• 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!

Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

Charles Martel said:
Complaints about the law aren't as bad as denying them all together so this makes more sense. Pretenfing it isn't rule of law....no matter how open ended you believe it is..was what I was pointing out.
Click to expand...

:roll: More just being silly.

And yours is much too narrow. The example terrorist given, if you'll remember, was a Saudi involved in many jihadist movements, was fleeing Afghansitan into Pakistan throught the mountains to the east of Tora Bora ahead of Us airstrikes. And because the man wasn't carrying a weapon when he tried to get through Pakistani border security, you would have released him. The record is clear, JD.:)
Click to expand...

He had a history, as I recall, but was not involved in any firefight. He was walking.

We even brought tens of thousands of ww2 prisoners here to the US. 50,000 or so Italians, same number of Germans. True? Anyone of them EVER receive due process. And why not we just start with out first wars JD, for precedence of people around the world, let's see.......against the Barbary War during Jefferson's term as we boarded ships and invaded the shores of tripoli. Would our first foreign encounter then suffice. Please JD, you act as if I need to show you, EVERY FOREIGN WAR we've ever been in we've picked people up off the streets and seaways and imprisoned them w/o even the right to challenge their dententions. Stop pretedning.
Click to expand...

This isn't at all like WWII. So, WWII would not be something that would be precedence. I've explained the difference ad nauseum.

Sabateurs is what they are the GC very specific. Targeting civilians out of uniform, are you going to deny terrorists aren't engaged in such? Again, stop preteding JD, your argument is sily.
Click to expand...

There is no uniform to be out of, so not the same.

Reading his actions..based on his mindset...JD. You've been caught breaking your own rules before.:cool:
Click to expand...

His mindset has nothing to do with it. So, again, you're wrong.


I'm unconvinced.
Click to expand...

Don't feel lonely. You have always failed to convince me. ;)


Been treated as such in every conflict known to man.
Click to expand...

Where has this happen before?

Admitting this is unprecedented doesn't make you less wrong. It is the same as past wars, I;ve just given you examples. And furthermore remind you, no war is like any other. THe Civil War quite different. The Revolutionary War quite different, how were English treated then? How were saboteurs treated then?
Click to expand...

Actually, I haven't seen example one. I'm still waiting for something that is actually like what we're doing now. You have not provided any example at all that fits as a match to what we're doing now.
 
ScummyD said:
They are adequate. They have been slow due to Democratic obstructionism.

The treatment of enemy combatants while incarcerated in a different issue than tribunals. We can, by law, hold them as long as we like.
Click to expand...

That's factually incorrect. The release was not slowed by democrats, but sped up. Far fewer would have likely been released without that effort.


Say American national security.
Click to expand...

I see no way that holding the innocent helps American national security.

This is merely your opinion, which is not supported by current laws.
Click to expand...

I thought due process was an American law?

This point is irrelevant anyway, because we can, by law, hold them as long as we like. Your opinions on these matters are not supported by the current laws.
Click to expand...

Until the court says otherwise. And I believe that has largely been the rulings of the courts. There is nothing just about holding the innocent.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
ScummyD said:
That's factually incorrect. The release was not slowed by democrats, but sped up. Far fewer would have likely been released without that effort.




I see no way that holding the innocent helps American national security.



I thought due process was an American law?



Until the court says otherwise. And I believe that has largely been the rulings of the courts. There is nothing just about holding the innocent.
Click to expand...

Democrats and their allies in fact slowed the process of tribunals.

Due process is inherent in tribunals; that's what they are.
Click to expand...
 
ScummyD said:
Boo Radley said:
Democrats and their allies in fact slowed the process of tribunals.

Due process is inherent in tribunals; that's what they are.
Click to expand...

No, due process isn't inherent, less so if the deck is stacked. But instead of us going back and forth with yes they were and no they weren't, how about showing some evidence as you're the making the positive claim.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
No, due process isn't inherent, less so if the deck is stacked. But instead of us going back and forth with yes they were and no they weren't, how about showing some evidence as you're the making the positive claim.
Click to expand...

It is inherent unless the system is corrupt.

You made the claim that they were slowed. Setting aside that we have the right to hold enemy combatants as long as we like how about you provide something explaining where, how and why these trials were slowed and why that matters considering we can hold them as long as we like?
 
ScummyD said:
Boo Radley said:
It is inherent unless the system is corrupt.

You made the claim that they were slowed. Setting aside that we have the right to hold enemy combatants as long as we like how about you provide something explaining where, how and why these trials were slowed and why that matters considering we can hold them as long as we like?
Click to expand...

