Obama opponents NEVER satisfied

[Varth Dader]

Wrong. "The problem here" is that you are unable or unwilling to view the matter as a problem that exists entirely OUTSIDE of the legal system or notions of "due process" which pertain to legal matters within the criminal justice system.

You WANT it to be a "legal" problem so that all of your arguments "flow" logically from that premise and your conclusion would necessarily follow. But it is not now and never was a "legal" problem. It is entirely a matter of war -- one involving the right of the nation to protect itself from all manner of attacks.

...


...

It is not -- despite your desire for it to be otherwise -- a "legal" issue we are discussing here. It is a matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.

Liability,

I don't want it to be a legal problem. It IS a legal problem. You are using a very narrow definition of what a legal problem is. When we capture someone in the field and don't kill him right away, what we do with that person is a legal problem. It might be something dealt with under the military legal system, as opposed to the civilian courts or criminal courts, but it is still something that is legal in nature.

I'm not sure we all agree that giving rights to criminals like the one you described in your post (murder pure and simple) is perfectly proper. There are many people that are against giving those accused rights.

Yes, there are some exceptions, where you willing a criminal does not necessarily result in you being convincted of the crime. But so what? I don't disagree with the idea that capturing someone on some battlefield is different that capturing someone in the middle of the street after he killed a storeowner.

All I am saying is that the type of legal system you seem to be happy to send alleged terrorists/Illegal non-uniformed combatants to should be the exception rather than the norm. When people like Jose Padilla get caught in the net that you are throwing, I am worried. It appears to me the reason you want this approach is that you want to maximize the number of convictions. I don't think that this goal, by itself, should supplant all others.

I think (like most Republicans), you draw this as a black and white issue. It's not just a "matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.". It is also a matter of constitutional rights and the rule of law.

But like I said earlier (and yes, you did not believe me back then), my position is not solidified on this issue. I can see why (civil society) criminal courts might not be adequate for all situations.

 

[Liability]

Wrong. "The problem here" is that you are unable or unwilling to view the matter as a problem that exists entirely OUTSIDE of the legal system or notions of "due process" which pertain to legal matters within the criminal justice system.

You WANT it to be a "legal" problem so that all of your arguments "flow" logically from that premise and your conclusion would necessarily follow. But it is not now and never was a "legal" problem. It is entirely a matter of war -- one involving the right of the nation to protect itself from all manner of attacks.

...


...

It is not -- despite your desire for it to be otherwise -- a "legal" issue we are discussing here. It is a matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.

Liability,

I don't want it to be a legal problem. It IS a legal problem. You are using a very narrow definition of what a legal problem is. When we capture someone in the field and don't kill him right away, what we do with that person is a legal problem. It might be something dealt with under the military legal system, as opposed to the civilian courts or criminal courts, but it is still something that is legal in nature.

I'm not sure we all agree that giving rights to criminals like the one you described in your post (murder pure and simple) is perfectly proper. There are many people that are against giving those accused rights.

Yes, there are some exceptions, where you willing a criminal does not necessarily result in you being convincted of the crime. But so what? I don't disagree with the idea that capturing someone on some battlefield is different that capturing someone in the middle of the street after he killed a storeowner.

All I am saying is that the type of legal system you seem to be happy to send alleged terrorists/Illegal non-uniformed combatants to should be the exception rather than the norm. When people like Jose Padilla get caught in the net that you are throwing, I am worried. It appears to me the reason you want this approach is that you want to maximize the number of convictions. I don't think that this goal, by itself, should supplant all others.

I think (like most Republicans), you draw this as a black and white issue. It's not just a "matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.". It is also a matter of constitutional rights and the rule of law.

But like I said earlier (and yes, you did not believe me back then), my position is not solidified on this issue. I can see why (civil society) criminal courts might not be adequate for all situations.

Your premise is wrong. All your errors flow naturally from that.

It is not now and never has been and never will be a "legal" matter. It is a matter of war.

If your contention was correct (and it's not), then every legitimate uniformed soldier captured by us during a war would be entitled to a trial to contest his detention as a P.O.W. But that doesn't happen.

