Why, after all we've seen, is Congress handing Bush a blank check?

[Corbett]

If torturing people who want me and my loved ones dead keeps me and my loved ones alive, then please, by all means, start pulling out their toe nails.

 

[Craig234]

f torturing people who want me and my loved ones dead keeps me and my loved ones alive, then please, by all means, start pulling out their toe nails.

And they say, if blowing up people who are happy to torture them keeps them from being tortured, then go blow them up.

Are you Hatfield, or McCoy? Either way you are doing your fair share to keep the cycle of violence going, and throwing away your own morality. You're a menace to both sides.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I think the complaint on the left is that the military will now be in charge of the trials, I see nothing wrong with that.

*NEWSFLASH* for you on the left, the Nazi war criminals we caught at the end of WW2 were not tried in a civilian court but at an "international military tribunal"

Not so, not at all. Did you happen to notice that some of the loudest voices against the tribunals, as sketched out by the White House, were the Judge Advocates General of all four services? The Uniform Code of Military Justice is, IMO, the best and fairest justice system on earth. Bar none. It is among the most recently developed (having been created in 1948), and it provides an exceptionally fair, thorough system for the administration of justice. Moreover, I know firsthand that military lawyers and judges are, as a whole, professional, well-trained, and dedicated to providing a fair process.

The tribunals (much like the treatment of detainees generally) are a kangaroo court. They have essentially nothing in common with military justice, other than the fact that men and women in uniforms (including close friends of mine) sit in the courtrooms. They are completely inconsistent with the principles in our Constitution, and they don't, IMO, offer much in the way of protection to the American public.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Corbett
If torturing people who want me and my loved ones dead keeps me and my loved ones alive, then please, by all means, start pulling out their toe nails.

As cowardly as that sounds, it's also based on wild speculation, there is NO evidence that torturing detainees is keeping ANYONE safe.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
John, you utterly fail to understand the muslim population. Just as we have a few Timothy McVeighs and many Profjohns who are not so violent and radical, Muslims have a few Osama bin Ladens and many who are not about killing Americans no matter what, but are much more likely to when their brother is sent to Guantanamo and has done no crime.

You are wrong in your generalizations about Muslims to say they are all like the few more radical; this is a sign of ignorance and prejudice, and it leads you to dangerous policies.

Just for the record, Radical Islam is about 25% of the Muslim population. That isn't a majority but it sure as hell is a significant number of radicals who are looking to destroy us.

And I dare say there is no comparison to the U.S. Or do you believe 25% of this country is equally radical?

umm, "just for the record," that number is ridiculously too high... Most current estimates show 5-7% who support the beliefs of radical Islamists, and less than 2% who would actually act out violently on those beliefs.

which, by my measure, is still too high. We really need the rest of the Muslims to step up and clean out that small percentage who are screwing things up for everyone else!

but 25%?! quit making sh*t up.. it will really help you make a point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

On topic...
Congress isn't handing Bush anything.

One body of Republicans is giving another Republican what he wants. That's how these votes go.

Political parties suck. They have one goal, and that is to get power and hold it and damn everything else.

 

[maluckey]

As cowardly as that sounds, it's also based on wild speculation, there is NO evidence that torturing detainees is keeping ANYONE safe.

This argument is without merit, as the opposite is also 100 percent true. I expect better from you. Normally you are one of the few with an intelligent answer, or at least a thoughtful insight.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
umm, "just for the record," that number is ridiculously too high... Most current estimates show 5-7% who support the beliefs of radical Islamists, and less than 2% who would actually act out violently on those beliefs.

BS. It also varies by country. Some are even more radical than the average. Take a look at France, for example. For reference here, keep in mind that even 1% = roughly 15 million radicals (Muslim population of the world estimated at roughly 1.5 billion.) We're talking an enormous lot here.

which, by my measure, is still too high. We really need the rest of the Muslims to step up and clean out that small percentage who are screwing things up for everyone else!

Which is exactly what I've been saying for a long time! I may as well repeat it again. The vast majority of Muslims do not support or condone the behavior of the minority. However, where are they to speak out against it? The Imam's are virtually silent. As I mentioned in a previous thread, about the only ones to speak out against it are a group in the UK (about 300 IIRC) who are now under constant security and threat as such a declaration puts a price on their heads.

but 25%?! quit making sh*t up.. it will really help you make a point.

