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.

I guess I'll apologize on behalf of all Americans who love our country for treating anyone who would attempt to harm it's citizens or actually in fact harming it's citizens and toppling one of our great national monuments as scum who should be locked up forever.

Organizing your entire anti-terrorist operation (which is a joke now) to ensure you stay PC about it and don't step on someone's feet and profile is somehow NOT apologizing to terrorists?

Treating the Yemenese bomber and other terrorists out of Gitmo by closing it down and trying them in civil courts is the same thing as apologizing to the countries those terrorists or suspected terrorists come from and basically saying "we were wrong to treat them the way we did so to make it up to you we will try them in the same courts that US citizens try them in and we'll even let the ACLU in on the court hearings to make sure that the proceedings remain unbiased".

Obamanation does NOT want terrorists or suspected terrorists treated in military courts because he, and others like him, feel empathy toward them and knows they won't get a fair, non-biased trial. Bring them into US courts and NOW we, as a people, have to comply with the laws laid down in the "U.S" Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's a political move to make the lefties love him more but it sure as hell won't make the Conservatives like him more or back him on anything else he does.

@Shuma: No one cares that you keep finding reasons to attack me and I stopped caring that you do. If it makes your blood flow south to a certain extremity to attack me than I'll let you keep doing it. Just keep it [your extremity] away from me, that's all I've got to say.

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...love the insult. typical. When in doubt attack with personal insults. Goebbels would be proud.

So, if me saying you follow the line of your party is an insult, what is saying I'm following an approach that would make Goebbels proud?

At the time when these statements were being made by the Republicans I thought they were equally stupid.

How many threads did you start on that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Thats a blindingly separate issue. Put them onshore and some judge in some dumpwater berg will say they have rights.

Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.

And let's have a close look at what's being said here, they shouldn't have criminal trials because we can't trust judges to make the right decisions.

Think about that for a while, everyone. Because there are other arguments made about security (as if a military base on foreign soil is going to be more secure to the super mutant powers of the terrorists than a maximum securuty prison in the US) and interrogation (any legal method of interrogation available to the army is available to the FBI, and no-one is arguing for use of illegal methods of interrogation) are self-evidently rubbish, so what we're left with is political pointscoring or a genuine belief that government should be able to imprison people without the review of the judiciary.

The whole thing, quite plainly, is completely messed up. Sickening, really.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry. Detainees at Gitmo have life a lot nicer than any rapist or serial killer detained in any maximum security prison in the US. Got to love the leftist fabrication of the inhumane torture methods used on criminals.

So why the resistance to putting them into supermax?

You want to see inhumane torture watch Hostel or Hostel 2.

The standards for good governance should be to treat people better than the fantasies depicted in torture porn.

In the same way, 9/11 wasn't all that big a deal because Clear and Present Danger had terrorists setting off a nuke.

But hey, terrorists aren't a threat. It's all just right-wing propaganda. We should open our arms to everyone, even the Yemenese or guys like the underwear bomber who are allowed to purchase a one way ticket to the US who also happens to have NO luggage on him, not even a carry-on. Yeah, Napolitano(sp) is right. Our system DOES work. Yeesh.

Arguing that terrorism should be dealt with via, by departments that have spent decades developing the skillsets to locate, capture and prosecute such people does not assume they are not a threat.

Your discussion points above are obviously false and you know this. You obviously have the ability to turn on a computer, log into dakka and type sentences , so you have the intelligence to see what is wrong with your claims above. You owe it to this board and to yourself to put a little thought into what you're posting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:...too busy trying to kiss everyones ass and making sure we are PC about who we profile and who we don't.

Demands over PC are certainly crippling the nation. Just last week someone demanded the resignation of the Chief of Staff because he said 'slowed'.

I for one am sick of Sarah Palin and the rest of the PC nazis.

There is only one answer to this problem..

And his name... Is CAPTAIN AMERI-CUH!!!