By contrast, I HAVE conceded that where there IS an actual issue as to whether or not any particular given captured enemy combatant in THIS war is actually an enemy combatant, THAT issue is ripe for some form of adjudication. Not necessarily in one of our courts of LAW however.

 

[Varth Dader]

...
It is not now and never has been and never will be a "legal" matter. It is a matter of war.
...

It's not a matter of war forever. Maybe you enjoy the never-ending war on drugs or the new never-ending war on terrorism.

There are no end to those. If you use exceptional measures (such as the one necessary for wars) and constantly use and reuse them, they lose their exceptional status.

If a US citizen Afghanistan war protester blows up a recruitment center, is he part of the war too? Where do you stop? How about the guy indirectly financing the war (say he has a shady business and gives a cut to someone who will use that money for the 'war'). Is he part of the war too?

When somebody has been sitting in Guantanamo for 5 years, it's not about the war anymore. Or if it is, there will never be any end to it. You might as well shoot the person on the battlefield. They ain't coming home - ever.

 

[taichiliberal]

Wrong. "The problem here" is that you are unable or unwilling to view the matter as a problem that exists entirely OUTSIDE of the legal system or notions of "due process" which pertain to legal matters within the criminal justice system.

You WANT it to be a "legal" problem so that all of your arguments "flow" logically from that premise and your conclusion would necessarily follow. But it is not now and never was a "legal" problem. It is entirely a matter of war -- one involving the right of the nation to protect itself from all manner of attacks.

...


...

It is not -- despite your desire for it to be otherwise -- a "legal" issue we are discussing here. It is a matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.

Liability,

I don't want it to be a legal problem. It IS a legal problem. You are using a very narrow definition of what a legal problem is. When we capture someone in the field and don't kill him right away, what we do with that person is a legal problem. It might be something dealt with under the military legal system, as opposed to the civilian courts or criminal courts, but it is still something that is legal in nature.

I'm not sure we all agree that giving rights to criminals like the one you described in your post (murder pure and simple) is perfectly proper. There are many people that are against giving those accused rights.

Yes, there are some exceptions, where you willing a criminal does not necessarily result in you being convincted of the crime. But so what? I don't disagree with the idea that capturing someone on some battlefield is different that capturing someone in the middle of the street after he killed a storeowner.

All I am saying is that the type of legal system you seem to be happy to send alleged terrorists/Illegal non-uniformed combatants to should be the exception rather than the norm. When people like Jose Padilla get caught in the net that you are throwing, I am worried. It appears to me the reason you want this approach is that you want to maximize the number of convictions. I don't think that this goal, by itself, should supplant all others.

I think (like most Republicans), you draw this as a black and white issue. It's not just a "matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.". It is also a matter of constitutional rights and the rule of law.

But like I said earlier (and yes, you did not believe me back then), my position is not solidified on this issue. I can see why (civil society) criminal courts might not be adequate for all situations.

I'll give you one better: folk like Liability DON'T CARE that under the system they praise so high RELEASED 500 people who were detained/interrogated for A FEW YEARS.....and did so without rhyme or reason given. They don't THINK about the ramifications that had in the region......and they don't care. This is why folk like Liability have earned the label "willfully ignorant"......it's all about the neocon ideology for them....reality, innocent people's lives and the true security of our nation and American's abroad isn't even secondary with the neocon parrots....that's just jingoistic fodder for them.

 

[ConHog]

Wrong. "The problem here" is that you are unable or unwilling to view the matter as a problem that exists entirely OUTSIDE of the legal system or notions of "due process" which pertain to legal matters within the criminal justice system.

You WANT it to be a "legal" problem so that all of your arguments "flow" logically from that premise and your conclusion would necessarily follow. But it is not now and never was a "legal" problem. It is entirely a matter of war -- one involving the right of the nation to protect itself from all manner of attacks.

...


...

It is not -- despite your desire for it to be otherwise -- a "legal" issue we are discussing here. It is a matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.

Liability,

I don't want it to be a legal problem. It IS a legal problem. You are using a very narrow definition of what a legal problem is. When we capture someone in the field and don't kill him right away, what we do with that person is a legal problem. It might be something dealt with under the military legal system, as opposed to the civilian courts or criminal courts, but it is still something that is legal in nature.

