Forgotten History...

[freeandfun1]

how is the manner in which the admin handles FOREIGN nationals a grab at power?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Congress granted the administration authority to detain this individual under the Patriot Act. You remember that, right? Congress passed it, not Bush.

<blockquote><b>Q. Does the USA PATRIOT Act authorize detention of people as enemy combatants?</b>
A: No. Enemy combatant status, which essentially permits detention of enemy soldiers during hostilities, as opposed to detention under the criminal justice system, pre-dates 9/11, and was approved by the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatant status was used to detain a U.S. citizen who attempted sabotage during World War II. Nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act addresses enemy combatants.</blockquote>

And as for Democracy...Well, it's a nice idea, but its endangered in this country by the current administration.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Read again the SCOTUS decided against your argument. They have been charged with and will be tried at military tribunals, legal according to the SCOTUS. I bow to their legal acumen.

Secret tribunals with no chance to appeal the verdict. Hardly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

 

[Bullypulpit]

As we have clearly defined torture under a previous thread started by you and it was shown that all empirical evidence points to the contrary and that no such torture has been approved by the Administration you are clearly out of your depth.

You are entirely within your rights to address the issue and to petition the government for any perceived grievance, and I served in order to protect just such a right. It is the way you keep assuming that people with a different opinion are simply slobbering and idiotic infantile robots with Kool-Aid mustaches is where I can't get with you. Charging Terrorists with crimes and trying them in military tribunals is not "unlimited Presidential power" by any stretch of the imagination.

Be careful what you wish for, old son. They start with "terrorists" first.

 

[no1tovote4]

Secret tribunals with no chance to appeal the verdict. Hardly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

During wartime they too had tribunals. Often people were killed for not following orders or desertion with no trial at all and it was not against the Constitution. Therefore your assertion that Military Tribunals were not Constitutional is simply incorrect as shown by the SCOTUS decision to the contrary.

 

[Bullypulpit]

you're a retard bully. You know nothing about which you are blabbing.

How sad, how typical...You can't argue, so you insult.

 

[no1tovote4]

Be careful what you wish for, old son. They start with "terrorists" first.

That's simply mouthing platitudes. Had the government gone after every single Muslim alive, had they created holding pens for all of them and tried to wipe them from this Continent. Had they acted in a way that showed they were not actually going after terrorists I would be right beside you. However they have not and I have shown that their actions have been in line with Habeas Corpus and that they have been charged and will be tried. It was also proven to be Constitutional as per the decision of the SCOTUS, so far you are batting zero, old son.

 

[OCA]

Unfortunately, since the Bush administration decided to abandon the Geneva Convention as regarding Afghanis and Iraqis, our troops are at far greater risk for being subjected to attrocities. The administration chose to abandon the hign road...It chose to abandon the Convention, thus the harm that comes to any of our troops captured in combat lies squarely on their doorstep.

How can you continue to support a such morally bankrupt administration?

Are you seriously trying to tell us that if we had stuck to the stupid rules and regulations of the Geneva Convention that the terrorists would've stuck to them also?

You cannot be serious with this crap.

 

[OCA]

The whole point of the discussion has been missed...By all of you. Granted, it has been stimulating but nonethelesss, you've missed the point.

The atempts to justify torture...To justify the indefinite detention without charge or legal recourse...These things are a grab for unlimited presidential power. And if they are allowed to stand unchallenged, it will be the death of the Republic. Now if y'all can, in good conscience, contiue to support the administration in this pursuit I can only say, "Be careful what you wish for...You may get it". I cannot support it, I will not support it and I will fight it with every legal means at my disposal.

You have no legal means at your disposal, no leg to stand on. You are a follower of a long dead political fallacy and philosophy, you are a dinosaur whose time has passed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

As we have clearly defined torture under a previous thread started by you and it was shown that all empirical evidence points to the contrary and that no such torture has been approved by the Administration you are clearly out of your depth.

You are entirely within your rights to address the issue and to petition the government for any perceived grievance, and I served in order to protect just such a right. It is the way you keep assuming that people with a different opinion are simply slobbering and idiotic infantile robots with Kool-Aid mustaches is where I can't get with you. Charging Terrorists with crimes and trying them in military tribunals is not "unlimited Presidential power" by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, it was defined, but you were unwilling to accept any definition of torture beyond that positied in the Gonzales memo, i.e., pain equivalent in nature to organ failure or death. Fortunately most of the civilized world accepts a broader definition such as that put forth in the International Conventions Against Torture.

I don't know which is more disturbing, your unwillingnes to see reason of your willing ness to lap up every last gobbet of excrement the Administration spews.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You have no legal means at your disposal, no leg to stand on. You are a follower of a long dead political fallacy and philosophy, you are a dinosaur whose time has passed.

And you are a quisling.

