Powell bitch slaps Bush

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Hilarious to watch you lefties now hold Powell up as an authority figure, after spending the last 3 years or so bashing his ass for giving all that inaccurate information at his infamous UN speech.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Hilarious to watch you righties drop your own like a hot potato.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Cornyn has and will always be a shill for the Admin, so I don't see what that proves. If Bush said the world was flat, Cornyn would be the first to commend him, followed by Santorum."

He is saying: Someone who supports someone else NO MATTER WHAT...

Does everything need to be explained to the tiniest detail for you? Basic comprehension skills are needed.

Shadow, the left holds anyone who disagrees with Bush up as a hero, but calls anyone who agrees with Bush a "shill"

Cornyn agrees with the President on most subjects, is that a bad thing? Was it bad when some Democrats agreed with everything Clinton said? Did you go around call those people "shills"?

The point of my post was that attacking someone solely on the basis that they don't agree with you is a BAD thing.
In the original post ayabe attacks Cornyn, without really trying to refute what the congressman said.

I suppose I should just respond to everyone who disagrees with me by say "yea, but your an idiot, so who cares what you say" (of course with a few people around here that might be a good tactic)

The congressman has a valid point, saying that American troops will be less safe if we change these rules is like telling the people on United 93 "don't attack the hijackers, you might get hurt in the process" what does it matter, they are going to KILL you anyway.
Like the Taliban is going to say to an American soldier "we were going to let you go, but now we hear that you put our brother Omar in a cold room, and for that you must die" Get real.

Now if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't change this policy on moral grounds, have at it.

Don't make assumptions about me, Cornyn's stance is well documented, it has nothing to left or right, he is a yes man for Bush. Real repubs like Lindsey Graham are breaking with the admin because they are WRONG.

It should also be noted that while the JAG office agrees with Bush on this matter, according to Graham, they were sequestered late into the evening on Wednesday and forced to sign in agreement with the Admin. Now tell me, who's the shill?

does all of that make you a Michael Moore shill? or perhaps a Kennedy shill? a Clinton shill?

which is it? whose shill are you?! After all, according to your own distorted logic, you must be someone's shill! it's apparaently impossible to agree with a lot of statements and beliefs made or held by one politician without being considered said politician's shill... right?

ya... duh.

You obviously know nothing about how I feel, I don't follow anyone's lead, if you bothered to read any of my posts you would know that I am on the side of what is right and against what is wrong and hold various stances on a wide variety of issues.

But I don't even know why I'm responding to you, you have zero credibility on any issue with most posters in this forum, you are an automaton.

Edit: I agree with many right leaning people like Zebo on a lot of things, but you and I will never see eye to eye because you can't ever step outside your inept and narrow view of the world.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Cornyn has and will always be a shill for the Admin, so I don't see what that proves. If Bush said the world was flat, Cornyn would be the first to commend him, followed by Santorum."

He is saying: Someone who supports someone else NO MATTER WHAT...

Does everything need to be explained to the tiniest detail for you? Basic comprehension skills are needed.

Shadow, the left holds anyone who disagrees with Bush up as a hero, but calls anyone who agrees with Bush a "shill"

Cornyn agrees with the President on most subjects, is that a bad thing? Was it bad when some Democrats agreed with everything Clinton said? Did you go around call those people "shills"?

The point of my post was that attacking someone solely on the basis that they don't agree with you is a BAD thing.
In the original post ayabe attacks Cornyn, without really trying to refute what the congressman said.

I suppose I should just respond to everyone who disagrees with me by say "yea, but your an idiot, so who cares what you say" (of course with a few people around here that might be a good tactic)

The congressman has a valid point, saying that American troops will be less safe if we change these rules is like telling the people on United 93 "don't attack the hijackers, you might get hurt in the process" what does it matter, they are going to KILL you anyway.
Like the Taliban is going to say to an American soldier "we were going to let you go, but now we hear that you put our brother Omar in a cold room, and for that you must die" Get real.

Now if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't change this policy on moral grounds, have at it.

Don't make assumptions about me, Cornyn's stance is well documented, it has nothing to left or right, he is a yes man for Bush. Real repubs like Lindsey Graham are breaking with the admin because they are WRONG.

