McCain: Guantanamo Decision One Of the Worst Ever

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What part of the Constitution have the 5 judges that handed down the majority decision not followed?

The constitution does not apply to people outside the US. Extending it to people outside the US is wrong. Those people are classified as POW's or unlawful combatants. The Geneva convention is the applicable law.

You really feel that you are more qualified to make such finding than the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court? I sure do not.

Wrong is wrong. Remember that 4 justices did not agree. This fell along party lines. When McCain is elected this travesty will be corrected.

So you are not gong to answer the question posed but rather engage in more party line rhetoric. The Constitution now has party lines? Interesting.

Besides, three of the five justices that handed Bush his ####### on this one are actually Republican appointees. Kennedy was appointed by Reagan and is typically considered libertarian. Justice Souter was appointed by W's daddy and Justice Stevens is a Ford appointee. Hardly a party line.

But then it's so much easier to slam with cheap rhetoric than to actually make an argument.

[GaryC 7]

What part of the Constitution have the 5 judges that handed down the majority decision not followed?

The constitution does not apply to people outside the US. Extending it to people outside the US is wrong. Those people are classified as POW's or unlawful combatants. The Geneva convention is the applicable law.

You really feel that you are more qualified to make such finding than the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court? I sure do not.

Wrong is wrong. Remember that 4 justices did not agree. This fell along party lines. When McCain is elected this travesty will be corrected.

So you are not gong to answer the question posed but rather engage in more party line rhetoric. The Constitution now has party lines? Interesting.

Besides, three of the five justices that handed Bush his ####### on this one are actually Republican appointees. Kennedy was appointed by Reagan and is typically considered libertarian. Justice Souter was appointed by W's daddy and Justice Stevens is a Ford appointee. Hardly a party line.

But then it's so much easier to slam with cheap rhetoric than to actually make an argument.

As I said, when McCain is elected this travesty will be corrected. I can wait.

[mawilson 2,133]

The way I see it, these "enemy combatants" are basically prisoners of war.

Under international humanitarian law, they are entitled to protection as prisoners of war

(under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.)

Even if they are not prisoners of war, they are still protected under the Fourth Geneva

Convention (Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War).

Those protections include the requirement that internment (detention without charge or trial)

"may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary"

(Articles 42 and 78).

That's what the debate is about. Does the security of the United States make it

absolutely necessary to keep these people detained indefinitely without charge or trial?

The Supreme Court says no.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The way I see it, these "enemy combatants" are basically prisoners of war.

Under international humanitarian law, they are entitled to protection as prisoners of war

(under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.)

Even if they are not prisoners of war, they are still protected under the <a href="http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm" target="_blank">Fourth Geneva

Convention</a> (Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War).

Those protections include the requirement that internment (detention without charge or trial)

"may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary"

(Articles 42 and 78).

That's what the debate is about. Does the security of the United States make it

absolutely necessary to keep these people detained indefinitely without charge or trial?

The Supreme Court says no.

And the Supreme Court has it right. The administration largely agrees when it releases the vast majority (90%) of the detainees or it is recklessly endangering the security of the country. It's one or the other but it cannot be both. That's the pickle they find themselves in and that is what's causing them to resort to nonsense attacks. It's the same spiel every time they're caught with their pants down.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I fail to see how condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the US means that similar or worse abuses carried out by other countries are given some sort of "pass". That's fuzzy logic at its best. Though at the core of it of course is a big dirty chunk of moral relativism.

The argument is quite simple really.... We live in the US, we elect the politicians and we don't want them doing this kind of thing in our name.

It isn't: Well all these countries do terrible things, but its ok if we do - because we're not doing it as much.

Yes there is debate

No there isn't.

Yes there is. Maybe not for you but there is a debate.

As I said - the constitutional issues on this seem fairly clear. Its not about sympathising with terrorists, but rather ensuring that the government doesn't overstep the boundaries of its authority.

If indeed there is a debate, as you say, I rather hope its not along the lines of "blame the left". Again (as with all the Obama-Messiah/Sheep comments - these sorts of generalisations don't really serve much of a purpose except to insult and marginalise contrary opinions). If this is the case - then (here at least) there is no "debate" - only a slew of back and forth namecalling. Again.

In any case - you may recall that you asked me to let you know if you started to sound like Marc or BY. Well....

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Are the use of roadside bombs covered in the geneva convention? Is decapitation okay with the geneva comvention? Suicide bombings?

We live by it and the enemy doesnt? more america bashing in the name of the rules! without ever scrutinizing the enemy.

Six, bigdog, ganja! Show me a past post of any of yours with any positive comment about america in it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are the use of roadside bombs covered in the geneva convention? Is decapitation okay with the geneva comvention? Suicide bombings?

We live by it and the enemy doesnt? more america bashing in the name of the rules! without ever scrutinizing the enemy.

Noone is giving the "enemy" a free pass.

Six, bigdog, ganja! Show me a past post of any of yours with any positive comment about america in it.

You're under the false assumption that something has to be proven to you. It doesn't - and given that you're always writing people off as "liberals", nothing I or anyone else says is likely convince you of anything.

Perhaps you'll show me a single post of yours where you engage seriously on an issue without pointing fingers or casting wild, divisive and dubious accusations of blame. You can't? You Won't?

Why should I...?

[zqt3344 21]

You may not want to admit it or see it but GaryC and Rogue and Lucky Strike and Smoke are right, you always down America and always give the rest of the world a free pass including the thugs and terrorists that caused all these problems in the first place, they simply wish you would be fair and balanced is all.

Are the use of roadside bombs covered in the geneva convention? Is decapitation okay with the geneva comvention? Suicide bombings?

We live by it and the enemy doesnt? more america bashing in the name of the rules! without ever scrutinizing the enemy.

Noone is giving the "enemy" a free pass.

Six, bigdog, ganja! Show me a past post of any of yours with any positive comment about america in it.

You're under the false assumption that something has to be proven to you. It doesn't - and given that you're always writing people off as "liberals", nothing I or anyone else says is likely convince you of anything.

Perhaps you'll show me a single post of yours where you engage seriously on an issue without pointing fingers or casting wild, divisive and dubious accusations of blame. You can't? You Won't?

Why should I...?

[SaadBell 0]

I gave most of my life to this country, so to say I don't love it is too funny. My daughter grew up without a father, he was always on missions on the Middle East, and so I gave this country plenty. I was taught that you don't lie, especially when you are the leader of the free world. To be called out and then admit to false information in order to engage in a war is outrageous, there are no words for that. What is hard for me to believe is that he will get away with this, lying for war where thousands of life’s were lost, but never his own two daughters.

We were told that Iraqi troops were massing at the Saudi border. And these satellite photographs were shown to the Saudi leadership, to get them to change their mind and allow US troops to enter their country.

Well it turned out that those satellite photos were fake. They never existed. The story was broken in the St. Petersburg Times some months later. And it was something that people were convinced of because we were told it was satellite photographs.

"I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought." -- President Bush, recalling what he was thinking about while sitting with the children at Booker Elementary.

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.

Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (1925)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You may not want to admit it or see it but GaryC and Rogue and Lucky Strike and Smoke are right, you always down America and always give the rest of the world a free pass including the thugs and terrorists that caused all these problems in the first place, they simply wish you would be fair and balanced is all.

From where I stand I'm quite a bit more reasonable than you and the rest of that lot put together. I think a fair few people would agree with me on that score. The "hard-core" is pretty small at the end of the day... even if they need to post umpteen 'bait' threads/posts per day.

As I said - I don't give the rest of the world a "free pass" when it comes to human rights abuses, far from it in fact. I view these things in the same way that Amnesty International does - that human rights are a matter of morality and ethics based on a set of absolute values that can't be compromised. However... given that I live in the US its natural that conversations over the US' human rights record are rather more immediate than that of China etc. As citizens and residents - our first responsibility is to our own country, no?

In any reasonable interpretation - the reasonable (key word) conclusion would not be that simply because we aren't lambasting every dictatorial country on a daily basis - that we somehow agree with what they're doing to their own people. In short, we don't.

More than that - your idea of "Fair and balanced" in this context seems to be just another euphemism for moral relativism.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Number 6

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Are the use of roadside bombs covered in the geneva convention? Is decapitation okay with the geneva comvention? Suicide bombings?

We live by it and the enemy doesnt? more america bashing in the name of the rules! without ever scrutinizing the enemy.

Noone is giving the "enemy" a free pass.

Six, bigdog, ganja! Show me a past post of any of yours with any positive comment about america in it.

You're under the false assumption that something has to be proven to you. It doesn't - and given that you're always writing people off as "liberals", nothing I or anyone else says is likely convince you of anything.

Perhaps you'll show me a single post of yours where you engage seriously on an issue without pointing fingers or casting wild, divisive and dubious accusations of blame. You can't? You Won't?

Why should I...?

I see, I'll take that as an I cant find one. Next!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I gave most of my life to this country, so to say I don't love it is too funny. My daughter grew up without a father, he was always on missions on the Middle East, and so I gave this country plenty. I was taught that you don't lie, especially when you are the leader of the free world. To be called out and then admit to false information in order to engage in a war is outrageous, there are no words for that. What is hard for me to believe is that he will get away with this, lying for war where thousands of life’s were lost, but never his own two daughters.

We were told that Iraqi troops were massing at the Saudi border. And these satellite photographs were shown to the Saudi leadership, to get them to change their mind and allow US troops to enter their country.

Well it turned out that those satellite photos were fake. They never existed. The story was broken in the St. Petersburg Times some months later. And it was something that people were convinced of because we were told it was satellite photographs.

"I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought." -- President Bush, recalling what he was thinking about while sitting with the children at Booker Elementary.

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.

Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (1925)

SHOW me a post? Its a simple enough question! Geez. All you have to say is. I cant!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Six, bigdog, ganja! Show me a past post of any of yours with any positive comment about america in it.

I'm not going to dig it up but take this as evidence that I have more positive than negative feelings for this country: I made it my home and became it's citizen by choice. I always believed that this place is full of opportunity - I am realizing my opportunity each and every day and I am thankful for it. That said, when I criticize a particular administration, it has nothing to do with criticizing the country. I know that the kneejerk Republicans would ike to portray it that way but that just isn's what it is. Part of what makes America great is that one can think and speak freely without the fear of repercussions. It's where the government doesn't have limitless power. I've lived where those things weren't a given at birth like they were for you guys. I fought for them. And I don't like any tendencies to infringe on those rights.

The administration will be gone next January. America will still be here. And it'll be a better place once W is back on his fcuking ranch clearing out brush.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Six, bigdog, ganja! Show me a past post of any of yours with any positive comment about america in it.

I'm not going to dig it up but take this as evidence that I have more positive than negative feelings for this country: I made it my home and became it's citizen by choice. I always believed that this place is full of opportunity - I am realizing my opportunity each and every day and I am thankful for it. That said, when I criticize a particular administration, it has nothing to do with criticizing the country. I know that the kneejerk Republicans would ike to portray it that way but that just isn's what it is. Part of what makes America great is that one can think and speak freely without the fear of repercussions. It's where the government doesn't have limitless power. I've lived where those things weren't a given at birth like they were for you guys. I fought for them. And I don't like any tendencies to infringe on those rights.

The administration will be gone next January. America will still be here. And it'll be a better place once W is back on his fcuking ranch clearing out brush.

Dig it up? it will take some doing to find?

This place? Its called America!

The rest is just more of the same.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I see, I'll take that as an I cant find one. Next!

I thought that you might. Not really a surprise As I say - you're under the impression that I owe you something, or that I am somehow obligated to cooperate in your little games. Quite simply I don't owe anything to you or anyone else.

Lets just cut to the chase and accept the conclusion that whatever I present to you, you'll deny or disagree with. You'll do this because you've already made up your mind - and not least - because you won't allow the truth to get in the way of throwing another cheap shot - in any way you can. That might work for the half-dozen or so of people who buy into that kind of stuff - but I imagine most other people here are more reasonable.