Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The same big government that conservatives don't trust to run health care, Social Security, schools or anything else magically becomes infallible when it comes to torturing terrorists and holding them without trial.

So the same people who can't do anything right can tell who is a terrorist wtih 100% accuracy using their detect evil powers.

What is this post about Kk?

M.

Valentines day is a drinking holiday for a large proportion of dakka.

double

...It's a holiday?!

I agree with the good Mr Kyoto, but am more curious about the reasons this thread was posted.

Oi! You 4Chan Lot!

Stay the feth in /b/!

Kanluwen wrote:Oi! You 4Chan Lot!

Stay the feth in /b/!

sorry I just came from /tg/, pardon my image-based reaction

but seriously tho, the "<insert political affiliation here> are evil/stupid/etc" threads that show up on pretty much every site ever these days get a little tiresome after a while.

ShumaGorath wrote:Valentines day is a drinking holiday for a large proportion of dakka.

Who said I needed a special day to drink?

It's Kyoto. He gets special consideration, being much like Batpope.

Kanluwen wrote:...It's a holiday?!

Everyday is a holiday on Dakka.Today is National Gumdrop day .

Well, one could argue that it takes someone truely evil to detect evil in another.

Thus as government attracts evil people, it is reasonable to assume that they staff their tortu... erm... questioning teams with suitable candidates...

I'm still not 100% sure what a gumdrop is.
Forgive me for being an ignorant Brit but is is a jellybean or just a blanket term for jelly sweets?

EDIT: Just done a google image search. We brits call that type of sweet Jelly Tots. Interesting, huh?

Alex Kolodotschko wrote:I'm still not 100% sure what a gumdrop is.
Forgive me for being an ignorant Brit but is is a jellybean or just a blanket term for jelly sweets?

EDIT: Just done a google image search. We brits call that type of sweet Jelly Tots. Interesting, huh?

Jelly Tots are OK but I much prefer Tootie Frooties.

http://www.rowntrees.co.uk/range/tootyfrooties.aspx

I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...

Which part of the government are you in currently KK?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...

Wham bar, now there's a blast from the past. That and the ubiquitous Highland toffee bars that they occasionally gave away free with the Beano or Dandy.

O... O... I have a better idear.

Rather then try unlawful enemy combats in a military court, let’s give them the rights of American citizens and provide tax payer funded lawyers that will fight to get them off the hook on a technicality so they can go back to their buddies with all the brand new info they obtained…

Yup, that makes loads of sense.

filbert wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...

Wham bar, now there's a blast from the past. That and the ubiquitous Highland toffee bars that they occasionally gave away free with the Beano or Dandy.

NONE CAN STAND BEFORE MY MIGHTY MANTICORE BAR! Oh yes....it had a sting in it's tail. Can't find it on the Interwebs.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...

I remember there being outrage at my school when they banned Wham bars and Highland toffee bars because some Fethwit managed to pull out his front teeth on one.

Anyone for a Blackjack or a Fruit salad?

squilverine wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll see your tootie frooties and raise you one WHAM BAR...

I remember there being outrage at my school when they banned Wham bars and Highland toffee bars because some Fethwit managed to pull out his front teeth on one.

Anyone for a Blackjack or a Fruit salad?

All washed down with a refreshing can of QUATRO

[youtube]


Now give us a go on yer curly wurly...

That stuff must have passed me by MGS, although I do have a yearning for the return of the clear beverage fad. Tab anyone?

Quatro was a strongly 'tropical flavoured' fizzy drink (passionfruit tasting) that was laced with E numbers, the combination of a can of that stuff and WHAM bars left me high as a kite after swimming club each Wednesday and buzzing my little nuts off for hours, whilst watching Monkey Magic!
No wonder I'm fethed up...

While we're on the topic of classic TV adverts for soft drinks, here's an old Irn Bru one I always liked.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

It was the latest rant from our esteemed former VP. I cannot believe that I know more about US law than he does.

Envy89 wrote:O... O... I have a better idear.

Rather then try unlawful enemy combats in a military court, let’s give them the rights of American citizens and provide tax payer funded lawyers that will fight to get them off the hook on a technicality so they can go back to their buddies with all the brand new info they obtained…

Yup, that makes loads of sense.

1 - Rights are not limited to Amcits, the Consititution says 'persons' not just US citizens. Lawful immigrants, guests and even unlawful immigrants have the right to counsel and trial.
2 - We provide tax-payer funded counsel to drug dealers, rapists, serial killers, wife beaters, child molesters, drunk drivers, muggers, burglers, embezzelers, ponzi schemers and people who pull off mattress tags. If you want to oppose the idea of counsel for the accused go ahead, or even better move to Red China where it's not an issue. No. Wait. Last year Red China passed a law guaranteeing counsel to the accused (didn't do such a hot job impementing it) so I guess you'll need to move to North Korea.
3 - Bush's military tribunals freed Guantanamo inmates who are now running Al Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula. So unless we want to move to a system of accused=guilty=execution there will always be some who escape justice.
4 - Is this it? I mean are prominent Americans really saying that we need to more repressive than the PRC to keep us 'safe'? We didn't do this when the country was on the brink of destruction in 1812, nor in 1861, or even in 1941 (though we came close with the Japanese interment). We didn't react this way to the KKK or left-wing terriorists in the 60 or right-wing ones in the 90s but now I hear people seriously saying that right to counsel should not exist if the infallible government accuses you of being a terrorist.
5 - And then the same folks turn around the next day and say the government by its nature can't do anything right. WTF? No seriously, WTF?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Which part of the government are you in currently KK?

Funnily enough I'm working on human rights issues. So hearing North Korea or China's talking points coming out of the mouths of US Senators and ex-VPs really, really, really hits a nerve.

Let's all go to the happy place now...



Ah...

My happy place is better, Kyoto.



Just imagine JCVD declaring a War on Terror.

It's almost as good as alcohol.

Kid_Kyoto wrote: 3 - We didn't do this when the country was on the brink of destruction in 1812, nor in 1861, or even in 1941 (though we came close with the Japanese interment). We didn't react this way to the KKK or left-wing terriorists in the 60 or right-wing ones in the 90s but now I hear people seriously saying that right to counsel should not exist if the infallible government accuses you of being a terrorist.

5 - And then the same folks turn around the next day and say the government by its nature can't do anything right. WTF? No seriously, WTF?

There is a long history of use of military tribunals throughout American history. The Civil War and immediately following WWII come to mind off the top of my head. (Nuremburg sound familiar?)

The problem with giving alleged terrorists the same rights as civilians is that going through a civilian court system allows for the dissemination of how we captured said alleged terrorist. Or, would you prefer that we fully disclose to the world exactly what techniques our intelligence personnel are using in the field? This is not about funding terrorist counsel. This is a matter of protocol on what forum we use to dispense justice.

You automatically assume that a military tribunal is comprised of these hawkish judges who are looking for an excuse to execute anyone of middle eastern decent. That is not the case.

The bottom line is there is NO EASY solution to this problem. If you grant complete civilian trials, you have to disclose how the evidence was captured. This is something we probably don't want to do. Military tribunals offer a somewhat different approach. It involves military judges and military appointed counsel. The whole system is setup to insure that sensitive information is not released.

Look, I get it. You don't like Bush and you hate the Right. Great. That does not change the fact that there are people in this world that want to blow up and / or kill Americans. They are not playing by the same rules we are.

As for 5, most of the people advocating for smaller, more limited government say so with the caveat of "with the exception of national security." Again, there are no easy answers for this. But please, give me ONE, just ONE example of ANYTHING the United States Government has ever done effectively and efficiently? Good luck. Anything done by the government has always been done with double the effort and double the cost. (Even our vaunted military - yes, they are effective, but their cost is anything but an efficient use of money).

Personally I don't trust the government to run finances. Which is were my distrust of SS, health care, and other government Socal programs comes from.

I do trust the government on the subject of National Defense. At least until Obama was elected.

You imply that the military tribunals deny rights and are just looking to convict people, yet you claim that Bushes military tribunals freed people who are now running terrorist cells in the Mid-east. which is it?