I'm not sure we all agree that giving rights to criminals like the one you described in your post (murder pure and simple) is perfectly proper. There are many people that are against giving those accused rights.

Yes, there are some exceptions, where you willing a criminal does not necessarily result in you being convincted of the crime. But so what? I don't disagree with the idea that capturing someone on some battlefield is different that capturing someone in the middle of the street after he killed a storeowner.

All I am saying is that the type of legal system you seem to be happy to send alleged terrorists/Illegal non-uniformed combatants to should be the exception rather than the norm. When people like Jose Padilla get caught in the net that you are throwing, I am worried. It appears to me the reason you want this approach is that you want to maximize the number of convictions. I don't think that this goal, by itself, should supplant all others.

I think (like most Republicans), you draw this as a black and white issue. It's not just a "matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.". It is also a matter of constitutional rights and the rule of law.

But like I said earlier (and yes, you did not believe me back then), my position is not solidified on this issue. I can see why (civil society) criminal courts might not be adequate for all situations.

I'll give you one better: folk like Liability DON'T CARE that under the system they praise so high RELEASED 500 people who were detained/interrogated for A FEW YEARS.....and did so without rhyme or reason given. They don't THINK about the ramifications that had in the region......and they don't care. This is why folk like Liability have earned the label "willfully ignorant"......it's all about the neocon ideology for them....reality, innocent people's lives and the true security of our nation and American's abroad isn't even secondary with the neocon parrots....that's just jingoistic fodder for them.

You're a fool. A person can believe either way on this issue and still be a patriot who loves his country. Only morons like you believe that anyone who believes differently than them doesn't love their country.

 

[Liability]

...
It is not now and never has been and never will be a "legal" matter. It is a matter of war.
...

It's not a matter of war forever. Maybe you enjoy the never-ending war on drugs or the new never-ending war on terrorism.

There are no end to those. If you use exceptional measures (such as the one necessary for wars) and constantly use and reuse them, they lose their exceptional status.

If a US citizen Afghanistan war protester blows up a recruitment center, is he part of the war too? Where do you stop? How about the guy indirectly financing the war (say he has a shady business and gives a cut to someone who will use that money for the 'war'). Is he part of the war too?

When somebody has been sitting in Guantanamo for 5 years, it's not about the war anymore. Or if it is, there will never be any end to it. You might as well shoot the person on the battlefield. They ain't coming home - ever.

I didn't say anything about "wr forever." In fact, that';s just one of the drooling libbie talking pointlesses.

When a war starts there is generally no real way to determine how long it will last. In the case of WWII, for example, a captured Nazi had no way of knowing that the war would end by 1945. Had the war gone on longer, the fuckers would have been held longer.

So what?

If the idiots who started THIS war -- and for you libs, it is necessary to point out that the idiots who started it are the al qaeda scumbags -- are victimized by being held for the rest of their fucking lives because they just don't understand the importance of their accepting defeat, then the consequences to the fucking captured enemy combatants is entirely on THEM.

That's their problem. It's not ours, nor should it be.

As for the rambling bullshit additional commentary subsequently offered by tackylib, suffice it to say that I addressed his incoherent musings previousl. Tackylib is far too stupid to discuss anything with. He lacks the rudimentary skills to engage in any meaningful discussion. He is, sad to say, clearly just a retard.

 

[Varth Dader]

I'll give you one better: folk like Liability DON'T CARE that under the system they praise so high RELEASED 500 people who were detained/interrogated for A FEW YEARS.....and did so without rhyme or reason given.

My guess is that they blame Liberals for those released.

And I bet a lot of those released are they exact reason why the system needs many checks.

 

[Liability]

I'll give you one better: folk like Liability DON'T CARE that under the system they praise so high RELEASED 500 people who were detained/interrogated for A FEW YEARS.....and did so without rhyme or reason given.

My guess is that they blame Liberals for those released.

And I bet a lot of those released are they exact reason why the system needs many checks.

