• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

  • Total voters
    15
Catz Part Deux said:
I don't trust my government, or for that matter, ANY government, to hold people indefinitely without access to an attorney or without having their day in court. If they are, as you profess, clearly terrorists, then there should be no difficulty in presenting the evidence against them, even if it is only before a military tribunal. We've been holding some of these people for years. Some people have even DIED in captivity, perhaps through torture.

That's not the kind of power I want to see any government have, and I'm certainly not about to trust that they are who the government says they are, just because they say so. That's a dangerous precedent, and just because it's not us being held there doesn't mean we should allow our fears to overrule our fundamental principles as a nation.
Click to expand...

If I for a second believed we could send those terrorists to say Pakistan for trial and that they would be jailed forever and ever Id be fine with shutting down GITMO. But these folks are there for a reason. I think when Obama took over he realized...damn...all this **** Ive been saying about GITMO...we are STILL capturing those same kind of bad guys. Which is why they opened a GITMO Middle Eastern branch and have denied those people their constitutional rights. They arent US citizens and they are captiured committing acts of global terror. I think you have to do SOMETHING with them.
 
VanceMack said:
If I for a second believed we could send those terrorists to say Pakistan for trial and that they would be jailed forever and ever Id be fine with shutting down GITMO. But these folks are there for a reason. I think when Obama took over he realized...damn...all this **** Ive been saying about GITMO...we are STILL capturing those same kind of bad guys. Which is why they opened a GITMO Middle Eastern branch and have denied those people their constitutional rights. They arent US citizens and they are captiured committing acts of global terror. I think you have to do SOMETHING with them.
Click to expand...

I think the Geneva convention has provisions for dealing with prisoners of war.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, I agree with a lot of that. I did not support the Bush bailout. The spending that I approve of is on the area of infrastucture construction...building roads, schools, etc. That's the same thing we did during the great depression, and it kept people working, and those buildings and roads benefitted everyone.
Click to expand...

Even the infrastructure spending tho only keeps existing crews working. They would have to do MORE to hire new people. And when you look at the bulk of that spending it is going to city and state governments to pay workers...which means the states failing systems are just being temporarily shored up without being fixed.
 
megaprogman said:
I think the Geneva convention has provisions for dealing with prisoners of war.
Click to expand...

Thats fine when you are dealing with prisoners of war. The war on terror is a theoretical construct. We arent 'at war' with any country. Terrorists dont qiualify under the geneva conventionand damn sure dont follow it.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats fine when you are dealing with prisoners of war. The war on terror is a theoretical construct. We arent 'at war' with any country. Terrorists dont qiualify under the geneva conventionand damn sure dont follow it.
Click to expand...

So we should come down to their level? I thought were supposed to be a civilized country.
 
megaprogman said:
My personal issue with it is that it pains me to see us compromising what should be a core value of this country for any reason. The founders say that "all men are created equal" and I believe it to be true and as such, we should be giving them due process. If they are found to be guilty, I don't care if they are jailed in Cuba or wherever, but I don't like the way its being handled. Gitmo, I think is a symbol of the real problem.
Click to expand...

Except there is no basis for law enforcement and trial to arrest a pakistani trained in Syria conducting terror acts in Bali. Who has jurisdiction? All men ARE created equal. When those men decide they have the right to conduct acts of terrorism they face consequence...just like a murderer...and sometimes that consequence is life imprisonment.
 
VanceMack said:
Except there is no basis for law enforcement and trial to arrest a pakistani trained in Syria conducting terror acts in Bali. Who has jurisdiction? All men ARE created equal. When those men decide they have the right to conduct acts of terrorism they face consequence...just like a murderer...and sometimes that consequence is life imprisonment.
Click to expand...

I am not disputing the fact that they need to face consequences, but they need a trial first. How do we even know we got the right person?
 
megaprogman said:
So we should come down to their level? I thought were supposed to be a civilized country.
Click to expand...

Yep...we should. If you ever want to defeat them...then yes.

think about it. We are talking about people that wrap primer chord around the necks of school children and detonate it...who rape murder and mutilate 12 year old girls in India, who blow up clubs in Bali for Gods sake...who slaughter families in Tibet...all while chanting the great and glorious name and cause of Allah.