Back you dastardly villians, your super powers have no worth in my arena. I shall pummel you with self-righteous indignation, and indefinite prison time without trial.

BEWARE...

You know, I'm really quite tired of having to correct the fundamental errors that people make when discussing the issues of terrorism. Frazzled is probably the biggest offender, but Mannahin has addressed his errors very well, so I'll only add this:

The underwear bomber, and several of the suspects detained at Gitmo, were already in the United States when they were arrested. They are therefore protected by the Bill of Rights. There is no ambiguity here.

Fateweaver wrote:I guess I'll apologize on behalf of all Americans who love our country for treating anyone who would attempt to harm it's citizens or actually in fact harming it's citizens and toppling one of our great national monuments as scum who should be locked up forever.

That's a strawman. No one here has claimed that someone convicted of terrorism should be dealt with lightly. The only thing that people want to see is a trial before the institution of an indefinite hold.

Fateweaver wrote:
Organizing your entire anti-terrorist operation (which is a joke now) to ensure you stay PC about it and don't step on someone's feet and profile is somehow NOT apologizing to terrorists?

Obama's terrorism policy is almost identical to Bush's, which makes it absolutely hilarious every time Cheney attacks it, as he's essentially attacking everything he advocated.

Fateweaver wrote:
Treating the Yemenese bomber and other terrorists out of Gitmo by closing it down

Gitmo is still open, and there is no hard date for shutting it down.

Fateweaver wrote:
Obamanation does NOT want terrorists or suspected terrorists treated in military courts because he, and others like him, feel empathy toward them and knows they won't get a fair, non-biased trial.

You think they'll get fair, unbiased trials in civilian courts? If anything the military tribunals are more likely to produce honest decisions due to a commitment to fact finding. The trend towards civilian trials is primarily the result of a lack of legislation regarding issues such as this in which the line between civilian, and military justice is blurred. There have been numerous calls to rectify this deficiency, with various proposals floated (personally, I find the idea of POW court with both military and civilian judges to be the best option), but there hasn't been a lot of political will behind any of them.

I missed it the first time but in reading dogma's response to Fateweaver I noticed Fateweaver's claim about Obama feeling empathy towards terrorists. What the hell does that mean?

sebster wrote:I missed it the first time but in reading dogma's response to Fateweaver I noticed Fateweaver's claim about Obama feeling empathy towards terrorists. What the hell does that mean?

Likely about as much as his statement accusing obama of being an apologist towards terrorist nations.

Mannahnin wrote:MDG- Wikipedia is your friend.

Frazzled wrote:THATS WHY YOU DON"T FRIGGING BRING THE TERRORISTS INTO THE US.

Either we believe in justice, freedom, the rule of law and inalienable human rights or we don’t. Limiting it to people within our geographic borders while taking and holding prisoners on foreign soil (Gitmo, foreign prisons) is just a legalistic dodge for people trying to get away with ignoring our country’s founding principles.

It’s un-American. It’s dishonorable and a stain on our principles. It makes me sick.

bs.
We can believe in those things for ourselves. We can hope others will fight and get theirs. As Iraq and Afghanistan has proven, We can't make a people free. they have to want to do it themselves.

And again none of that has to do with protecting American citizens. None of it. The first role of government is to protect its citizens.
We are no the world's police.
I'm moving on from this topic now.

We can't make a people free

even with "regime change" eh ?

Evidently not, or maybe some people are unworthy of it at this time. My pessimism at the world has grown considerably over the last few years.

It all started to go wrong with that getting in a fight with the Kaiser thing methinks now.
Who cares. I'm taking GC to the Father Daughter dance tomorrow and shooting the day after. She must learn the Zen of carbine to teach her many tumen this knowledge so that the plundering er, New Order yea New Order may begin. Soon the world will tremble before the might of Genghis Conn(ie) and her Mongol hordes.

..there was supposed to be a in the above.

Frazzled wrote:
Who cares. I'm taking GC to the Father Daughter dance tomorrow and shooting the day after.