You really ought to check your facts. In some countries the figure is absolutely that high. (France?) In other countries it is relatively low (Australia, for example.) There's plenty of data out there. Google is your friend.

 

[ebeattie]

I refuse to believe that pulling us out of every proliferation treaty we were in, and now trying to disregard the Geneva conventions will do ANY good, and only serves to screw our troops even more! OUr presidents "swagger" that we are the US and we will do what we please can ONLY get us into more trouble. I was once a supporter for this administration, but I can now no longer support ANYHTING that our republican led government does. We were flat out lied to about going into Iraq and our president doesnt have the balls to stand up and say that he made a mistake. I guess him and Cheney have way to much money getting put into their offshore accounts cause of the profits and dividends that they are recieving from Halliburton to give a Rats AZZ about doing the right thing or admiting mistakes. I might not be a democrat at heart, but I can no longer stand a republican.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
As cowardly as that sounds, it's also based on wild speculation, there is NO evidence that torturing detainees is keeping ANYONE safe.

There's also no evidence that detainees are being tortured. Save for the Abu Ghraib fiasco and a few isolated incidents here and there, there is absolutely nothing to support such an argument. Seems like another straw man.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
As cowardly as that sounds, it's also based on wild speculation, there is NO evidence that torturing detainees is keeping ANYONE safe.

There's also no evidence that detainees are being tortured. Save for the Abu Ghraib fiasco and a few isolated incidents here and there, there is absolutely nothing to support such an argument. Seems like another straw man.

For something that isn't happening, Republicans, from Bush on down, seem to be making quite the effort to support and ok it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: slash196
So we are only now fully realizing the reprehensible consequences of military tribunals, secret prisons, and indefinite detention of people without evidence or even oversight, and our response is to make it officially legal? What in the world is wrong with this government? Are they actually evil or just dumb as hell?

Midterms cannot get here quick enough. Throw those morons out on their asses.

What exactly are the "reprehensible consequences" please?

And please enlighten us all with you think we should do with the terrorist we have caught? Including:
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind behind 9-11 and believed to have been the No 3 al-Qaeda leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003;
Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker and
Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaeda cells before he was also captured in Pakistan, in March 2002.

Perhaps we should put them on trial like anyone else. I don't see where torture is necessary, logical, or even at what point it enters the conversation for that matter.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Military handling war criminals? There is nothing wrong with that.

Hell, in the law passed we cannot even water board them. We?ve given in to the liberal compromise to gain nothing but safer terrorists. The worst we can legally do now is make them uncomfortable where as in the opposite position heads would be rolling for the camera.

What war crime did they commit? Is see several civil crimes, no war crimes.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Your statement: ?With that, the US acts morally, and robs the terrorists of the cause for recruits and actions in response to the evil acts of America. "

My response: "And Craig the US acting morally or unmorally has nothing at all to do with terror recruiting. They hate us because we are not Muslims, or did the ?convert or die? statements made by the terror leaders not convince you of that fact?"

Perhaps if you were a bit more astute, you could see that all this ****** about islam is just a cover for the real reasons... they hate us for what we do, and justify there response with their religion. Everyone does the same thing.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So you compare Fox News Journalists to the innocence of, say, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? The entire mistake you?re making is thinking enemy combatants who we captured on the battlefield are somehow equivalent to an innocent person. If anything, I wish we would have just killed them in combat instead of capturing them- then you?d lose your current excuse for protecting our enemy.

So if we capture people on the battlefield, aren't they subject to the Geneva conventions, which last time i checked still ban all forms of torture, including, as Fox News likes to call it, "rough interegation"

And please grow up and stop calling people who disagree with your position sympathizers or spokesmen, or whatever. Your styance is FAR more philosophically alligned with radical muslims than mine or his. Please stop insinutating that you are american while you are at, I really don't want my country associated with people of your viewpoint.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett
If torturing people who want me and my loved ones dead keeps me and my loved ones alive, then please, by all means, start pulling out their toe nails.

As cowardly as that sounds, it's also based on wild speculation, there is NO evidence that torturing detainees is keeping ANYONE safe.

Logically, I would think that torturing detaines would make us less safe. Its like the comics or the popes speach. Lets just stop throwing fuel on the fire, thanks.

