The Pub Discussion Board

Hey, Jefferson... how come you forgot to mention the person who will - assuming she gets confirmed (and I can't see that NOT happening) - be actually running the show?  You know, Hillary?

Eric

Um, Warlord, sorry, thanks for playing, but no.

Terrorists are combatants, not criminals.  You normally do not try them at all.

According to the Geneva Convention, any combatant in a war zone not in uniform is considered a spy, and is to be dealt with by execution at the earliest convenience.  Since these are terrorists, the war zone is the entire planet.  THEY declared war on the United States, so it IS a war.

You may not like the fact that we can't treat these people with kid gloves, that we CANNOT treat them as criminals, but we can't.  Oh, we can try, but it GUARANTEES no results, except for more dead Americans.  Now, perhaps you are okay with more dead Americans.  I, for one, am not.

You want to close Gitmo?  Fine.  Put a bullet in the head of everyone held there, and let's go home.  That's what the Geneva Convention calls for.  You probably don't like THAT, either.

Eric

Eric Storm wrote:

Hey, Jefferson... how come you forgot to mention the person who will - assuming she gets confirmed (and I can't see that NOT happening) - be actually running the show?  You know, Hillary?

Eric

She's already been confirmed and I didn't mention her because, well, believe it or not, she's nothing compared to Holder and Geithner.

Warlord,

Are you saying that every man, woman and child in the world, yesterday, today and tomorrow are protected by the US Constitution?

If so, we have some work to do. Our Constitution guarantees all who fall under it a government of the people, by the people and for the people... I guess Iraq and Afghanistan were just a start. Next will be Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, Most African nations and who knows how many nations in Southeast Asia.

If everyone in the world is protected by the US Constitution, we need to go into Africa and Asia and make sure women and all minorities are getting to vote.

We probably should just go ahead and make the entire world an American Empire. If we're going to protect all these people with our Constitution, they may as well pay the fucking taxes that we have to.

Now, I want your final word... Who is guaranteed the protections of the US Constitution?

A) Citizens of the United States
B) Those Physically in the United states
C) EVERYONE, no matter who or where they are
D) A and B.

If you say C, then we might as well put Bush back in and let him build that American Empire the left kept claiming he was building. Like I said, if they're going to recieve the benefits of the US Constitution, I damn sure want them to suffer with the drawbacks of it also!!!

If only US Citizens or those in the US are guaranteed Constitution protection, then your argument falls apart.

Warlord wrote:

You can say they are not soldiers and don't deserve Geneva, but thats bullshit and we both know it.  In the end, our ignoring ehtical treatment of combatants puts OUR own soldiers in danger of toture and worse.

No, Warlord, I'm saying they deserve EXACTLY what the GC calls for.

You just called them combatants.  That means you've conceded that point.

It also means that they were combatants OUT OF UNIFORM in a combat zone.

That makes them spies.  BY DEFINITION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

And what does the GC dictate for spies?  Execution.  There is no leeway on this point.  According to the GC, a captured spy is to be executed at the first convenient opportunity.

So... you're complaining that we're not following the protections afforded combatants under the GC... but these particular combatants DON'T HAVE ANY.  They only have a mandated death sentence.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, we can go ahead and kill them.  Makes everyone happy.  I get rid of the terrorists, and you get to close Gitmo.  Where's the drawback?

Oh, and one more thing:  You're stipulating that we have to "try" these people in a court of law.  How do we do that?  They were captured in a foreign country.  That means that we have no jurisdiction to try them in an American court.  These people were not arrested; they were CAPTURED.  They are not prisoners of war, because they never donned a uniform thus designating themselves as soldiers.  They are non-uniformed combatants, thus spies, being held indefinitely, as spies always have been, until we decide to do something else with them.  I'm sorry that you don't like this, but it's an imperfect world.  We're doing nothing differently now than we have been for decades, we're just doing it to more people at one time.

You have this delusional notion that we can stay "above the fray" and keep wearing white kid gloves, be the "civilized nation" that never plays dirty....  NO ONE can do that.  It never works.  As soon as the bad guys know we won't get down and dirty, they will kill us with impunity.  Until the penalty for their actions is bad enough, they aren't going to stop doing it.  And I'm sorry that you think it's uncivilized to actually want to protect THE GUARDDAMNED INNOCENT PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE FUCKING BAD GUYS, but some of us disagree with you.

And by the way, the quote from Franklin?  Complete crap.  The society that gives up its security for pure liberty, won't have liberty for very long.  A compromise must always be created between the two.  In today's society, the balance is being recalculated.  But don't say something as intellectually dishonest as the notion that we weren't ALREADY giving up some liberties for our security.  We were doing that from day one, and we always will be. 