Yes...you recognize who you are actually dealing with, and you fight them...and you defeat them. period.
 
megaprogman said:
I am not disputing the fact that they need to face consequences, but they need a trial first. How do we even know we got the right person?
Click to expand...

Mega...seriously...think about what you are saying. These people are typically caught in firefights. they are caught or wounded in the act. This isnt the Memphis PD investigating and accumulating evidence and serving warrants and subpoenas...these are terrorists caught planning or attempting to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. Military courts are the ONLY arena they could be tried in.

I suspect Obama kinda had that same wide eyed innocent outlook too...right up until he became the commander in chief and realized who he was actually dealing with.
 
megaprogman said:
In various threads, whenever the mistakes of Bush are brought up, some people always seem to want to bury the past and act like it never happened so they can blame everything on Obama instead.

So, in your opinion, how effective is this strategy?
Click to expand...

There's the blame it on Bush crowd now, there was the blame it on Clinton crowd before. Same tactics, different parties. What we should realize is not just that Bush ****ed us over pretty good, but that Obama is keeping that tradition alive.
 
VanceMack said:
Mega...seriously...think about what you are saying. These people are typically caught in firefights. they are caught or wounded in the act. This isnt the Memphis PD investigating and accumulating evidence and serving warrants and subpoenas...these are terrorists caught planning or attempting to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. Military courts are the ONLY arena they could be tried in.

I suspect Obama kinda had that same wide eyed innocent outlook too...right up until he became the commander in chief and realized who he was actually dealing with.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is envisioning that you do it on the battlefield in the middle of a firefight. But those guys do get carted back to a base where things are more calm.
 
megaprogman said:
I don't think anybody is envisioning that you do it on the battlefield in the middle of a firefight. But those guys do get carted back to a base where things are more calm.
Click to expand...

And? there is no miranda rights...no evidence collection...no due process...this isnt the US we are talking about, nor are they US citizens. Like I said...there is a REASON Obama has changed his tune on granting constitutional rights and has opened a version of GITMO out of sight and out of mind.
 
NolaMan said:
I have no problem with the existence of GITMO, but from a political standpoint, I think you can agree it has become a major liability.
Click to expand...

I have zero problems with holding bad guys in jail until they die, as long as we've proven, PUBLICLY, that they deserve to be held there. That's a core tenet of who we are, as a nation...your government cannot stash you secretly in some hidden prison for "crimes against the state" or "terrorism" or any other code word. You get your day in court.
 
NolaMan said:
I have no problem with the existence of GITMO, but from a political standpoint, I think you can agree it has become a major liability.
Click to expand...

GITMO became a political libaility solely because the left has MADE it a political issue. I have to point it out again...where is the outrage from the left not about GITMO but that the Obama administration decided like Bush that detainees do NOT get constitutional rights and are held indefinitely in a US run prison in Afghanistan. Its no different than GITMO. And obviously not a political concenr to anyone.
 
VanceMack said:
And? there is no miranda rights...no evidence collection...no due process...this isnt the US we are talking about, nor are they US citizens. Like I said...there is a REASON Obama has changed his tune on granting constitutional rights and has opened a version of GITMO out of sight and out of mind.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are getting at than. Either people are created equal or they are not.
 
megaprogman said:
So we should come down to their level? I thought were supposed to be a civilized country.
Click to expand...

The Geneva Convetions expressly spell out guidelines you have to follow to qualify for POW status... these groups do not follow those.
 
megaprogman said:
I am not sure what you are getting at than. Either people are created equal or they are not.
Click to expand...

2 points

1-It isnt a question of creation...its what they CHOOSE to DO that indicts them and

2-Our constitution and laws are not a universal construct. For example there is a reason why we have the UCMJ...because even Americans serving in foreign lands are still bound by our rules and not those of the foreign governments in whch they may be residing.
 
VanceMack said:
2 points

1-It isnt a question of creation...its what they CHOOSE to DO that indicts them and
Click to expand...

As I previously stated. I am not against punishing bad guys. That would be a function of any civilized society. Its how we do it that is important.