Originally posted by: maluckey

As cowardly as that sounds, it's also based on wild speculation, there is NO evidence that torturing detainees is keeping ANYONE safe.

This argument is without merit, as the opposite is also 100 percent true. I expect better from you. Normally you are one of the few with an intelligent answer, or at least a thoughtful insight.

 

[wazzledoozle]

lol does anyone actually think another election is going to fix anything? It will be just as rigged as the any previous election.

 

[straightalker]

I don't want to name and names and won't. But there are some posters in this thread who cruise this Forum who just plain do not deserve to live here in America. Period. They just don't care enough to EVER LEARN A THING.

Read this and for heavan's sakes LEARN SOMETHING. This is critical education and required understanding as Americans to help us know what's really going on. The final destruction of the USA Constitution is happening right now. Anyone else here ever swear the oath to defend it? When we loose it America is gone! Millions of dead and maimed soldiers who defended it - bought our freedom - payed in their blood!~

You see that, from the Judge Advocate General?s office, the Association of Military Defense Counsels already put out a letter saying that they don?t want any part of this new system, and that they wouldn?t represent any defendants. Why? Because it isn?t a military tribunal system that?s being established. It?s a kangaroo court.

It's not a military tribunal system. In a military tribunal system the defendant has the right to question the validity of the warrant, to question how the evidence was obtained, to question witnesses and to subpoena witnesses.

A defendant would have no such right under the proposed new military tribunal system ? which wouldn?t be used at all to execute judicial matters within the military! That?s how deceptive it is.

Why did they purposely reduce it from 8 judges to 5, and then also (and this is unprecedented) allowing retired senior officers to put on their uniforms and sit on this new judicial panel. They have got their people all picked out.

They've got generals and colonels with board seats on Bush-connected corporations

The Bush Cheney Regime was concerned that the military wouldn't go along with this. And, by and large, they haven't wanted to. That's why they have the option of bringing back all retired guys to run it. Retired senior officers who have board of director or advisory seats in pro-Bush faction-controlled corporations would be the ideal candidates.

People have to understand just how sinister this thing is, and that what Primakov said was right -- this is the American Gulag.

Unlike the Soviet Union, that created the gulag in pieces, as Primakov pointed out, the Bush Cheney Regime is trying to usher it all in -- in one fell swoop

They want to construct this thing the same way that CCA and others construct the new modular off-site prisons, wherein you can effectively bring in a pre-built, pre-fabricated prison onsite, construct it in 9 or 10 days, and move on to the next. They want to construct this judicial system the same way, by combining all the elements and having them all in place.

What they?re doing, by the way, in the event this hasn?t occurred to anybody, they?re throwing all of their newfound powers under the PATRIOT Acts, all of the independent pieces of legislation that have passed in between the Patriot Acts that have either been omnibused with them or stand-alone's.

They're throwing this together to create what will be an extra-legal judicial system in the United States masquerading as the real thing that will be used far beyond any judicial capacity.

Because it would give the CIA and the FBI the ability to incarcerate people who are blond-haired, blue-eyed US citizens, without charge, indefinitely.

It would give the regime the ability to effectuate a secret arrest of somebody off the street and to effectively make them disappear. That?s the power here.

This is a high-tech Americanized and privatized version of the Soviet system - putting it together, all in one fell swoop, using more modern technology.

Think how sinister this really is.

If you were a citizen, for instance, that had publicly criticized the regime outside of a designated free-speech zone, you have been therefore classified as a seditious citizen.

Imagine that you?re getting out of your car going into the grocery store and you are arrested by people who don?t identify themselves, with a secret warrant that you're not allowed to see. You're then blindfolded and knocked in the head. And when you wake up, you're in some dark little room someplace. You don?t know where you are. You have no right to counsel. You have no right of a phone call to contact anybody. You're being held under a false name. You don't know what you?re being charged with. And you could be held and detained that way forever.

Not only are you in the little room, but now the CIA, the FBI, whoever, have the ability to torture you to do whatever they want. There is no oversight, no independent review.

You notice that the CIA specifically said that they didn?t want to appoint an Inspector General to liaise with any domestic incarceration or torture function.