There is evidence the system was corrupt. Remember, there were complaints that is was a sham.

They were slow evidenced by innocent people being held for years. There is no reason to hold innocent people for years, unless no one is really trying to discover their innocence or guilt.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
ScummyD said:
There is evidence the system was corrupt. Remember, there were complaints that is was a sham.
Click to expand...
Was the system really corrupt? Institutionally corrupt? Or was it in fact not the system, but corrupt influences within that system which shouldn't be there to begin with? I am asking your opinion here, not for clarification as if I am not aware of the situation.

They were slow evidenced by innocent people being held for years. There is no reason to hold innocent people for years, unless no one is really trying to discover their innocence or guilt.
Click to expand...
There is no reason why we have to wait. The system is not the problem, but those that were using it.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
He had a history, as I recall, but was not involved in any firefight. He was walking.
Click to expand...

I'm refreshed you recall, I was going to look into my favorites and refresh my own memory, tell me if you would Sir, how many nations had Musha been in again? How many nations had arrest warrants out on this man? Was he ever in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan? This is a very important recall that you'd have should he have spent time in an actual Al-Qaeda training camp, had he? Was he in fact an expert in weaponry....an expert in several types of weaponry, known to have been involved in many an insurgency, yes? He was out of Saudi Arabia illegally...you see, one must have permission to travel out of your own country in Saudi Arabia, and, this man 'walking' through montain passes at Tora Bora with many other Taliban and al-Qaeda. He told the Pakistan authorities he was on a "mosque assessment mission" is that your recollection as well, Boo? He said he was "at the wrong place at the wrong time", he has, in reality, no excuse whatsoever for being there and given every single piece of this information, you told he in absence of him being "on the battlefield" at all...and carrying no weapon....you would have no other alternative but to release him. Now Boo, you seriously don't remember that?:roll:

This isn't at all like WWII. So, WWII would not be something that would be precedence. I've explained the difference ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Enemies captured abroad though...is like ww2. And even though we brought thousands of foreign combatants here and put them in prison...not one was afforded our rights, not one did we need evidence, not one could even challenge their own detentions. Not one. The Barbary Wars the same, we raided ships and imprisoned foreigners, our first foreign war, I'm giving you our last war..this Afghan War...and the same exact policy has existed with exactly the same precedence until holder's clown show in NY. Now..those are the facts despite your argument of differences and nuance. You may argue any war wasn't the same, enemies captured abroad ineach and every conflict were treated the exact same. Facts are facts.

There is no uniform to be out of, so not the same.
Click to expand...

Oh "not the same?" But, you want the GC to apply?

Oops.

You have not provided any example at all that fits as a match to what we're doing now.
Click to expand...

Even if I accepted this ridiculous denial, if this is all brand new and different..as you pretend....how can you argue "due process?"

What "process" is due these men?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
ScummyD said:
There is evidence the system was corrupt. Remember, there were complaints that is was a sham.

They were slow evidenced by innocent people being held for years. There is no reason to hold innocent people for years, unless no one is really trying to discover their innocence or guilt.
Click to expand...

They're enemy combatants. "Guilt" and "innocence", civillian law terms, don't apply.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
You both seem to have a history together. Interesting discussion. By the way Robt. Duvall played Boo Radley in To Kill a Mockingbird
Click to expand...

Yes, how could I forget, Robert Duvall.

Good actor. Great flick.

Just found it interesting Boo would use this name, makes one almost think atticus and jd one in the same.

Hmm. Would explain alot. To me, Conservative, it would explain alot to me.:)
 
Charles Martel said:
Just found it interesting Boo would use this name, makes one almost think atticus and jd one in the same.
Click to expand...
I found it interesting for that reason, too, that those two characters come from the same story. Their styles here, however, are too different. Boo is quintessentially JD in style.

But BooD3 IS an English teacher so it makes sense he would choose the name of character in a book that is widely taught.
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
I'm refreshed you recall, . . . ..
Click to expand...

I said he had a history.

Enemies captured abroad though...is like ww2. And even though we brought thousands of foreign combatants here and put them in prison...not one was afforded our rights, not one did we need evidence, not one could even challenge their own detentions. Not one. The Barbary Wars the same, we raided ships and imprisoned foreigners, our first foreign war, I'm giving you our last war..this Afghan War...and the same exact policy has existed with exactly the same precedence until holder's clown show in NY. Now..those are the facts despite your argument of differences and nuance. You may argue any war wasn't the same, enemies captured abroad ineach and every conflict were treated the exact same. Facts are facts.
Click to expand...