 

[Bullypulpit]

That's simply mouthing platitudes. Had the government gone after every single Muslim alive, had they created holding pens for all of them and tried to wipe them from this Continent. Had they acted in a way that showed they were not actually going after terrorists I would be right beside you. However they have not and I have shown that their actions have been in line with Habeas Corpus and that they have been charged and will be tried. It was also proven to be Constitutional as per the decision of the SCOTUS, so far you are batting zero, old son.

That remains to be seen.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Are you seriously trying to tell us that if we had stuck to the stupid rules and regulations of the Geneva Convention that the terrorists would've stuck to them also?

You cannot be serious with this crap.

Actually they wouldn't. But in failing to keep to the moral high-ground any legitimacy our government's position might have had regarding the detentions in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib was lost. Not that that means anything to you. For you, the ends justify the means, even if you have to crawl over a mountain of bodies to reach it.

Goebbels would've hired you in a heartbeat.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yes, it was defined, but you were unwilling to accept any definition of torture beyond that positied in the Gonzales memo, i.e., pain equivalent in nature to organ failure or death. Fortunately most of the civilized world accepts a broader definition such as that put forth in the International Conventions Against Torture.

I don't know which is more disturbing, your unwillingnes to see reason of your willing ness to lap up every last gobbet of excrement the Administration spews.

Thankfully the Administration put forward the directive that the Geneva Convention applies and therefore we are punishing those that step beyond those boundaries. Therefore Gonzales opinion in this matter didn't apply and has not applied.

As I have stated before, simply, we are not in violation of either Convention as you insist we are. Therefore your unwillingness to see reason from actual empirical evidence of action as opposed to anecdotal theory based on nothing in evidence makes me posit that you are guilty of what you accuse me of. Willing to Lap up everything the Left-Wing propaganda machine wants to spew regardless of actual evidence.

 

[no1tovote4]

That remains to be seen.

As I said, evidence makes me doubt your assertions that GW is after us all. Or that you are even sane, since direct empirical evidence goes directly against every one of your assertions yet you insist that you are right and this falls into one of the definitions of insanity.

Simply their actions point to following Constitutional law as well as keeping us on the right track by keeping the troops away from torture methods beyond aggressive questioning and sleep deprivation.

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually they wouldn't. But in failing to keep to the moral high-ground any legitimacy our government's position might have had regarding the detentions in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib was lost. Not that that means anything to you. For you, the ends justify the means, even if you have to crawl over a mountain of bodies to reach it.

Goebbels would've hired you in a heartbeat.

We haven't failed to keep the moral high ground. We haven't condoned torture and in fact have punished it! You are going well beyond reason now into the realm of Fantasy. Direct evidence is not enough to convince you, but so long as it was sent along a propaganda channel you believe? You are disappointing me, this cannot even be called debate any longer. You hamper your own argument when you deny the actual evidence in order to make untrue assertions.

 

[Hobbit]

Yes, it was defined, but you were unwilling to accept any definition of torture beyond that positied in the Gonzales memo, i.e., pain equivalent in nature to organ failure or death. Fortunately most of the civilized world accepts a broader definition such as that put forth in the International Conventions Against Torture.

I don't know which is more disturbing, your unwillingnes to see reason of your willing ness to lap up every last gobbet of excrement the Administration spews.

I don't WANT the broader definition of torture, because it's that talk that got conjugal visits and cable TV in prisons.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Thankfully the Administration put forward the directive that the Geneva Convention applies and therefore we are punishing those that step beyond those boundaries. Therefore Gonzales opinion in this matter didn't apply and has not applied.

As I have stated before, simply, we are not in violation of either Convention as you insist we are. Therefore your unwillingness to see reason from actual empirical evidence of action as opposed to anecdotal theory based on nothing in evidence makes me posit that you are guilty of what you accuse me of. Willing to Lap up everything the Left-Wing propaganda machine wants to spew regardless of actual evidence.

Only after the turd plopped down in the punchbowl. Two weeks before Gonzales' confirmation hearings were scheduled a new memo was issued repudiating the earlier memos condoning torture. And of course, Gonzales dodged the issue during his initial hearings.

 

[Bullypulpit]

We haven't failed to keep the moral high ground. We haven't condoned torture and in fact have punished it! You are going well beyond reason now into the realm of Fantasy. Direct evidence is not enough to convince you, but so long as it was sent along a propaganda channel you believe? You are disappointing me, this cannot even be called debate any longer. You hamper your own argument when you deny the actual evidence in order to make untrue assertions.

The only ones getting it in the neck now are the grunts who got caught doing the dirty wofk for their higher ups. I believe justice is being done when Dubbyuh and his merry band are brought before the Hague for war crimes.

And you, my dear fellow, are living in a polyanish dreamworld.

 

[Annie]

The only ones getting it in the neck now are the grunts who got caught doing the dirty wofk for their higher ups. I believe justice is being done when Dubbyuh and his merry band are brought before the Hague for war crimes.

And you, my dear fellow, are living in a polyanish dreamworld.

Dang it Bully, I've been looking for a post of yours I could rep, can't find one. Not that I'll ding, mind you! For now, I'll just say, "Hi!" and wait.