And... how can we put our soldiers "in danger" of torture from the terrorists?  The terrorists have been beheading, torturing (and I mean REAL torture, not the crap you're calling torture), and generally mistreating our captured soldiers FROM DAY ONE.  They didn't wait to see how we were going to treat them; they behave that way instinctively.  So that statement, too, was intellectually dishonest.

Further, you claim that this effort will have no effect... yet military leaders have already testified that aggressive interrogation has yielded information that has prevented several terrorist attacks.  Somehow, I think the innocents that were saved from death would be happy to know their government did what they could to prevent their untimely demise.

You can bluster about giving up liberties and how we're turning into the enemy all you want, but here's the one, single truth:

You have no liberty when you're dead.

Eric Storm

WarLord wrote:

Two words - North Vietnam

They decided American troops whose job was dropping bombs on enemy factories making guns were "War Criminals" thus they could be imprisoned tortured and placed in tiger cages.Congratulations you've  now joined Norht Vietnam in your interpretaion of international law

You do see the fatal flaw in that right?? Those american pilots in the bombers had UNIFORMS on when they crashed or bailed out. That means they should have had protection under Geneva. Show me a terrorist wearing a uniform and I'll show you a POW. Anyone else is a spy.

WarLord wrote:

Greetings

If the methods we use to fight the terrotis are illegal and unethical and agsinst our own constitution, what's the point - they win!

Plus by using clearly anti-american tactics like enhanced iterorgation ie torture we give the terrorists great propaganda.

If someone is held and they're incarceration is not constitutional and the evidence against them is tainted by torture making it not admissable in court WTF?  Thats a get out of jail free card! Sorry the guys who arrested you were fuck wits, thanks for playing.

You are choosing convenience and a political talking point over liberty.  Bad choice!

Franklin had it right: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

Un Warlords right

My uncle(an ex Jag layer who resigned his commission BECAUSE of bush) said to my lifelong republican gradfather that if he could have when he was in jag he would have filed charges aganst bush

JUST on the war crimes not even over the fraud and corruption (i forget what exactly he said this was b4 bush was reelected)

First off, I'm not an American.  I was born and lived in Canada, but I spent my teenage years and early adulthood in Portugal (in Europe for those of you without maps).

Next, I have no problem with how the US treats their prisoners of the war on terror.  If they're willing to kill and die for their beliefs, why not some humiliations and pain?

Eric Storm wrote:

According to the Geneva Convention, any combatant in a war zone not in uniform is considered a spy, and is to be dealt with by execution at the earliest convenience.  Since these are terrorists, the war zone is the entire planet.  THEY declared war on the United States, so it IS a war.

I've actually never thought of this.  Good point. 

But do they actually have a uniform?  Not all islamic terrorists are united under the same organization.  They're not even backed by a single country - more like from influencial individuals.  They're not even fighting for traditional goals - control of territory and/or resources - but for ideologies - they simply want to destroy western civilization.

I really believe that terrorists need to be treated differently than other enemy combatants - other rules, modes of conduct and limites need to be established.

On the other hand, I'm against the suspension of due process when handling suspicious US citizens.  I believe "innocent until proven guilty" should be a cornerstone of any judicial system.

Detention and interrogation (with "aids") should only happen after suspicions are credibly comfirmed.

About Obama... you can't judge a presidency at the beginning of the term.  You don't know whats going to happen.  He might be a good president, he might be a bad president... I believe he'll just be an average president.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln planned on the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and his assassination?  If things had gone differently, he very well could have been an average president.

Veritas wrote:
"Do you think Abraham Lincoln planned on the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and his assassination?  If things had gone differently, he very well could have been an average president"


Actually - Several states (7) seceded from the Union BEFORE Lincoln took office in 1861. They had threatened to secede before and did so upon the election of Lincoln because they believed that the Union was going to change in ways they did not want to go. Lincoln knew that IF he was elected to office - these states would try to leave. Lincoln disputed their right to leave the Union and would use force to keep those states within the Union. In fact - Lincoln refused to remove any stars from the flag and towards the end of the war stated that the solders of the confederacy should be welcomed back into the Union as our brothers.

As for assasination - Lincoln knew from the time he was elected that his life was at risk. On the way to his Inauguration, he had to forgo some stops due to threats to his life. There were several attempts made on his life during his first term, yet he rarely had any personal protection with him when he went out. I personally feel that he tempted fate as a punishment for all the solders he had ordered into battle which had died.

As for Gitmo - I haven't heard that they were going to RELEASE these people or even where they will send them. Some of these are terrorists and these people were captured for the act of terrorism. They are not held as a regular criminal with the rights intended for criminals - they are combatants in an armed struggle with the United States. As such, they should be tried by an international court of the "crimes against humanity" charge since the methods used were of a indiscrimantory nature, by that I mean that they were used to kill ANYONE in the area including civilians in order to kill their primary targets. The international court has it's own rules of evidence and such and the US would have to operate within those rules.

Sorry if it seems long winded but, I've read the arguments and to some extent agree in priciple with Eric. the simplistic way to deal with it is to find the island that Tom Hanks was stranded on, drop them all off there with hidden cameras, and go back in six months and see who is left. Call it "Survivor! - Terrorist Island" and sell that to the networks.

Last edited by Giskard (2009-01-25 01:32:00)

Sorry, like I said, I'm not american so I haven't really studied american history.  At least not in depth.  But you get what I was trying to say.

Giskard wrote:

Sorry if it seems long winded but, I've read the arguments and to some extent agree in priciple with Eric. the simplistic way to deal with it is to find the island that Tom Hanks was stranded on, drop them all off there with hidden cameras, and go back in six months and see who is left. Call it "Survivor! - Terrorist Island" and sell that to the networks.

I like the idea!  Maybe they could set loose some pigs on the island to see who would be hungry enough to fall for temptation?

I really do hate to say this, but this entire discussion is missing the main problem caused by Obama's election.  That is the fact that he may not be a "natural-born" American citizen as required by the Constitution and defined in Article 8 of the US Code.  There have been several lawsuits that have tried to get Obama to produce a legal birth certificate, but the only thing that has been shown by him or his supporters is a Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii which was issued during a time period that Hawaii issued them for babies born in foreign countries. 

There is a question as to whether Obama was born in Kenya or in Hawaii.  Plus, he had to give up US Citizenship in order to attend school in Indonesia.  As well as the fact that he visited Pakistan at a time when US Citizens were forbidden to go there.

What does this mean should it be found out that Obama was elected illegally to the Office of the President of the United States?  1) All decisions made, treaties signed, exectutive orders made, laws signed, appointments made and confirmed, and anything else that requires execution or signature of the President would be null and void.  2) The Articles and Amendments of the Constitution would completely cease to be the guiding principles of our government.  3) Race relations would be set back about a century.  4) Chaos would grip the government and the country allowing our enemies to easily destroy us.

This would become a crisis worse than when the Civil War occurred, because we would not know who would be the real leader of the United States.  Would it be Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or someone else?  Because even the election results could be nullified by any lack of natural-born status caused by Obama's birth.  Yet, where do the major media establishments, the courts, or even Congress stand on this entire major issue?  The media sweep it under the rug and have banned some commercials that have been created about this very issue.  The courts have rejected most of the lawsuits, refused to hear appeals, or have placed the cases in limbo.  And, Congress has not even tried to investigate any of the accusations against Obama.

Look up all these stories on World Net Daily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? … ;authorId=

Eric Storm wrote:

Actually, halmir, I think there would be a fairly simple method for dealing with it.

IF (and I'm not making a judgment about whether it's true or not) Obama is not, in fact, a "natural born US Citizen", then he misrepresented himself knowingly to the federal government during the election process.  (He, personally, must know whether or not he is a natural-born citizen.)

If he did, in fact, misrepresent himself to the federal government, that is fraud, a felony, and worthy of impeachment and removal.  Any other official who was aware of the fraud would be likewise removed.

The Constitution was not set aside even if this is what happened, because for that to be the case, we would have to KNOW he wasn't a natural-born citizen, and elect him anyway.  This is not what happened, and if he was elected under these circumstances, then it was under false pretenses, a condition the Constitution doesn't cover directly, except to say that a President may be removed at the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.

So, if this is, in fact, the case, then Biden would become President... unless it could be proven that Biden knew and went along with it.  It would then move down the established chain of command until someone could be found that did not know.

I imagine that a special election might, in fact, be held, once all the trials were underway, by whoever ended up in the office, if it wasn't Biden.  On the other hand, maybe not.  Cheap way into the office, so...  *shrugs*

Eric

I'm not so sure that Biden would be able to legally become the President of the United States, if Obama is removed from office.  They were running under a combined ticket, and the Electoral votes were promised to both based on the votes for Obama.  However, if this were the early 1800's the Vice President would have been the person who had finished second in the Electoral College's vote for the President.  This is what I mean by a Constitutional crisis.  The Constitution was changed to allow a single party to control the Presidency and the Vice Presidency in order to prevent conflict of policy.  The Vice President is supposed to carry out policies that meet with the goals of the President.  However, noone had considered the possibility of an invalid election due to the person elected as President being ineligible and the Vice President being elected to office based on votes given to the combined ticket.  That being said, you may very well be correct and Biden would have to been shown as knowing that Obama was ineligible at the time of his being elected; should Obama be shown to have been ineligible and impeached.  But, there is more than just the Constitution that may be in crisis.  We could have race riots, because blacks could think that Obama was being railroaded by the White establishment and whites could think that all blacks are crooks.  I do hope that none of this occurs and that Obama is a natural-born citizen.  I may not like his policies and hope those policies fail; but I love this country a great deal.