Some of those released have gone back to their buddies in al qaeda. In fact, "some" doesn't capture the flavor of it. The figure is about 1 in 5. See, Gitmo Detainees - More former Guantanamo detainees returning to militant activity, Pentagon says - Los Angeles Times

So releasing them was, in fact, a fucking poor idea. It does look like it was done for political reasons rather than the kind of common sense that usually rejected smarmy liberal demands. A rare mis-step by the former Administration.

Again, since morons like tackylib are impervious to the truth, I will repeat it for others who are capable of appreciating the distinctions:

I have said several times that I concede that there are sometimes legitimate grounds to provide some form of a hearing to detainees to determine if they are properly held as "enemy combatants" in the first place. However, wholesale release is obviously not a valid answer. Similarly, there is not a valid reason in the world to make the adjudicatory process to address such questions one that involves our CIVIL Courts of Law.

 

[ConHog]

This whole thread is a joke. I'm so sure that opponents of Obama's would never be satisfied. I'm his opponent and I was VERY satisfied to see him lose the House and i will be THRILLED to see him lose his office in 2012.

 

[Varth Dader]

A rare mis-step by the former Administration.

Let's not go there please (a "rare" mis-step)

...
I have said several times that I concede that there are sometimes legitimate grounds to provide some form of a hearing to detainees to determine if they are properly held as "enemy combatants" in the first place.

It's good to know you are not as rigid on this whole process as one might think you would be.

 

[taichiliberal]

Liability,

I don't want it to be a legal problem. It IS a legal problem. You are using a very narrow definition of what a legal problem is. When we capture someone in the field and don't kill him right away, what we do with that person is a legal problem. It might be something dealt with under the military legal system, as opposed to the civilian courts or criminal courts, but it is still something that is legal in nature.

I'm not sure we all agree that giving rights to criminals like the one you described in your post (murder pure and simple) is perfectly proper. There are many people that are against giving those accused rights.

Yes, there are some exceptions, where you willing a criminal does not necessarily result in you being convincted of the crime. But so what? I don't disagree with the idea that capturing someone on some battlefield is different that capturing someone in the middle of the street after he killed a storeowner.

All I am saying is that the type of legal system you seem to be happy to send alleged terrorists/Illegal non-uniformed combatants to should be the exception rather than the norm. When people like Jose Padilla get caught in the net that you are throwing, I am worried. It appears to me the reason you want this approach is that you want to maximize the number of convictions. I don't think that this goal, by itself, should supplant all others.

I think (like most Republicans), you draw this as a black and white issue. It's not just a "matter of war and national self defense and the right of any nation to resort to its own sovereign self interest.". It is also a matter of constitutional rights and the rule of law.

But like I said earlier (and yes, you did not believe me back then), my position is not solidified on this issue. I can see why (civil society) criminal courts might not be adequate for all situations.

I'll give you one better: folk like Liability DON'T CARE that under the system they praise so high RELEASED 500 people who were detained/interrogated for A FEW YEARS.....and did so without rhyme or reason given. They don't THINK about the ramifications that had in the region......and they don't care. This is why folk like Liability have earned the label "willfully ignorant"......it's all about the neocon ideology for them....reality, innocent people's lives and the true security of our nation and American's abroad isn't even secondary with the neocon parrots....that's just jingoistic fodder for them.

You're a fool. A person can believe either way on this issue and still be a patriot who loves his country. Only morons like you believe that anyone who believes differently than them doesn't love their country.

Once again, Hog...you can't "con" anyone with the old "reverse accusation" ploy that neocons love to trot out when their BS is exposed. In fact, you make my point.......You and Liability and all that sail with you favor ideology over REALITY at any cost. You jokers all joined the bandwagon, wailing that a civilian court trial couldn't and shouldn't be done. But it did happen, and it was successful. So now rather than just admit you were wrong, you clowns all wail, "well, it might have failed..and it will fail in the future". But yet the course YOU advocate gave us hundreds of people illegally detained and interrogated FOR YEARS....those people were released without apology or reparations.....only a complete neocon asshole would think that didn't have negative reprocussions towards the USA in that region of the world.