Actually we kidnapped civilians in WWII. And didn't count them as POW or non combatants. We knew even then that it was wrong. It was mostly kept secret.

But no, we did nothing like this.



Oh "not the same?" But, you want the GC to apply?

Oops.
Click to expand...

I said choose a rule of law, but don't be silly and say they are spies. Or even Saboteurs.



Even if I accepted this ridiculous denial, if this is all brand new and different..as you pretend....how can you argue "due process?"

What "process" is due these men?
Click to expand...

Same due process due all men. Remember, some are innocent. And innocent men are due justice. Not knowing which are which requires a process of knowing, due process. Rule of law.
 
ScummyD said:
I found it interesting for that reason, too, that those two characters come from the same story. Their styles here, however, are too different. Boo is quintessentially JD in style.

But BooD3 IS an English teacher so it makes sense he would choose the name of character in a book that is widely taught.
Click to expand...

:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:
 
What's so funny?
 
Oh that explains it. (Where's the thinking emotioncon when you need it.)

You didn't think my friendly jab Stone Age comment was funny apparently.
 
ScummyD said:
Oh that explains it. (Where's the thinking emotioncon when you need it.)

You didn't think my friendly jab Stone Age comment was funny apparently.
Click to expand...

Must of missed it. More thought funny the talk of who people are, though your comment on style is closer to being true. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Must of missed it. More thought funny the talk of who people are, though your comment on style is closer to being true. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't know what you are talking about or what you find funny.

We know who you are.
 
Boo Radley said:
ScummyD said:
There is evidence the system was corrupt. Remember, there were complaints that is was a sham.

They were slow evidenced by innocent people being held for years. There is no reason to hold innocent people for years, unless no one is really trying to discover their innocence or guilt.
Click to expand...

So which is it, Boo, your contention that we aren't at war or "your" President's assertion

Obama on Recent Terror Plots: ‘We Are at War’

In a nod to former vice-president Dick Cheney's assertion that President Obama is "trying to pretend we are not at war" with terrorist elements, Obama said today in a press conference about security updates that, most certainly, "we are at war" and are in "a never-ending race to protect our country."

Read more: Obama on Recent Terror Plots: ‘We Are at War’ -- Daily Intel Obama on Recent Terror Plots: ‘We Are at War’ -- Daily Intel

Now we seem to have a conflict which isn't surprising to those of us who haven't been drinking the Obama Kool-aid as to what to do with enemy combatants. Do we fly those captured during a war to NYC and give them U.S. Constitutional rights or do we try them in military tribunals which were set up to handle those captured during a war. Maybe we just do what Obama is doing and keep from capturing terrorists by attacking civilian areas with drones.

Hmmm, what to do? How about it Boo?
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Same due process due all men. Remember, some are innocent. And innocent men are due justice. Not knowing which are which requires a process of knowing, due process. Rule of law.
Click to expand...

I commend you on your stamina with this exhausting thread/subject. Keep in mind, all those who blindly defend all of Bush's illegal, immoral and unconstitutional actions, no matter what the facts are, don't think that any "innocents" were kidnapped, imprisoned, renditioned or tortured (some to death!) no matter what the facts prove. Some also don't seem to believe that "the rule of law" or the U.S. Constitution applies to non U.S. citizens. Hmmm... maybe there's a second version of the Constitution floating around out there that we haven't seen yet.

Keep up the good fight.

It's not always easy to do the right thing.
 
ADK_Forever said:
I commend you on your stamina with this exhausting thread/subject. Keep in mind, all those who blindly defend all of Bush's illegal, immoral and unconstitutional actions, no matter what the facts are, don't think that any "innocents" were kidnapped, imprisoned, renditioned or tortured (some to death!) no matter what the facts prove. Some also don't seem to believe that "the rule of law" or the U.S. Constitution applies to non U.S. citizens. Hmmm... maybe there's a second version of the Constitution floating around out there that we haven't seen yet.

Keep up the good fight.

It's not always easy to do the right thing.
Click to expand...

LOL, yet "your" President yesterday said "We are at war" so which is it, war or police action?

Do we try enemy combatants in U.S. Courts under U.S. Constitutional Rights or just continue to attack villages with drones without giving the innocents there U.S. Constitutional Rights?
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ"]YouTube- Joan Baez - Kumbaya (1980)[/ame]



j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom