The destruction of the Free and the Brave

[PrinceOfLeigh]

And yes, Leigh--the "other half" are Republicans. The problem with the point raised in this thread is that regardless of party, contradictions can always be found in a politician's campaign platforms. If he favors gun control, he's against the 2nd Amendment. If he opposes it, he's against the right to life. If he favors a ban on hate speech, he's against free speech. If he opposes such bans, he's labelled a racist. Etc.

Agreed.

I was making a rather off-the-cuff, flippant point and it wasn't intended contradict what you was saying. Apologies

 

[MobBoss]

Tell that to Jose Padilla. You remember him, the guy who's spent years in a Navy brig on suspicion of being a suspicious suspect.

When the government can toss someone into prison "just because we think he might know something" then our freedoms and rights are under attack.

You know, I am not entirely convinced that what happened to Padilla was illegal. Was he a military prisoner or a civilian prisoner. Are we at war or arent we? The rules are not the same for one or the other.

I cannot help but point out the second Padilla was remanded into civilian custody he was also indicted by a grand jury and remanded to be held without bail.

The bottom line is there is a HUGE question as to whether we should treat terrorists and terrorist suspects as military prisoners or criminals. And considering the situation, I dont think there is any easy answer to this.

Punishment begins when a suspect is picked up. The proof? He was picked up by the police wasn't he? Stands to reason he must be guilty then.

Sorry, but I dont agree. Being brought in for questioning is not punishment. Once again, the rules are ever-so-different between how the military works and the civilian court system.

 

[IglooDame]

You know, I am not entirely convinced that what happened to Padilla was illegal. Was he a military prisoner or a civilian prisoner. Are we at war or arent we? The rules are not the same for one or the other.

I cannot help but point out the second Padilla was remanded into civilian custody he was also indicted by a grand jury and remanded to be held without bail.

The bottom line is there is a HUGE question as to whether we should treat terrorists and terrorist suspects as military prisoners or criminals. And considering the situation, I dont think there is any easy answer to this.

You're right, there is a huge question to be answered, and indeed it isn't easy. But it is either military prisoners or criminals, and not a "neither of the above".

 

[MobBoss]

Want to tell me which part of my post said we shouldn't have joined the War on Terror?

This part: It's quite a turn-around that an attack by Islamic Fundamentalist only became inevitable once we joined Georgey Boys "War on Terror".

Or was I wrong in my interpretation of this statement?

 

[Kayak]

You know, I am not entirely convinced that what happened to Padilla was illegal. Was he a military prisoner or a civilian prisoner. Are we at war or arent we? The rules are not the same for one or the other.

Very good question. I think you know my opinion. This goes to the question is an act of terrorism an act of war or a criminal act?

I cannot help but point out the second Padilla was remanded into civilian custody he was also indicted by a grand jury and remanded to be held without bail.

Only just before a court ruled that the administration could not hold him without charges and a trial.

The bottom line is there is a HUGE question as to whether we should treat terrorists and terrorist suspects as military prisoners or criminals. And considering the situation, I dont think there is any easy answer to this.

Why do we not err on the side of caution. And by caution I mean treat them like you would want to be teated if you were taken into custody and accused of a crime. I think we have proven that our civil code can handle these people as criminals.

 

[MobBoss]

Bullcrap.

Could someone love Germany and hate the Third Reich? Could someone love Mother Russia and hate the Communist Party? Could someone love China and hate the... ummm... Communist Party? Could someone love Iraq and hate Saddam's dictatorship?

I simply counter by saying Germany, Russia and China do not have a gov "Of the People, For the People"..if our gov is duly elected of our own people how can we hate it?

I think you are largely offbase by comparing the USA to those dictatorships.

You're right, there is a huge question to be answered, and indeed it isn't easy. But it is either military prisoners or criminals, and not a "neither of the above".

Yes, but there are a great many who do not understand how the military works in such a case and that under those rules they dont have the rights they do under a civilian system. They see it from a civilian court view and say "Hey that aint right".......however, I must point out that it is silly in the extreme to give our enemies during war the same rights our citizens enjoy in a civilian court of law (in my humble opinion of course). Is it fair? Not in the least - the military way is in every way stacked in favor of the government, not the individual, but thats for a reason - we dont wage war to lose.

 

[IglooDame]

I simply counter by saying Germany, Russia and China do not have a gov "Of the People, For the People"..if our gov is duly elected of our own people how can we hate it?

I think you are largely offbase by comparing the USA to those dictatorships.

Ah, I didn't realize Clinton was only referring to democracies, my bad.

So I suppose we'll chalk it up to a "love the sinner, hate the sin" sort of thing.

 

[MobBoss]

Would you say that the only justifiable reason to bypass FISA is in time-critical matters?

