the one's we've admitted to randomly grabbing just because they were suspicious.) :roll: roll: is right) Yes yes yes, innocent until guilty - we get that Constitutional guarantee -but that is no excuse for you to play terrorist apologist (More duhversionary lies from SrC. Go figure.) - it's unbecoming and definitely un-American.(doh - did I just question his patriotism? oh teh noesss - here comes another Bowfinger spittle special:roll (I believe a simple FU is all that is needed here.)

No Bowfinger, they are not citizens, they were not in our country (Another straw man, I did not suggest otherwise. It is so much easier to attack others when you just make up stuff. Don't have to bother with honesty and that pesky reading comprehension. It's hard work, you know.) - they were captured fighting/plotting against us More presumption of guilt. It's surely true for many of them; just as surely false for all of them. But hey, let's not let honesty get in the way of a good duhversion.). But hey, lets bring them into our court system - yeah, that'd be a good idea:roll: (Another straw man. SrC is on a roll.) The goal here is to keep terrorists away and destroy them - not bring them in. (And another.) Those of you who wish to appease, coddle, and apologize for terrorists disgust me. (And another.)

CsG

Byte me. You are a blithering idiot. You have become incapable of honest, on-topic discussion. If you're not man enough to address the issue of your presumption of guilt, kindly slink back under your rock. You are dismissed.

Oh look, the ever tolerant left has decided to throw a hissy fit yet again. More attacks and "duhversions" instead of addressing the topic - go figure.
No, I'm not going to "Byte" you, and I'm not a blithering idot - but thanks for the attack.
I did address the presumption of guilt, but I guess in your quest to attack you forgot to read. Oh well.

Now from the top.
No, you still fail to understand that it was Rainsford's "duhversion" which I promptly destroyed. This thread was not about torture - but he and you seem to want to make it an issue.
Now as to every single one shooting at our troops? Did you bother to even read? ...didn't think so.
As to what I said about them not being from here - You can't just pick and choose what you afford people under the Constitution. Thus the protections it provides either do or do not extend. Yes, it is that black and white for all you "everything is grey" folks.

Now I'd like to say a word about your reply as a whole. Not only were your little quips not addressing the issue - they were little whiny attacks. Maybe you should grow up a little and learn to address the subject matter at hand instead of constantly attacking me. That'd be a novel concept - no?

Anyway, like I've said to you a hundred times - whatever keeps your sheets dry. I mean how many times are you going to continue to play this little dishonest game you keep setting up? Every time you try it you look like an even bigger fool...but I digress - keep it up if you wish

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, it really is too bad it had to turn into that - it's a POLL thread. Yes, I let it drag out due to Rainsford's "torture" "duhversion" when Bowfinger picked up the torch and ran with it. The problem is that there seems to be an endless supply of BS from the left that needs to be disposed of. Ofcourse some people don't/won't see that they continue to pile on the tripe -so maybe it's time to just ingnore the extreme Bush-haters instead of trying to help them learn. It'll be hard though because I truly believe that people can be educated and enlighted with reality and truth despite their attempts to ignore or attack it.

Meh, whatever keeps their sheets dry I guess...

CsG

What I ran with, Sir DISHONESTsortaGUY, is Rainsford's point about your presumption of guilt. You, and only you, are the one trying to turn it into a discussion about torture. You still refuse to address the issue of your presumption of guilt. Must be because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Just a flesh wound.

Keep up your dishonesty Bow - we can all see that you took the "torture" "duhversion" and ran with it trying to attack me. But hey, I'm sure your rage makes it hard for you to concentrate - just don't forget to keep your sheets dry.
Oh, and yes I did address it - you just refuse to even try to understand it. Hint: they don't get the protections the Constitution affords us citizens

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I think that in order to squarely examine the nature of the whole argument that some basic understanding of the constitution needs to be understood. No branch of the govt, not even the military, exists outside its framework.

Within that framework, Congress provided the UCMJ, and adopted the Geneva Conventions, both of which limit and direct the conduct of the military and of the CinC himself when engaged in military operations.

Last June, the SCOTUS ruled very deferentially on the matter, but nonetheless allowed that detainees have certain rights and are entitled to constitutional protections. Essentially, they gave the Admin time to come into compliance with the law before the Court has to rule against them. It's why said admin is now trying to outsource the lifelong imprisonment of the terrorist suspects held in Gitmo, for example- If they're not in US custody, then they definitely have no recourse within the US legal system.

And "suspected terrorist" is definitely the correct term, simply because they've never been tried in any constitutionally established venue, civilian or military.