VanceMack said:
2-Our constitution and laws are not a universal construct. For example there is a reason why we have the UCMJ...because even Americans serving in foreign lands are still bound by our rules and not those of the foreign governments in whch they may be residing.
Click to expand...

The USMJ says we can imprison people forever without any reason? Thats pretty scary.
 
megaprogman said:
I think a president can muck things up more easily than they can fix it and their capacity for damage is greater than their capacity to fix things. Its the nature of the office I think.

For example, lets look at Gitmo. Setting up the place was relatively easy, shutting the place down is proving to be very difficult. Its the same with the wars, wire taps etc. One of our problems with the way the government is currently set up is each time a new territory is opened up, it can be hard to close it back down again. This is one of the reasons why your leadership argument doesn't work for me.
Click to expand...

First - Obama freely and voluntarily took on the "mess" he constantly complains about. No one put a gun to his head.
Second - Obama while being Presidet does have limitations - except when both houses of Congress are led by Obama's own political party. That means Obama had a priceless opportunity to do what he claimed he was going to do. Many Presidents do not have that opportunity especially while pointing out how bad the prior President's policies were.
Third - Democrats are trying to use the "blame Bush" strategy -- ressurect it -- and ride it through the mid-term elections. I agree with other posters here that Bush mucked things up - no doubt, especially in spending. That does NOT exhonerate Obama's first 18 months or excuse his LACK of all things "hope & change" from occurring.

Obama owns the issues he inherited, 100%. Blame Bush is no longer valid. The litany of failures is rising and the opportunity for additional failure continues to increase. He was and is over his head... it's as simple as that.
 
megaprogman said:
As I previously stated. I am not against punishing bad guys. That would be a function of any civilized society. Its how we do it that is important.

The USMJ says we can imprison people forever without any reason? Thats pretty scary.
Click to expand...

No...the UCMJ says that US soldiers are still beholden to laws where the US consitution doesnt apply...

And Obama and the Obama admin DOJ says we can hold people...indefinitely...without trial. We keep talking about the 250 in GITMO but the 600 in Bagram are not even a blip on the radar screen. because they are not US citizens...not under US jurisdiction, not covered by the constitution and not enemy combatants.
 
VanceMack said:
No...the UCMJ says that US soldiers are still beholden to laws where the US consitution doesnt apply...

And Obama and the Obama admin DOJ says we can hold people...indefinitely...without trial. We keep talking about the 250 in GITMO but the 600 in Bagram are not even a blip on the radar screen. because they are not US citizens...not under US jurisdiction, not covered by the constitution and not enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the citizenship aspect of it. To me that has nothing to do with that phrase from the founders. This is truly freightening.
 
megaprogman said:
I don't care about the citizenship aspect of it. To me that has nothing to do with that phrase from the founders. This is truly freightening.
Click to expand...

Really? how is that 'truly frightening'? How do you hope to extend constitutional rights and trials to someone who cannot be mirandized, with no mechanism for evidence collection, for any of the constitutional conditions on which you would base a trial? Or do you have some other vision of what that would actually look like? Again...Obama doesnt...thats why Bagram is expanding.
 
VanceMack said:
Really? how is that 'truly frightening'? How do you hope to extend constitutional rights and trials to someone who cannot be mirandized, with no mechanism for evidence collection, for any of the constitutional conditions on which you would base a trial? Or do you have some other vision of what that would actually look like? Again...Obama doesnt...thats why Bagram is expanding.
Click to expand...

This is the exact mentality used by despots and genocidal tyrants through the ages:

"They don't deserve the rights and privileges we demand for ourselves, as They are not like us. We are the only ones that deserve humane treatment, as They are somehow "less than human."

Disgusting.
 
VanceMack said:
And Obama and the Obama admin DOJ says we can hold people...indefinitely...without trial. We keep talking about the 250 in GITMO but the 600 in Bagram are not even a blip on the radar screen. because they are not US citizens...not under US jurisdiction, not covered by the constitution and not enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

AND THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM. In my opinion, the legal decisions that we didn't have to follow international treaties in regards to POWs with these "enemy combatants," were intrinsically flawed and should be reprehensible given that they fail to recognize these individuals as human beings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom