Posts by Seeker

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

Alberto Gonzales, counsel to the president, writes in The New York Times that military tribunal trials will not be secret, except when classified information needs protection, that contemplated trials will be "full and fair," defendants will know the charges against them and will be represented by qualified counsel and allowed to present a defense.

ROFL! Propaganda at its finest. Hey, I hope Buckley is right. But his fellow right-winger, William Safire, blasted Bush for his anti-Constitutional approach to tribunals.

Now, I wasn't aware Washington and Lincoln had made the same mistake, but I'd be glad to learn more about it.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

Well said, WindRider.

"desperate times call for desperate measures"

Whenever I hear people say that, I think to myself that they are selling the Constitution short. Is that document only valid in good times? As soon as things get rough we through it out the window? How short-sided.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

Patriot,

Just so you know, I'm on a tangent here, and not talking specifically about the prisoners in Cuba. My complaint is against secret trials, though I have no idea if these particular prisoners will be tried in secret or not.

The objection to secret trials is found in that link -- it leads to tryanny. The first WTC bombing terrorist trials were held in New York City with no problems, no violence, no loss of state secrets. These trials could also be held openly.

The only historical precedent for secret trials in this country is what Roosevelt did in WWII. But he kept them secret in order to hide something from the public. So what is Bush hiding now? We don't know yet. What I do know is that my rights as a U.S. citizen have been violated by Bush. For those of you who say, 'Who cares?', just be glad that there are some of us left who do care about your rights, even if you no longer do.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

Seeker: ha, hahaaaaaaa.......is this the best you can do? I now up your fine to ten days at ground zero and one term learning "Civics 101" & "World History" (you must pass with a D+ or better) Good luck.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/03.html

Read. Learn. Think.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

PLease name one US citizen who has not been granted their rights?

You, and you don't even seem to be aware of it.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

Of course I have evidence! Secret military trials are evidence of the eroding of rights for Americans that I was talking about. We have a right to view trials, to make sure our government never becomes tyrannical (it's why this country was founded, remember?).

No one wants to address this: """Would you like to endanger a US court and staff and everyone else so these poor souls can be tried in the good ‘ol USofA?""" Do you understand why we don't want them on our soil? They like to kill and break things...."""

It's not the either-or thing you seem to think it is. Remember the first time an Islamic terrorist cell attacked the World Trade Center? That trial was held in New York. Nothing bad happened. Your argument is just shown to be not valid.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

I wish I could sentence you to five days of helping remove the bodies at ground zero.....

Huh?? What does that have to do with these prisoners? Guilty or not, they are human, and deserve basic human rights. If it is later proven that these particular prisoners are guilty, they should be punished. Until then, neither you nor I have any idea of their particular guilt or innocence, and if their trials are held in secret, we will never know. We will only have our government's word on the matter, and one thing the founding fathers wanted to make sure never happened was that.

Americans are losing some very basic rights that helped defined us as a bastion of freedom and openness. There are far too many Americans standing around applauding this process as if it's a good thing.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

I see we have already decided their guilt, calling them sick puppies and dangerous people. So why bother with a trial? They are already guilty, aren't they? After all, the U.S. government would never, ever arrest someone unless they were already guilty, right?

Trials are just a waste of time anyway. Let's just H-Bomb Afghanistan and take care of everything. In fact, let's wipe out Iraq while we are at it. We all know that all Taliban think alike, and are all equally guilty, as are all Iraqi. There are no innocent bystanders in that part of the world, and if the U.S. Army grabs somebody, that's good enough for me! Kill 'em all and pass me another hamburger while I recline in my chair and watch more Jerry Springer.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

No, you can do both. Treat them humanely while giving them a fair trial, and if guilty, go ahead and sentence them to death.

The complaint here is that we, as a country, have concepts such as innoncent until proven guilty, and everyone deserves human rights. If we trash those concepts with these guys before the trial, then we are hypocrites.