It should also be noted that while the JAG office agrees with Bush on this matter, according to Graham, they were sequestered late into the evening on Wednesday and forced to sign in agreement with the Admin. Now tell me, who's the shill?

does all of that make you a Michael Moore shill? or perhaps a Kennedy shill? a Clinton shill?

which is it? whose shill are you?! After all, according to your own distorted logic, you must be someone's shill! it's apparaently impossible to agree with a lot of statements and beliefs made or held by one politician without being considered said politician's shill... right?

ya... duh.

You obviously know nothing about how I feel, I don't follow anyone's lead, if you bothered to read any of my posts you would know that I am on the side of what is right and against what is wrong and hold various stances on a wide variety of issues.

But I don't even know why I'm responding to you, you have zero credibility on any issue with most posters in this forum, you are an automaton.

Edit: I agree with many right leaning people like Zebo on a lot of things, but you and I will never see eye to eye because you can't ever step outside your inept and narrow view of the world.

i think that you're a Clinton shill. yep.. that's the one I'm going with.

from one "shill" to another, welcome!

duh.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

Yes, I do think we mistreat prisoners, in fact, dumbya is doing everything he can to ensure we can continue to do it. Where ya been capt underoos? long term lan party?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

Yes, I do think we mistreat prisoners, in fact, dumbya is doing everything he can to ensure we can continue to do it. Where ya been capt underoos? long term lan party?

Who, exactly, has mistreated the prisoners? reservist MP's, CIA goons, or military interrogators? I can tell you, of the three groups, who has not had any record of prisoner abuse.

that said, try to respond without a personal attack. can you handle that?

and in response to your otherwise flaming question: i've been busy learning how to further destroy our enemies. good stuff.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And you all really think we mistreat the prisoners? really?

let me refer you to our old field manual, Appensix H in particular: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm

those were the only approved approaches for military interrogators... please point out the one(s) which violated the Geneva Conventions? please point out those which were "inhumane."

we've never stooped to their level, and never will.

(FYI, the mistakes made at Abu G were NOT made by interrogators. in fact, the interrogators documented all of the wrongs commited by the guards, as they were taught to do. Not a single one of those accused of wrongdoing at Abu G were interrogators. Did you even know that?)

Yes, I do think we mistreat prisoners, in fact, dumbya is doing everything he can to ensure we can continue to do it. Where ya been capt underoos? long term lan party?

Who, exactly, has mistreated the prisoners? reservist MP's, CIA goons, or military interrogators? I can tell you, of the three groups, who has not had any record of prisoner abuse.

that said, try to respond without a personal attack. can you handle that?

and in response to your otherwise flaming question: i've been busy learning how to further destroy our enemies. good stuff.

Of the three? No records? Really, shocking that there is no proof of the torture. If you want to keep believing that, go ahead, and please tell me why your leader is pushing to have the Geneva convention underminded. please clear that one up.
Further destroy our enemies? LOL, ok, sure, just make sure you've got proper cooling on your CPU and your GPU, it's a mess when they over heat.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Caminetto
This guy is finding a pair.

Misguided

Nice spin on what was hardly a Bitch slap....

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who, exactly, has mistreated the prisoners? reservist MP's, CIA goons, or military interrogators? I can tell you, of the three groups, who has not had any record of prisoner abuse.

It doesn't matter which of any group was involved. If it happened under the color of the U.S. operative, whether military, CIA, or any other secret or plain clothes personnel, it's still dead ass wrong, and we're responsible, not only for their actions, but for addressing their misdeeds and cleaning up the mess they made in our name.

Since you're so hell bent on trying to divert attention from that by attempting to single out one group or another, try explaining why the Supreme Court has already declared that the Bushwackos' mistreatment of prisoners is illegal and why the whackos are so unwilling to disclose what they've been doing, who they were doing it to or where they're doing it while they're yelling so loud to try to get Congress to authorize the same criminal activites in the future. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who, exactly, has mistreated the prisoners? reservist MP's, CIA goons, or military interrogators? I can tell you, of the three groups, who has not had any record of prisoner abuse.

It doesn't matter which of any group was involved. If it happened under the color of the U.S. operative, whether military, CIA, or any other secret or plain clothes personnel, it's still dead ass wrong, and we're responsible, not only for their actions, but for addressing their misdeeds and cleaning up the mess they made in our name.

Since you're so hell bent on trying to divert attention from that by attempting to single out one group or another, try explaining why the Supreme Court has already declared that the Bushwackos' mistreatment of prisoners is illegal and why the whackos are so unwilling to disclose what they've been doing, who they were doing it to or where they're doing it while they're yelling so loud to try to get Congress to authorize the same criminal activites in the future. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

Exactly what I want to know, if they are so 'innocent' why are they pushing so hard to sidestep the Geneva convention? Also, from what I understand, all of these detainees, whether tried or not, are stuck at gitmo for life. Nice fair and balanced system we have. I think he's a terrorist, LOCK HIM AWAY FOR LIFE, no trial, no jury of peers, no judge, just good old conjecture. Welcome to Salem MA, circa 1692

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Cornyn has and will always be a shill for the Admin, so I don't see what that proves. If Bush said the world was flat, Cornyn would be the first to commend him, followed by Santorum."

He is saying: Someone who supports someone else NO MATTER WHAT...

Does everything need to be explained to the tiniest detail for you? Basic comprehension skills are needed.

Shadow, the left holds anyone who disagrees with Bush up as a hero, but calls anyone who agrees with Bush a "shill"

Cornyn agrees with the President on most subjects, is that a bad thing? Was it bad when some Democrats agreed with everything Clinton said? Did you go around call those people "shills"?

The point of my post was that attacking someone solely on the basis that they don't agree with you is a BAD thing.
In the original post ayabe attacks Cornyn, without really trying to refute what the congressman said.

I suppose I should just respond to everyone who disagrees with me by say "yea, but your an idiot, so who cares what you say" (of course with a few people around here that might be a good tactic)

The congressman has a valid point, saying that American troops will be less safe if we change these rules is like telling the people on United 93 "don't attack the hijackers, you might get hurt in the process" what does it matter, they are going to KILL you anyway.
Like the Taliban is going to say to an American soldier "we were going to let you go, but now we hear that you put our brother Omar in a cold room, and for that you must die" Get real.

Now if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't change this policy on moral grounds, have at it.

Don't make assumptions about me, Cornyn's stance is well documented, it has nothing to left or right, he is a yes man for Bush. Real repubs like Lindsey Graham are breaking with the admin because they are WRONG.

It should also be noted that while the JAG office agrees with Bush on this matter, according to Graham, they were sequestered late into the evening on Wednesday and forced to sign in agreement with the Admin. Now tell me, who's the shill?

does all of that make you a Michael Moore shill? or perhaps a Kennedy shill? a Clinton shill?

which is it? whose shill are you?! After all, according to your own distorted logic, you must be someone's shill! it's apparaently impossible to agree with a lot of statements and beliefs made or held by one politician without being considered said politician's shill... right?

ya... duh.

You obviously know nothing about how I feel, I don't follow anyone's lead, if you bothered to read any of my posts you would know that I am on the side of what is right and against what is wrong and hold various stances on a wide variety of issues.

But I don't even know why I'm responding to you, you have zero credibility on any issue with most posters in this forum, you are an automaton.

Edit: I agree with many right leaning people like Zebo on a lot of things, but you and I will never see eye to eye because you can't ever step outside your inept and narrow view of the world.

i think that you're a Clinton shill. yep.. that's the one I'm going with.

from one "shill" to another, welcome!

duh.

Amazing how you guys on the right continue to blame Clinton for everything.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Cornyn has and will always be a shill for the Admin, so I don't see what that proves. If Bush said the world was flat, Cornyn would be the first to commend him, followed by Santorum."

He is saying: Someone who supports someone else NO MATTER WHAT...

Does everything need to be explained to the tiniest detail for you? Basic comprehension skills are needed.

Shadow, the left holds anyone who disagrees with Bush up as a hero, but calls anyone who agrees with Bush a "shill"

Cornyn agrees with the President on most subjects, is that a bad thing? Was it bad when some Democrats agreed with everything Clinton said? Did you go around call those people "shills"?