But far be it to change the course set by the disasterous Shrub administration...because it's NOT about American security or Mid-Eastern security or peace for you neocon clowns...it's about YOUR version of what constitutes "patriotism"....and as the PNAC agenda shows, that sure as hell is not exactly along the lines of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and historical precedent of 2 world wars. For you and your ilk, Hog...it's about discrediting Obama and the agenda of the people that voted him in.....the good of the country be damned, successful convictions of enemy's of the State to be ignored.

GMAFB, Hog.

 

[taichiliberal]

This whole thread is a joke. I'm so sure that opponents of Obama's would never be satisfied. I'm his opponent and I was VERY satisfied to see him lose the House and i will be THRILLED to see him lose his office in 2012.

the only joke here is YOU, Hog. You're such a neocon wussy that you'll deny a successful conviction of a terrorist because it happened contrary to what the WND and the neocon peanut gallery tell you. You're pathetic, Hog, and you con only yourself.

 

[taichiliberal]

I'll give you one better: folk like Liability DON'T CARE that under the system they praise so high RELEASED 500 people who were detained/interrogated for A FEW YEARS.....and did so without rhyme or reason given.

My guess is that they blame Liberals for those released.

And I bet a lot of those released are they exact reason why the system needs many checks.

Yep.....although beyond the speculation and conjecture by a bunch of neocon broadcasters and writers, they couldn't give you any concrete proof of that assertion.

 

[Vanquish]

Liability tries to cloak himself in language of logic (your premise is faulty, therefore the rest is...blah blah), but simply mouthing the words don't make the post true.

Everything...EVERYTHING is a legal issue...and has a legal answer or legal remedy...or at least the law has a definition or slot for it, if only to be shelved.

We live in a country of laws...so that thought and responsibility mean something. We don't put WAR first...and the values of WAR don't come first. That's not to say that there aren't justifiable wars...there are. But at the legally appropriate time.

You can't just say...this is about war...rules don't apply. It's tempting to think that way...but it's childish. "We do whatever we need to do to win! To protect people!" Uhm no we dont. The founding fathers didn't say "we do whatever we need to in order to punish criminals!" Instead they set up rights and courts and laws.

We do what the law says...and if the law is unclear...we know where to go to get clarification.

 

[Liability]

Liability tries to cloak himself in language of logic (your premise is faulty, therefore the rest is...blah blah), but simply mouthing the words don't make the post true.

Everything...EVERYTHING is a legal issue...and has a legal answer or legal remedy...or at least the law has a definition or slot for it, if only to be shelved.

We live in a country of laws...so that thought and responsibility mean something. We don't put WAR first...and the values of WAR don't come first. That's not to say that there aren't justifiable wars...there are. But at the legally appropriate time.

You can't just say...this is about war...rules don't apply. It's tempting to think that way...but it's childish. "We do whatever we need to do to win! To protect people!" Uhm no we dont. The founding fathers didn't say "we do whatever we need to in order to punish criminals!" Instead they set up rights and courts and laws.

We do what the law says...and if the law is unclear...we know where to go to get clarification.

It is imbecilic to pretend that "everything" is a legal issue.

Such mindless drivel as that impedes any chance of rational discussion.

It is instead true that NOT everything is a legal issue. SOME things are legal issues. Other things simply are not. One of the reasons we have three branches of government is because not everything is supposed to be determined by judges and juries.

For example, the decision to send the troops into the enemy's location, "A," during a war, as opposed to location "B," is NOT in any way a proper matter for judicial decision. Hell, even the Courts themselves recognize as much (when they aren't busy over stepping the bounds) by the judicial recognition of a doctrine that stays their own hand on certain matters (such as the famed "political questions" doctrine).

Until and unless these silly libs are willing to accept that SOME things are not properly matters for JUDICIAL determination, they will persist in making their absurd "arguments" and will forever impede rational discussion on the matter.

 

[Vanquish]

There you go with your insults of "imbecilic" and "mindless drivel" - that's the sure way to stop a conversation...insult people.

Everything IS a legal issue or has a way of being regarded under the law. Regardless of whether you wise up to that fact or not.

Let's take your strawman argument for a second - it's highly flawed, but why the fuck not.

The decision to send the troops into the enemy's location, "A," during a war, as opposed to location "B," is NOT in any way a proper matter for judicial decision.