In many respects, the whole framing and issue avoidance situation wrt this whole WoT rather vividly illustrates just how far Admin supporters are willing to go in their faith-based trust in the Bush regime. Merely the accusation of "Terrarist" is enough for them to sanction any act against the accused, and to trust completely in the judgement and goodness of our leaders.

Hogwash. Washinton, Jefferson, Paine and the rest of the Patriots of the time would be right in your face, CsG- what you and the Admin are attempting is to bring back the kind of "Justice" meted out in the Star Chamber by the minions of the then King George- "Guilty because we say so."

Exactly. Well said, as always.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Note how Bowfinger ignores the fact that this "duhversion" was due to Rainsford's "torture" tripe. Again, for those not paying attention(like the one I'm responding to) - this wasn't about torture - it's about who is afforded what protections and why you think that. My taking Rainsford to task about his BS is stomping out that "duhversion" - but it was drug out by Bowfinger who seems to want to pick a fight. Go figure.

I don't really want to get in the middle of your little cat fight here, but I believe you are ignoring the logical extension of your 3rd question:

Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?

One of the reasons you would ask this, and precisely the reason the U.S. gov't asked it and wrangled with the legal aspects of the Geneva Conventions and whom they apply to, was to determine who was protected and who wasn't. Those who were not protected, could be subject to vastly different treatment and have vastly different rights than those who fell into the legal enemy combatant catagory. So the bottom line is, while you didn't ask specifically about "torture" the logical extension of your question would certainly bring us around to that territory. Frankly, I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up about the fact that someone would venture there.

Also note how the terrorist apologists don't like to entertain the fact that terrorists could be guilty. I mean when they shoot at our troops(or plot against us) and are captured - they must be innocent right? I mean normal innocent people shoot at our troops(or plot against us) all the time right? :roll: Yes yes yes, innocent until guilty - we get that Constitutional guarantee -but that is no excuse for you to play terrorist apologist - it's unbecoming and definitely un-American.(doh - did I just question his patriotism? oh teh noesss - here comes another Bowfinger spittle special:roll

The problem here is that just like our justice system in the U.S., it's very possible for people to get caught up and accused of something they didn't do. In fact, many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence personnel. These were Iraqis that did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet were presumed to be terrorists, just like you seem to be so eager to paint with a broad brush when it comes to terrorists. If you've nabbed an obvious terrorist, great, but I don't think the vast majority of cases would be so cut and dry.

Further muddying the waters is the fact that the U.S. never really declared the war in Iraq to be over. Because of that, you've got former Iraqi military out there, not necessarily fighting in uniform, but fighting the U.S. nonetheless. How do you classify these individuals? Alchemize was right when he said the Geneva Conventions need to be clarified for the kinds of conflicts we're seeing in the 21st century.

I understand your concern, however regarding the Geneva Conventions - what else would be changed once the door was opened? Would anyone sign back up?

I think you are mixing things up a tad. Iraqi's captured are treated as POWs under the Geneva Conventions and are not enemy combatants - atleast that's how we are treating them. Foreign fighters seem to be a different story as there is some discussion lately on how we should categorize them. Afghanistan is where we are getting the enemy combatants.
Abu's rate of innocents(that 70-90% figure that people toss around) is from interrogations. They brought people in, and interrogated them. The innocent ones were released.

Anyway, ofcourse there can be discussion about how we treat POWs or those captured - but to imply that we want to categorize them as enemy combatants so we can torture them is absurd. That's how the left is attempting to frame this debate, it's plain as day.

Anyway, thanks for trying to get this back on-topic

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.

How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?

Excellent suggestion. I think you raise a critical, insightful point: the presumption of guilt permeates the Bushies' rationalizations re. our treatment of alleged terrorists and Iraqi insurgents.

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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't really want to get in the middle of your little cat fight here ...

For what it's worth, I don't really want to be in it either. I find it frustrating, however, that there are certain people who routinely try to divert threads like this, and that some, particularly Sir RoboCAD, routinely succeed because no one has the stamina or time to continually deconstruct his tireless flood of bilge. I guess I should just write him off entirely and learn to ignore him. Unfortunately, as this administration has taught us so well, when a lie is repeated enough, or is left unanswered, too many begin to accept it as truth.

Anyway, my apologies.

LOL - you really expect anyone to believe you're sincerely only here to fight for truth and justice when you opened your first reply's paragraphs with:

This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. ...

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- ...

And then you go on to whine about "this administration" when they have absolutely nothing to do with the posts by Rainsford or CADsortaGUY. If you want to act less like a political hack, just turn it off instead of making a big speech about it. :roll:

Exactly. It's classic Bowfinger.

CsG