The point of my post was that attacking someone solely on the basis that they don't agree with you is a BAD thing.
In the original post ayabe attacks Cornyn, without really trying to refute what the congressman said.

I suppose I should just respond to everyone who disagrees with me by say "yea, but your an idiot, so who cares what you say" (of course with a few people around here that might be a good tactic)

The congressman has a valid point, saying that American troops will be less safe if we change these rules is like telling the people on United 93 "don't attack the hijackers, you might get hurt in the process" what does it matter, they are going to KILL you anyway.
Like the Taliban is going to say to an American soldier "we were going to let you go, but now we hear that you put our brother Omar in a cold room, and for that you must die" Get real.

Now if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't change this policy on moral grounds, have at it.

Don't make assumptions about me, Cornyn's stance is well documented, it has nothing to left or right, he is a yes man for Bush. Real repubs like Lindsey Graham are breaking with the admin because they are WRONG.

It should also be noted that while the JAG office agrees with Bush on this matter, according to Graham, they were sequestered late into the evening on Wednesday and forced to sign in agreement with the Admin. Now tell me, who's the shill?

does all of that make you a Michael Moore shill? or perhaps a Kennedy shill? a Clinton shill?

which is it? whose shill are you?! After all, according to your own distorted logic, you must be someone's shill! it's apparaently impossible to agree with a lot of statements and beliefs made or held by one politician without being considered said politician's shill... right?

ya... duh.

You obviously know nothing about how I feel, I don't follow anyone's lead, if you bothered to read any of my posts you would know that I am on the side of what is right and against what is wrong and hold various stances on a wide variety of issues.

But I don't even know why I'm responding to you, you have zero credibility on any issue with most posters in this forum, you are an automaton.

Edit: I agree with many right leaning people like Zebo on a lot of things, but you and I will never see eye to eye because you can't ever step outside your inept and narrow view of the world.

i think that you're a Clinton shill. yep.. that's the one I'm going with.

from one "shill" to another, welcome!

duh.

Yep I apologize for Clinton all the time, in fact no matter what I'm with Clinton. and Fidel too, actually OBL is my hero. You've outed me!

/sarcasm

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Who, exactly, has mistreated the prisoners? reservist MP's, CIA goons, or military interrogators? I can tell you, of the three groups, who has not had any record of prisoner abuse.

As I've said above, I don't see the relevance of the distinction you're trying to draw - from the perspective of the American public and other countries, what matters is that prisoners died in American custody. Moreover, Army interrogators have in fact been charged with prisoner abuse:

The Army reports cited "credible information" that four military interrogators assaulted Mr. Dilawar and another Afghan prisoner with "kicks to the groin and leg, shoving or slamming him into walls/table, forcing the detainee to maintain painful, contorted body positions during interview and forcing water into his mouth until he could not breathe."

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Who, exactly, has mistreated the prisoners? reservist MP's, CIA goons, or military interrogators? I can tell you, of the three groups, who has not had any record of prisoner abuse.

As I've said above, I don't see the relevance of the distinction you're trying to draw - from the perspective of the American public and other countries, what matters is that prisoners died in American custody. Moreover, Army interrogators have in fact been charged with prisoner abuse:

The Army reports cited "credible information" that four military interrogators assaulted Mr. Dilawar and another Afghan prisoner with "kicks to the groin and leg, shoving or slamming him into walls/table, forcing the detainee to maintain painful, contorted body positions during interview and forcing water into his mouth until he could not breathe."

Somehow, I don't see how Horsie can separate the Military, even those recalled to active duty, into 'Our Army' and 'The Army of Some Other Bizzaro World' - having himself recently returned from being in the 'reserves', somehow in denial and grasping at a need to define things into His World and Your World.

 

[Pens1566]

He might be thinking that none of the troops in BF2 have been accused of torture??????

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Exactly what I want to know, if they are so 'innocent' why are they pushing so hard to sidestep the Geneva convention? Also, from what I understand, all of these detainees, whether tried or not, are stuck at gitmo for life. Nice fair and balanced system we have. I think he's a terrorist, LOCK HIM AWAY FOR LIFE, no trial, no jury of peers, no judge, just good old conjecture. Welcome to Salem MA, circa 1692

Could we call them POWs and leave them there until their there is a negotiated end of the war?