No. While I am no cognizant of any at the moment, that is merely a reflection on my and my lack of coffee so far this morning. I like to leave my options open.

MobBoss, there is no doubt in my mind that, based purely on your postings here on CFC, there will be an active insurrection in the US that would make Fallujah look like a retirement home bingo night before you actually disagree with a government pro-security action enough to protest.

Ever been robbed? It makes you feel so violated that you are willing to have extra security at a certain cost - regardless of what Ben Franklin says. Lets just say if it were more clear cut, perhaps I would have a stronger opinion on the matter. If our leaders DO IN FACT break the law, I heartily endorse hearings and jail time for those that are guilty. But thats part of the problem...the system is so large and so big, with so many loopholes, we the common people, have no true idea if a law is really being broken or not.

Given that, I am willing to give our gov the benefit of the doubt until a court of law in fact does determine they went too far.

Ah, I didn't realize Clinton was only referring to democracies, my bad.

In my opinion, his quote was directed at the USA during his administration. But I could be wrong.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

This part: It's quite a turn-around that an attack by Islamic Fundamentalist only became inevitable once we joined Georgey Boys "War on Terror".

Or was I wrong in my interpretation of this statement?

You are wrong in your interpretation.

The point I was making was that the attack from Islamic Fundamentalist was not evitable. I was answering your own question.

Both the Anti-Terror Laws and the War on Terror were designed to 'protect' us from terrorism, yet there were no attacks on British Soil before the invasion, only after.

I ask then what is the point in having such legislation given that it has been proved to be ineffective?

 

[MobBoss]

Very good question. I think you know my opinion. This goes to the question is an act of terrorism an act of war or a criminal act?

Shades of gray I think. Oklahoma city bombings...terrorism yes? Crime. World trade center...also terrorism...act of war. How do we determine which is what? As a soldier, I am under the opinion that such acts of terrorism are acts of war and those who do it be remanded to the military for control and military tribunal.

Only just before a court ruled that the administration could not hold him without charges and a trial.

One thing you should also realize. Would our courts and judges rather see such issues as ciminal cases or law of war cases? Quite simply, they want to maintain control and thus see them as criminal cases, but I am not sure thats the best way to go versus terrorism.

Why do we not err on the side of caution. And by caution I mean treat them like you would want to be teated if you were taken into custody and accused of a crime. I think we have proven that our civil code can handle these people as criminals.

I have the opposite opinion. In my mind, keeping it a military tribunal issue is erring on the side of caution. We are dealing with people who want to kill us and have no qualms about killing man, woman and child. Sometimes the cost of this is that the process isnt entirely fair, as in Padilla's case if he is found innocent of all charges. But then again, our criminal courts are not always 100% fair either...soo.....

 

[MobBoss]

You are wrong in your interpretation.

Then, as a gentleman, I humbly apologize. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Then, as a gentleman, I humbly apologize. Thank you for the clarification.

Not a problem
We have enough differences of opinion without misinterpretation

 

[Kayak]

Shades of gray I think. Oklahoma city bombings...terrorism yes? Crime. World trade center...also terrorism...act of war. How do we determine which is what? As a soldier, I am under the opinion that such acts of terrorism are acts of war and those who do it be remanded to the military for control and military tribunal.

I think we need a single standard for all. Similar to piracy maybe. Acts of war are committed/sanctioned by government, crimes by groups or individuals.

One thing you should also realize. Would our courts and judges rather see such issues as ciminal cases or law of war cases? Quite simply, they want to maintain control and thus see them as criminal cases, but I am not sure thats the best way to go versus terrorism.

That is their job, Leave them to it. If they are not doing a good job, replace them. Don't do an end run around the system just because you don't think you would like the result. Process is very important to the rule of law. Sometimes more important that the result.

I have the opposite opinion. In my mind, keeping it a military tribunal issue is erring on the side of caution. We are dealing with people who want to kill us and have no qualms about killing man, woman and child. Sometimes the cost of this is that the process isnt entirely fair, as in Padilla's case if he is found innocent of all charges. But then again, our criminal courts are not always 100% fair either...soo.....

I'm not sure I get your point. Our criminal system dealt with Oklahoma it dealt with the WTC the first time around too. I do not think one can write off unfairness just because it happens on both sides. The military system is inheriantly unfair when applied to civilians.

 

[MobBoss]

I think we need a single standard for all. Similar to piracy maybe. Acts of war are committed/sanctioned by government, crimes by groups or individuals.

So where does that place groups like Al Qaeda, that are possibly sponsored by governments, but largely run by individuals?

That is their job, Leave them to it. If they are not doing a good job, replace them. Don't do an end run around the system just because you don't think you would like the result. Process is very important to the rule of law. Sometimes more important that the result.

Once more, please name me a war where our prisoners had access and rights to our criminal justice system. What you fail to realize here is that the military justice system also has a process, abeit a different one from our civilian courts. Just because you like the civilian just system and not the military tribunal method, dont knock the importance of both. They both have their place...but determining which has precedence in this situation is the key and the basis for this entire argument.

I'm not sure I get your point. Our criminal system dealt with Oklahoma it dealt with the WTC the first time around too. I do not think one can write off unfairness just because it happens on both sides. The military system is inheriantly unfair when applied to civilians.

Is a member of Al Qaeda a civilian? I am not so sure I would classify them as such. I personally look back on Oklahoma and first WTC bombing and think we messed up by treating those incidents as ciminal issues. Terrorist attacks on the USA should be regarded as a miltiary issue as we are duly authorized to protect our country from enemies both foreign AND domestic.

 

[Kayak]

So where does that place groups like Al Qaeda, that are possibly sponsored by governments, but largely run by individuals?

When we can prove governmental support then we are at war with that government. Till then I vote for individual.

Once more, please name me a war where our prisoners had access and rights to our criminal justice system. What you fail to realize here is that the military justice system also has a process, abeit a different one from our civilian courts. Just because you like the civilian just system and not the military tribunal method, dont knock the importance of both. They both have their place...but determining which has precedence in this situation is the key and the basis for this entire argument.

This is indeed the argument. It turns on whether this is a war or not and their status as combatants in it.

Is a member of Al Qaeda a civilian? I am not so sure I would classify them as such. I personally look back on Oklahoma and first WTC bombing and think we messed up by treating those incidents as ciminal issues. Terrorist attacks on the USA should be regarded as a miltiary issue as we are duly authorized to protect our country from enemies both foreign AND domestic.

I see them as primarily citizens. I also see that the perpetrators of the prior attacks were indicted, tried, and put away with no complaint from any international group, and no international ill will generated. I think this is the best possible outcome. If we could get this in the current situation I would be overjoyed. If we caught Osama tomorrow how would you try him?

 

[EdwardTking]

If we caught Osama tomorrow how would you try him?

I'd invite the Saudi ambassador round and give the ambassador an axe.

 

[Kayak]

I'd invite the Saudi ambassador round and give the ambassador an axe.

Yeah, but I used the word "try", not "execute".

 

[MobBoss]

If we caught Osama tomorrow how would you try him?

Military Tribunal, but only after he had been squeezed of information much like an orange is squeezed of its juice.

 

[BasketCase]

Question: why is vilifying, criticizing, or highlighting the wrongdoings of the Bush administration anti-American? It seems to me the point of the article is that Bush is victimizing the American people (among others), and highlighting it is part of stopping it, part of safeguarding the American people against further wrongdoing.

When people like me were highlighting various alleged screw-ups by President Clinton, we got the same reaction Zulu is getting.

Liberals were telling the critics to shut the hell up.

So, basically we've got an Oslo Accord on our hands. Both sides think the other is the one with the problem, and each side wants the other to make the first gesture of surrender in a phantasmal "peace deal" that will never happen.

A little reminder for ya, Pasi: next time a Democrat is the U.S. President, and some guy like Zulu is posting anti-Democrat-President articles left and right about all the alleged screw-ups that Democrat President is allegedly committing, and you start typing on your keyboard to tell that anti-Democrat-President poster to shut the hell up....

....think of me.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

A little reminder for ya, Pasi: next time a Democrat is the U.S. President, and some guy like Zulu is posting anti-Democrat-President articles left and right about all the alleged screw-ups that Democrat President is allegedly committing, and you start typing on your keyboard to tell that anti-Democrat-President poster to shut the hell up....

....think of me.

But in 2008 I'll dislike the Democratic Party just as much as I do now, don't you get it? Both the American "mainstream" parties are right of the world's political centre, but only slightly. You Americans polarize yourselves as "liberals" and "conservatives" (which actually pisses me off quite a bit, there's more than two ideologies out there, get a new mantra) but the Democrats and the Republicans are so close to each other ideologically that there's practically no difference. Look at parties in Europe and Canada, who are much further apart from each other than your parties, and we won't even go into the political landscapes in Asia or Latin America. I wasn't here (on CFC) for Clinton's era, but I think Clinton was a kickass president next to Bush, which is easy to do. Standalone, however, Clinton was just as bad as the rest. I tell people to shut up when criticizing Clinton because the only thing's people can come up to criticize him with are things like "Clinton's a skankbanging ho-humper" (you can sig that if you want), but if anyone brought up actual criticisms of Clinton I wouldn't be so harsh.

Until a socialist is in the White House, I won't like anyone you elect, "liberal" or "conservative," because there's no freaking difference.