I am not suffieciently motivated to debunk the whole of your crapOkay, I'll buy that.
Do you actually believe that the wholesale wiretapping and email snooping ordered by the Bush administration doesn't violate the fourth amendment? Do you actually agree that Bush can sign an executive order suspending the fourth amendment to allow this? That's loony!
I have NO problem with SPYING on TERRORISTS or those that communicate with terrorists, just as was done with ethe MAFIA and DRUG dealers years past, you do?
SHAME ON YOU!
Suspending???????????????
Of course you're right, Gitmo is not Cuba, it's an American military base, and as such is considered American property. Which begs the question, why are the laws of the United States, the rights conferred by the Constitution and the Geneva Convention not upheld there?
And not all of them did commit a crime against us or our interests. There are quite a few that nobody knows what, if anything they did to get rounded up, and no proof of any kind has been provided to say that they did anything at all.No one knows? Then how do YOU know they didnt commit acts of TERROR against us???????????HMmmmmmmm...................
This is where the abrogation of the Bill of Rights comes into play. W claims that we are "bringing democracy to Iraq", but in the case of these prisoners is completely ignoring our own laws, the very laws that make democracy possible, by ignoring the fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments. Admittedly, the Bill of Rights is about what rights the citizens of the US can demand and expect from the government, but if we are telling the rest of the world that they should follow those rules too, we should probably walk the talk in our dealing with them as well.
Hmm... Here's an interesting note: (parts germane to this discussion bolded)
So I guess that legally we can abuse "guerrilla combatants" however we want, but what we've done over there is still morally wrong in my opinion. (I wander what Carter was thinking? I'll have to read up on that some more.)
The innocent ones too? That's a little harsh.How do YOU know anyone there is innocent? What are they there for? PARKING TICKETS?
As for the guilty ones, even though they aren't covered by the GC (as noted above), if you start killing enemy combatants, you'll never get them to quit fighting. If they are going to die either way, they will keep fighting. So "KILL EM!" is seemingly a bad idea. Better to hold them until the hostilities are over and then allow them to return home.
The obvious problem with that, of course, is that the second we let them go, they start manufacturing IEDs and killing off our troops and/or innocent bystanders. I don't know. I don't want to feed them the rest of their lives, and I don't want to have them out there IED building, but killing them makes things messy in other ways, (even beyond the moral quagmire we wade into at that point). I dunno... maybe we should put their eyes out with hot pokers and chop off their fingers and turn them out the front gate at Gitmo. That way we didn't kill them, they can't fight us anymore, and hey... we never signed the '77 GC protocols right?
And yet you can't cite one?!? That makes me think that you are pulling "facts" out of your ass, then sending me on a snipe hunt to verify your hot air. You claim that: I don't believe you. I think that you are full of crap on this issue, and that the reason that you can't cite even a single source for this assertion is that no such source exists.
Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming you. There is a huge segment of the Right that just believes totally fictitious BS, with no proof, no supporting facts of any kind, and then run all over spouting these beliefs as though they were common knowledge. I don't blame you for this, you are a product of your "beliefs". And besides, facts are hard.
Perhaps I am. But I must conclude that you are too, on this particular topic, else you would have had more to say here (something along the lines of which clues I am lacking would have been good).
You are right. As stated above, they are "guerrilla combatants". (You're welcome for the citation to back your assertion, happy to help.) But it turns out that you are both right and wrong here. The GC says nothing about the GC only applying to countries that signed the GC, it says "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
What that means, is that whether or not the other side signed the GC, *we* are bound to abide by it. Of course that doesn't help the prisoners at the Guantanamo prison, but I thought I'd clear up that confusion for you.
Yes. I still think that, even though we never signed the '77 accord, that we should set ourselves to a higher standard.
The similarity between a terrorist caught in another country and a car thief from Alabama is that they both should be innocent until proven guilty. We have no idea who the prisoners in Guantanamo are, why they are there, or any proof of those things.
The six from the article I cited in my other post (here it is again, in case you want to read it) were allegedly "... planning to go to Afghanistan to fight the United States, and that one of them was a member of Al Qaeda."
It turns out that allegedly planning to travel to Afghanistan to allegedly join Al Qaeda is not grounds for seven years imprisonment without a trial. It seems that actually being a member of Al Qaeda gets you thrown back into the black hole. Which I think is probably right, but he really ought to be given a trial with all the technicalities crossed and dotted anyway; just to shut people like me up.
"replete with inaccuracies"? I could have been mistaken on a point or two, but I take umbrage at the term "replete".
"innuendo's [SIC]"? I think I stated my points and opinions pretty clearly, I don't think that I insinuated anything at all. I spoke very plainly.
"long blather" okay...you've got me there.
""junk law" and urban legends"? Not so, I say! Gitmo isn't an alligator in the sewer, it exists and there are hundreds of people being, if not illegally detained, then certainly immorally detained there.
"LIB TALKING POINTS" -- Well, if you mean that when some right-wing hater starts saying that Obama is going to be just more of the same, and that his promise of "change we can believe in" is just so much hot air; that I will cite factual evidence to support my assertion that change actually is imminent, and then give proof to defend my assertions, then yeah, I guess you got me there too.
ES
A little
You can pretend all you want about GITMO and what I said
But facts are facts
That you refuse to see them or pretend to ignore them means
YOU ARE IN COMPANY OF MANY!
Congrats, you have LOATHSOME LAV in your corner!
I am not suffieciently motivated to debunk the whole of your crap
Sorry
Suffice to say
ITS LIB LOON TALKING BS POINTS
If ASS WEED and LOATHSOME LAV are on your side, it makes it 10000% LIB LOOB BS TALKING POINTS!
busybody, 97.65% of Democrats have no idea who Marc and Denise are...
QUOTE]
I disagree
They KNOW
They KNOW who Ayers is
They KNOW who Wright is
They KNOW who Rezko is
They DONT WANNA KNOW THEY DONT CARE THEY PRETEND ITS NOT IMPORTANT
They, like LOATHSOME LAV believe that ACORN is really a front for MONICA GOODLING
They FOCUS on TURKEYS being KILLED behind Palin, they IGNORE what they wanna IGNORE