First of all, you seem to be fixated on judges and juries. There's a lot more to the legal system than that. There are legislators who create laws...the executive who attempts to execute the law...I could go on and on.

I never said that a judge should decide legal manuevering in all cases. It's not for a judge to determine the course of a war...however a judge could determine that there was an illegal entry or raid into a country that was unlawful. See the difference?

The law has a way of looking at every action taken and evaluating it. Everything can be evaluated through a legal lens. the faster you learn that, the better off you'll be.

 

[Liability]

There you go with your insults of "imbecilic" and "mindless drivel" - that's the sure way to stop a conversation...insult people.

Everything IS a legal issue or has a way of being regarded under the law. Regardless of whether you wise up to that fact or not.

Let's take your strawman argument for a second - it's highly flawed, but why the fuck not.

The decision to send the troops into the enemy's location, "A," during a war, as opposed to location "B," is NOT in any way a proper matter for judicial decision.

First of all, you seem to be fixated on judges and juries. There's a lot more to the legal system than that. There are legislators who create laws...the executive who attempts to execute the law...I could go on and on.

I never said that a judge should decide legal manuevering in all cases. It's not for a judge to determine the course of a war...however a judge could determine that there was an illegal entry or raid into a country that was unlawful. See the difference?

The law has a way of looking at every action taken and evaluating it. Everything can be evaluated through a legal lens. the faster you learn that, the better off you'll be.

Zzz.

I enjoy your lectures. They remain utterly unpersuasive, but you do seem to get worked up.

Dismissing all the banter, let's address that point where you came closest to being cogent.

It is true that there is more to the legal system than judges and juries. Nevertheless, there are matters that fall within the realm of the judicial system and matters that fall outside of that province.

If you can't accept even that much of a premise then you are either too dishonest to have any further discussion with or you are simply too woefully ignorant to bother discussing anything further with.

If you DO recognize that some matters are not the province of the judicial system, then you have achieved a useful first step in discovering that MANY matters are not "legal" matters at all.

Tell me under whatever daffynition you use (but do tell me how you define your terms) how the military decision to invade Normandy versus, for example, Pas de Calais or the South of France was a "legal matter."

I will favor you with a quick hint. It wasn't.

 

[Vanquish]

I don't need your quick hints. They fail miserably.

If you can't admit that there are such things as "war crimes" then you're on crack. Military leaders don't get to just do whatever the fuck they want because they want to.

Every part of our government - including the military - falls within a structure of laws. No, judges don't make military decisions...but they can review them. Ever heard of My Lai?

I love how you pepper your posts with words like "cogent" to inflate your own opinion of yourself. It's enthralling.

 

[Varth Dader]

...
Everything...EVERYTHING is a legal issue...and has a legal answer or legal remedy...or at least the law has a definition or slot for it, if only to be shelved.

We live in a country of laws...so that thought and responsibility mean something. We don't put WAR first...and the values of WAR don't come first. That's not to say that there aren't justifiable wars...there are. But at the legally appropriate time.

You can't just say...this is about war...rules don't apply. It's tempting to think that way...but it's childish. "We do whatever we need to do to win! To protect people!" Uhm no we dont. The founding fathers didn't say "we do whatever we need to in order to punish criminals!" Instead they set up rights and courts and laws.

We do what the law says...and if the law is unclear...we know where to go to get clarification.

I agree with you, and I think Liability would be well served by taking a Law 101 class.

It's always about the law. It's called the rule of law. You either believe in that or you don't. It doesn't mean the rule of law is perfect. It doesn't mean that the rule of law works in every situation. But it does mean that all actions need to fit in there somewhere, if not, they are illegal.

The problem with Liability's argument is that he makes the distinction between military and civil matters, tries to fit as much as he can under the military category and tries to remove any type of fairness, oversight or even laws under that system, preferring to rely on discretionary power and ad-hoc non reviewable decisions. It's like Giuliani and the 9-11 card: "Military!" "War!" "Military!" etc.

 

[Vanquish]

Exactly. Even decisions that aren't made by judges or legislators fall within a legal framework somehow. Thanks for understanding.