Be careful you do not get these confused !

..again.

L. Paul Bremer, Ronald Reagan's Coordinator for Counterterrorism wrote:Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.

If it was good enough for the Reagan administration, why is it not good enough for the Obama administration? Was Reagan wrong?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

L. Paul Bremer, Ronald Reagan's Coordinator for Counterterrorism wrote:Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.

If it was good enough for the Reagan administration, why is it not good enough for the Obama administration? Was Reagan wrong?

Wait you mean the guy who sent in bombers to have a dialogue with Khadafy and masterfully arranged a Caesaresque war between Iraq and Iran to keep those two a holes balanced against each other? That Reagan? The one who sent arms to rebels in Latin America and Afghanistan?

As Lewis Black says, we need to re-elect the corpse of Reagan. Hoist up the corpse. Because any nation that will celebrate the election of a dead President, is a nation that even the terrorists won't feth with.

Frazzled wrote:bs.
We can believe in those things for ourselves. We can hope others will fight and get theirs. As Iraq and Afghanistan has proven, We can't make a people free. they have to want to do it themselves.

You don't have to free everyone from whatever they suffer, no-one said you did. But that's a long way from imprisoning people without due process and fair trial.

Its not. they are prisonsers of war. We are at war. When they stop attacking us, then the prisoners can be realeased.

Otherwise they are spies and saboteurs. Gallows here htey come!

Frazzled wrote:Wait you mean the guy who sent in bombers to have a dialogue with Khadafy and masterfully arranged a Caesaresque war between Iraq and Iran to keep those two a holes balanced against each other? That Reagan? The one who sent arms to rebels in Latin America and Afghanistan?

That's right, so he was hardly soft on terror. And he knew that the best way to deal with terror was to treat them as the criminals they are.

Of course it would be relevant if he actually dealt with terrorists in the US or active wars against same. But he didn't, so although it was a fun stroll down memory lane its utterly irrelevant. I don't think he captured any terrorists either, just retaliated against their sponsors.

Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, you mean the "certain inalienable rights" as pertains to people that are citizens of THIS country.

Last time I checked Yemen is not US owned so therefore Yemenese (ha, that's a cool word) and anyone else that is not a US citizen DO NOT have "inalienable rights". I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights pertains ONLY to this country. If it doesn't I was lied to through all 12 years of school.

I'm sorry. Detainees at Gitmo have life a lot nicer than any rapist or serial killer detained in any maximum security prison in the US. Got to love the leftist fabrication of the inhumane torture methods used on criminals.

You want to see inhumane torture watch Hostel or Hostel 2.

But hey, terrorists aren't a threat. It's all just right-wing propaganda. We should open our arms to everyone, even the Yemenese or guys like the underwear bomber who are allowed to purchase a one way ticket to the US who also happens to have NO luggage on him, not even a carry-on. Yeah, Napolitano(sp) is right. Our system DOES work. Yeesh.

Alright, alright. Now, as Head Cow of DakkDakka.com, i'm gonna weight in with my 2-cents, as is proper:


THese right that in Amercia aren't american rights. Fateweaver, Frazzled, the both of you know this. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, they didn't make this up on the spot. Democracy isn't an American creation, though the both of yoiu (Frazzled and Fateweaver) you seem to think so.

Jean-Jaques-Rosseu, Baron de Montisque, Voltaire, John Locke, they started to think like this during the Enlightenment. The founding fathers took their ideas.

the both of you seem to think that only american citizens get these rights. the both of you probably would have joined the south in full fury during the civil war, with your thinking This is sickening and crap. Voltaire said that the rights of liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, are given to people in this earth. Every person, from terrorist to killer, from thief to molester, every person, whether you are arab or white or black or asain or hispanic, whatever, born on this earth has the rights that are stated in the constitution. I love this country with all my heart. I am blessed to have been born here. For i know even though i have these natural born, god given rights, i know that in america, i am garunteed that no one will stop me from having them. And this really does bring as tear to my eye.