And please don't give me the "it's not a war cause congress didn't declare war" answer, we had POWs in both Vietnam and Korea and there was no war resolution then either.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Could we call them POWs and leave them there until their there is a negotiated end of the war?

And please don't give me the "it's not a war cause congress didn't declare war" answer, we had POWs in both Vietnam and Korea and there was no war resolution then either.

The current terminology is "EPW," not "POW."

To the extent these people are captured Taliban or al Qaeda, as many of them allegedly are, the open hostilities in Afghanistan have been over for years. My own feeling is that if they are going to be charged with crimes, let's charge them. If not, let's let them go. Treating them as conventional EPWs is problematic in the context of an unconventional "war on terror" that will predictably go on for decades.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: palehorse74
one cool head amongst the clueless masses:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn?t take prisoners. ?The prisoners they do take they behead,? he said.

So because they tend to behead prisoners, that makes it ok for us to violate geneva? 2 wrongs makes a right, right? I thought we were the good guys and being the good guys means you are better than your opponent. :roll:

When has bush ever been right? He would love to wire tap up everyones home justified or not... Boy I'm feeling safer by the second arn't you?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: palehorse74
one cool head amongst the clueless masses:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn?t take prisoners. ?The prisoners they do take they behead,? he said.

Cornyn has and will always be a shill for the Admin, so I don't see what that proves. If Bush said the world was flat, Cornyn would be the first to commend him, followed by Santorum.

Powell is not only referring to Al-Qaeda but the fate of American prisoners in all future conflicts.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Ok, the whole point I was trying to make about the ?shill? comment is that ayabe was making an ?Ad Hominem? fallacy. (see definition below)

Calling someone a shill or a toady does not really accomplish anything.
Furthermore, just because someone agrees with everything the president says that does not mean they can?t think for themselves. Does everyone on the left agree with every thing said on DailyKos? No, but a lot of them will repeat what they hear or agree with it to a degree. Does that mean I can call them all ?shills? if I don?t agree with them?

And ?ayabe? I never made an assumption about you. I just disagree with your tactics.

If all we do to respond to people we don?t agree with is to call them a ?shill? then we might as well close down P&N and move on with our lives.

As far as the topic at hand I need more information before I can make a proper decision.
My understanding is that Bush wants a clarification on the rules of interrogation. I do not know the details of what he is asking for, so I can not sit here and honestly say that he is right or wrong.

But be honest with yourselves here people, how many of you attacking Bush, Cornyn etc have looked up the bill and read what it says or even a non-partisan brief on the bill? And how many of you are basing your opinions on what you read on some left or right wing web site? I doubt most of the people in here have done much more than looked at what ?their side? is saying about the bill and gone from there.

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Could we call them POWs and leave them there until their there is a negotiated end of the war?

And please don't give me the "it's not a war cause congress didn't declare war" answer, we had POWs in both Vietnam and Korea and there was no war resolution then either.

The current terminology is "EPW," not "POW."

To the extent these people are captured Taliban or al Qaeda, as many of them allegedly are, the open hostilities in Afghanistan have been over for years. My own feeling is that if they are going to be charged with crimes, let's charge them. If not, let's let them go. Treating them as conventional EPWs is problematic in the context of an unconventional "war on terror" that will predictably go on for decades.

Hello.. what planet are you from? Did you miss the whole threat and stories about how the Taliban is regrouping etc etc?
The people we have in Gitmo want to KILL Americans and if we let them go they will try to KILL Americans again. Yet you think we should just "let them go"??

I think the big problem with trials and these guys is that much of the evidence we have against them is gathered via sources that we can not let them know about. That is why they are trying to create rules that don't let the terrorist see the evidence against them. Because, once the terrorist sees the evidence against them they may be able to figure out who the source of that evidence is, and that would be a disaster. So the question is how do we create a system that will give them a "fair" trial and yet protect our sources of information? Right now that question is still being worked on.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Could we call them POWs and leave them there until their there is a negotiated end of the war?