Also as stated above opening the trials in civil courts exposes the US's intelligence community to having their tactics leaked and there by weakening them.

You imply that the military tribunals deny rights and are just looking to convict people, yet you claim that Bushes military tribunals freed people who are now running terrorist cells in the Mid-east. which is it?

Actually I believe that he was implying they were ineffective, inefficient, costly, secretive, and logically unnecessary.

I do trust the government on the subject of National Defense. At least until Obama was elected.

I'm glad you trusted the government that threw us into a quagmire war over fake WMDs and then refused to listen to it's generals, thus ensuring that the reconstruction and nation-building of that same country would go poorly. Genius.

Also as stated above opening the trials in civil courts exposes the US's intelligence community to having their tactics leaked and there by weakening them.

Not really, such things take months to go to trial, and it's not like we just have a box, a stick, and a carrot that we've been capturing terrorists with. It would be unlikely to do anything but expose interrogation techniques, which have already been exposed anyway.

Green is Best! wrote:
There is a long history of use of military tribunals throughout American history. The Civil War and immediately following WWII come to mind off the top of my head. (Nuremburg sound familiar?)

Yep, military trials for uniformed members of the military of an enemy state we declared war on.

See the difference?

The problem with giving alleged terrorists the same rights as civilians is that going through a civilian court system allows for the dissemination of how we captured said alleged terrorist. Or, would you prefer that we fully disclose to the world exactly what techniques our intelligence personnel are using in the field? This is not about funding terrorist counsel. This is a matter of protocol on what forum we use to dispense justice.

Now already you're being much, much more nuanced than the senators and former VP I've been hearing. First off you're correctly talking about 'civilian rights' rather than rights of US citizens, and talking about protecting intelligence methods, so already we're shifting away from cases like the underwear bomber and now talking about people captured overseas not in the act of terrorism. The problem remains who seperates crazy loners from members of organized groups, who determines who is an enemy combatant in a world without flags and uniforms? It cannot be executive fiat, it has to be a court. And when someone is captured in US soil by the police I'm not sure if there even is a mechanism to hold them outside civilian courts. The US Military has virtually no law enforcement powers within our borders.

You automatically assume that a military tribunal is comprised of these hawkish judges who are looking for an excuse to execute anyone of middle eastern decent. That is not the case.

The bottom line is there is NO EASY solution to this problem. If you grant complete civilian trials, you have to disclose how the evidence was captured. This is something we probably don't want to do. Military tribunals offer a somewhat different approach. It involves military judges and military appointed counsel. The whole system is setup to insure that sensitive information is not released.

Here you're putting words both in my mouth and in the former VP's. The former VP's line has been that terrorists (as determined by the suddenly infallible government) have no rights, regardless of consitutional protections for all persons in the United States.

Look, I get it. You don't like Bush and you hate the Right. Great. That does not change the fact that there are people in this world that want to blow up and / or kill Americans. They are not playing by the same rules we are.

Dude, Bush did a lot of great things the changes in things like US immigration after September 11th do a lot to keep bad guys out of the US, but Chaney is now pushing things even further than Bush did. And do not tell me about people wanting to kill, blow up, hold hostage, shoot, maim and hurt Americans (and Brits and Spanish and Canadians and Japanese and Israelis and anyone else who comes by).

But there have always been people like that, and this is not even the worst we have faced. We managed two world wars, a civil war, a cold war, internal terrorism and a vicious Canadian invasion without suspending civil liberties. We'll manage a few fanatics.

As for 5, most of the people advocating for smaller, more limited government say so with the caveat of "with the exception of national security." Again, there are no easy answers for this. But please, give me ONE, just ONE example of ANYTHING the United States Government has ever done effectively and efficiently? Good luck. Anything done by the government has always been done with double the effort and double the cost. (Even our vaunted military - yes, they are effective, but their cost is anything but an efficient use of money).

OK, interstate highways.

Social Security.

Medicare.

Medicaid.

Canadian Health Care System.

Food stamps.

The internet.

Polio vaccine.

Marshall Plan.