The easiest way to understand the magnitude of it, is to write about Citizen Smith who has publicly criticized the regime. And here is the route, after this so-called military tribunal system, (which, in itself, is a meaningless phrase) of what would happen.

Welcome to the American Gulag.

Also, ironically this could ironically put the United States or the future US regime in direct competition with China. You?d have American slave labor in competition with Chinese slave labor.

"Blank check" is just another word for "Dictatorship".

 

[Craig234]

Pabster keeps his perfect record of every post having something wrong.

There's also no evidence that detainees are being tortured. Save for the Abu Ghraib fiasco and a few isolated incidents here and there, there is absolutely nothing to support such an argument. Seems like another straw man.

There are many reports showing a broad range of extraordinary rendition being used for a lot of people - and do you remember that even Bush had to admit to the secret CIA prisons, where torture was done, in European countries recently? You don't read the facts, and then you post as if you have info you don't.

 

[ucdbiendog]

i never post here, but i cant take this one.
Straight talker, was that "article" written by a 12 yr old? Was it ever published in a trustworthy journal/newspaper? while i dont disagree with you OR that article, back yourself up with something more solid. sounds like that was a C- poli-sci paper from a high school student.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett
If torturing people who want me and my loved ones dead keeps me and my loved ones alive, then please, by all means, start pulling out their toe nails.

As cowardly as that sounds, it's also based on wild speculation, there is NO evidence that torturing detainees is keeping ANYONE safe.

So then you obviously didnt hear all over the news about how these techniques have helped uncover numerous plots to attack our country and our allies?

 

[palehorse]

This bill meerly spells out and clarifies what was previously vague, ambiguous, and open to interpretation by every individual conducting an interrogation. Now, rather than said individual having to decide whether his method is legal or not, interrogators have a list of methods that they can refer to and utilize effectively.

period.

All you people screaming about this being a "Torture bill" are class-A morons. You also have no idea how to fight and win a war.

g'day.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
This bill meerly spells out and clarifies what was previously vague, ambiguous, and open to interpretation by every individual conducting an interrogation. Now, rather than said individual having to decide whether his method is legal or not, interrogators have a list of methods that they can refer to and utilize effectively.

period.

All you people screaming about this being a "Torture bill" are class-A morons. You also have no idea how to fight and win a war.

g'day.

Your kind has been at war for thousands of years. You know nothing at all about winning because your thinking insures that war will always be endless. You bind yourself to the wheel of Karma and endless spin. No point in wishing you a good day since your own wish for hell is so much stronger you won't be able to hear.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
This bill meerly spells out and clarifies what was previously vague, ambiguous, and open to interpretation by every individual conducting an interrogation. Now, rather than said individual having to decide whether his method is legal or not, interrogators have a list of methods that they can refer to and utilize effectively.

period.

All you people screaming about this being a "Torture bill" are class-A morons. You also have no idea how to fight and win a war.

g'day.

Towing the party line again huh? We're all morons, even those republicans with military experience who opposed it?

If you know how to fight and win a war, please send an e-mail to Rumsfeld, he clearly does not.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
This bill meerly spells out and clarifies what was previously vague, ambiguous, and open to interpretation by every individual conducting an interrogation. Now, rather than said individual having to decide whether his method is legal or not, interrogators have a list of methods that they can refer to and utilize effectively.

period.

All you people screaming about this being a "Torture bill" are class-A morons. You also have no idea how to fight and win a war.

g'day.

Actually, the wording is still ambiguous enough that nearly any treatment could be justified under it. I know that you aren't worried about being detained because your lips are firmly wrapped around the establishment's junk, but this bill is worrysome to those of us actually capable of independent thought, because now WE can be arrested, thrown in jail, and executed without trial, habeas corpus, or any form of legal redress.

These legal rights that are being stripped away by this bill are not American rights, they're HUMAN rights. EVERYONE, even if they are a terrorist, is entitled to them. This law turns "innocent until proven guilty" into "guilty on the say-so of the president".

I'm not saying this WILL happen, but these kinds of laws are how dictatorships get started. Depriving liberty in the name of safety is the oldest trick in the book. I only hope that if it starts to come to that, that some fine patriot puts a slug through El Presidente's skull. And if that sounds a little harsh, I apologize; it's just that when the government pisses on my rights as a human I get a little bit angry.