And please don't give me the "it's not a war cause congress didn't declare war" answer, we had POWs in both Vietnam and Korea and there was no war resolution then either.

The current terminology is "EPW," not "POW."

To the extent these people are captured Taliban or al Qaeda, as many of them allegedly are, the open hostilities in Afghanistan have been over for years. My own feeling is that if they are going to be charged with crimes, let's charge them. If not, let's let them go. Treating them as conventional EPWs is problematic in the context of an unconventional "war on terror" that will predictably go on for decades.

Hello.. what planet are you from? Did you miss the whole threat and stories about how the Taliban is regrouping etc etc?
The people we have in Gitmo want to KILL Americans and if we let them go they will try to KILL Americans again. Yet you think we should just "let them go"??

I think the big problem with trials and these guys is that much of the evidence we have against them is gathered via sources that we can not let them know about. That is why they are trying to create rules that don't let the terrorist see the evidence against them. Because, once the terrorist sees the evidence against them they may be able to figure out who the source of that evidence is, and that would be a disaster. So the question is how do we create a system that will give them a "fair" trial and yet protect our sources of information? Right now that question is still being worked on.

What part of "open hostilities" do you not understand? What kind of "professor" could fail to understand that phrase? And if the Taliban is such a terrifying threat, why have we abandoned Afghanistan to them, and the narco warlords? To the extent they pose a threat to our national security, at this point that's our fault.

I don't disagree that some of these people pose a threat to our security, but I don't agree that that means they can be held indefinitely without trial. I actually have close friends involved in interrogating and prosecuting the detainees at Gitmo, and as far as I can see DoD has essentially created a "justice system" there that is the most shameless kangaroo court in American history.

I must say, having prosecuted and defended dozens of criminal cases, I think your concern about these defendants finding out the source of incriminating information is fanciful and unlikely to pose a problem in the overwhelming majority of cases. To the extent it's a problem in a particular case, the information released to the defendants can and will be redacted to protect the interests of national security. This is done routinely in classified courts-martial.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So basically, anyone who supports the administration is a "shill" but if someone disagrees they can be said to have "bitch slaps Bush" ??
That makes a lot of sense, a nice fair and balanced approach.

That's about as shallow and vapid an analysis as anyone could post. For your statement to be meaningful in any way, you'd have to start with ackowledging that the Supreme Court already ruled that the admin's actions, including their secret prisons and their use and advocacy of torture are illegal, and the only reason the administration wants Congress to pass legislation is to authorize them continue the same illegal, inhumane actions in the future.

If you start your question by including the truthful premise that they want to continue their criminal behavior with absolutely NO oversight from Congress and the American people, then, YES, anyone who supports them is, at a minimum, a shill for the administration, and if they participate in the action or promoting it, they're closer to being the traitors that every member of the administration is.

And if "bitch slapping" was all it took, I'd be out scouring the countryside for more bitches with big paws and a healthy dose of FOAD attitude. :|

Next time someone agrees with Bush why don't you just plug your ears and go "nanananana I'm not listening" would have about the same effect.

It would be nice if it would work, but a more effective action would be electing a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and impeaching their traitorous asses and shipping them off to the beautiful Guantanimo Hilton for a few years while the courts sort out who has authority to try them for the rest of their crimes.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Exactly what I want to know, if they are so 'innocent' why are they pushing so hard to sidestep the Geneva convention? Also, from what I understand, all of these detainees, whether tried or not, are stuck at gitmo for life. Nice fair and balanced system we have. I think he's a terrorist, LOCK HIM AWAY FOR LIFE, no trial, no jury of peers, no judge, just good old conjecture. Welcome to Salem MA, circa 1692

Could we call them POWs and leave them there until their there is a negotiated end of the war?

And please don't give me the "it's not a war cause congress didn't declare war" answer, we had POWs in both Vietnam and Korea and there was no war resolution then either.

Fine by me. Who do we negotiate the end of the war with though???? Allah? General Horror of the first mechanized Terror division?

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
one cool head amongst the clueless masses:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn?t take prisoners. ?The prisoners they do take they behead,? he said.

Like that's going to help when the French finally rise up and begin torturing our troops they have captured.