I have been to Jordan, where the Media is censored. To the West Bank, where Israelis and Palestinians clash and kill and hate and consider each otehr scum and subhuman. I've seen infringement of these rights, and it breaks my heart. Fateweaver, Frazzled, these are rights that everyoen desevres, even terrorists. For you to say they are scum, less than human, is a sickening thing. Conservatives are turning more and more ignorant these days, denying anon-citizens and terrorists thier natural rights because they are non-citizens and terrorists. This eye for an eye fort of thing. Mohandis Ghandi said,"an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind". Thomas jefferson, George washington, Benjamin Franklin would be disappointed in us. How we use politics to deny rights so we can advance froward in congress or in the Presidential campaign.

The both of you are not acting american like. I'm not saying that you are anti-american, as Fateweaver has labeled me in the past, but that what you are doing is not what our founding fathers would want. It saddens me that people use the patriot card to justify denying civil and human liberties to others, to justify torturing fellow human beings.

This thread has has convinced me to do something. As i sit here typing this, it may sound corny, but i don't care. If will do my part, from here on out, to create a free world. to make every country a democracy, or whatever the people want, if they want their kingdom as it is, fine. But i won't see people denyed their rights because of thier acts. Fateweaver, you can call it "holding hands and singing kumbaya", but i call it the duty of every U.S. citizen, hell more, every being on this earth to stop tyranny, and to begin to express themselves freely. My generation (as i am 15 yrs old) must now rise up and begin to help otehrs of this world. We must bring an end to tyrants, people must hold the power, they must be able to make decisions in their gov't, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for mot just americans, but all peoples of this earth, whites and blacks, Jews, muslims and Christians, all others, we must all consider each otehr brothers and sisters, and create democracies throughout this earth.

Fateweaver, Frazzled, call it what you wnat, but i am 100000% certain, that the founding faters would approve, that they would want all people to be free, secure, and happy.

Wow that was so amazingly misplaced I'd swear you were a reporter.

No one said democracy started here.
No one said human rights started here.
We're saying the US protects the US. Its not the world policeman. We are currently at war. Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.

I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.

Frazzled wrote:Wow that was so amazingly misplaced I'd swear you were a reporter.

No one said democracy started here.
No one said human rights started here.
We're saying the US protects the US. Its not the world policeman. We are currently at war. Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.

I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.

What about the rights of non-citizens? don't they deserve the same rights?

Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.

Except the majority of detainees were not combatants. A fact that seems to escape you every time. Are they terrorists if we enter their home under suspicion of weapons holding and take them for questioning, even when we don't find any? You do realize that a considerable number of them have been found innocent of all charges making our military essentially glorified kidnappers.

What about the rights of non-citizens? don't they deserve the same rights?

Frazzled and fateweaver do not believe that they do.

But isn't removing tyrants and dictators part of creating a "free world". If so, then you should want every single terrorist to be killed as they hardly respect any sort of Geneva Convention rules. These guys are a$$hats of the highest quality. They released a video of an american soldier that they had captured close to Christmas. That must of been one swell for Christmas for that guy's family, he had been missing since the summer so all in all they probably killed him by now. Even the substandard treatment captured combatants get at gitmo is above the standards they show our men.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its also hard to know whos a combatant when the enemy wears civilian clothing and uses schools as bunkers.

I didn't say kill them, i said remove. you can remove someone from power without killing them. Hell, you can do it without war.

I'm pretty sure when our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights there weren't foreigners over in this country blowing gak up.

As I recall at the time the British were about as popular with America as the Iraqi's are with us right now.

I'm sorry but when someone flies a plane into a skyscraper (2 in fact) and/or into the Pentagon and/or tries to blow himself up aboard a plane to Detroit using a bomb hidden in his underwear that person/persons should not have "certain inalienable rights".

You aren't the first to try to convince me. I've dated several liberal minded women; one who works helping "underprivileged youth" and they always tried to convince me that everyone, no matter what they do, should be treated equal. I call bs on that and nothing can be said to change my mind.

I believe in equal rights for citizens of this great country. As Frazz so politely pointed out, and I have to, terrorism is an act of war and terrorists should be tried in a military courtroom in front of a military tribunal, NOT in a civilian courtroom where judge and jury can easily be swayed by the likes of the ACLU (who aren't even allowed to set foot in the courtroom unlike civilian criminal courts) or other nut jobs who think that everyone, no matter what crime they commit should get a fair shake.

Wanting our Overlord to protect it's citizens first and foremost is not anti-American. Wanting to make sure terrorists from within and from without are treated fairly and justly AT the expense of the safety of the citizens of this great country IS un-American. If Akmed wants to rob a liquor store, okay. He gets tried in a civilian criminal court. If Akmed wants to crash a plane into the Sears tower or the Cadillac building, um no. He goes before the military courts AS a military prisoner as that is an act of war.

isthatmycow wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow that was so amazingly misplaced I'd swear you were a reporter.

No one said democracy started here.
No one said human rights started here.
We're saying the US protects the US. Its not the world policeman. We are currently at war. Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.

I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.

What about the rights of non-citizens? don't they deserve the same rights?

Not if they are attacking us.

Fateweaver, Frazzled, why don't you think that non-citizens don't deserve rights? Do you think Americans are better than the rest, so we deserve more rights than others? That's what i'm hearing from you, that's what i am interpreting, so if lyou can clarify or correct, please do so.

And Frazzled, FW, it seemed to me that you think the rights ENFORCED, not granted to us by the Constitution, have the Made in the U.S.A. label. That's what I got from you. Every person deserves the rights that is in the Constitution, America just Makes sure they ain't stepped on.

EDIT: the both of you aren't acting amercian. You hide behind a veil of Patriotism when you are both sickening. Shame on the Both of you. To deny any human being their rights is unpatriotis, inhumane, and wrong. You both should be ashamed.

isthatmycow wrote:I didn't say kill them, i said remove. you can remove someone from power without killing them. Hell, you can do it without war.

Really? how is that again?

Not if they are attacking us.

Its like I'm trying to debate with a skipping record. I give up.

Frazzled wrote:

isthatmycow wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow that was so amazingly misplaced I'd swear you were a reporter.

No one said democracy started here.
No one said human rights started here.
We're saying the US protects the US. Its not the world policeman. We are currently at war. Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.

I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.

What about the rights of non-citizens? don't they deserve the same rights?

Not if they are attacking us.

Frazz, I think you and I missed the memo stating that terrorists who blow up buildings over here and crash planes into skyscrapers have the same rights that you and I do.

Then again I think back to what happened to Tim McVeigh in civilian prison and well, his prison life was short. Though IMO he should have had one put to the back of the dome WITHOUT trial but that's in the past.

isthatmycow wrote:Fateweaver, Frazzled, why don't you think that non-citizens don't deserve rights? Do you think Americans are better than the rest, so we deserve more rights than others? That's what i'm hearing from you, that's what i am interpreting, so if lyou can clarify or correct, please do so.

And Frazzled, FW, it seemed to me that you think the rights ENFORCED, not granted to us by the Constitution, have the Made in the U.S.A. label. That's what I got from you. Every person deserves the rights that is in the Constitution, America just Makes sure they ain't stepped on.

America only has a duty to make sure the rights of US CITIZENS aren't stepped on. We have no duty to anyone else.

Frazzled wrote:
I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.

You are attempting to deny rights to people living on US soil, which is effectively the same thing given the nature of US law. Law which could easily be rectified by the passage of simply legislation. Much of what seems to irritates people isn't that the military is involved, but that they are involved in an extrajudicial capacity.

In any case, you are attempting to deny people the rights they are granted under the Geneva Conventions, both by a denial of the US signatory status, and the apparent ignorance of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Even the DoD has officially considered terrorist suspects apprehended after June '08 as enemy combatants.