Disturbing

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I'm kind of upset about that judge ordering the dirty bomber released from military custody.

And I'm disturbed that a judge ordered that POWs at Gitmo should be tried and punished under our US judical system instead of the military.

Do liberals really think Bush is out to round up innocent citizens and stick them in concentration camps? Really?
 

Otter

Nothing to see here
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Do liberals really think Bush is out to round up innocent citizens and stick them in concentration camps? Really?

Certainly, they can sell it when a vast part of the democratic party is made up with sheep.

On another note and a bit off topic, over the past couple years I have fun into more and more blacks with a conservative slant to them. Anyone else noticed this?
 

Warron

Member
Re: Re: Disturbing

Originally posted by otter
Certainly, they can sell it when a vast part of the democratic party is made up with sheep.

I'm not a democrat, but this comment is kind of funny. You and those like you want to give the president the absolute authority to declare someone an enemy combatant and lock them up indefinitely with no oversight of any kind, and you are calling those who disagree sheep. This situation is the epitome of the concept.

I know it’s the republican/conservatives who like to throw around the big words like un-American. But if anything ever was un-American, unquestioned authority is.
 
I say that if the Gitmo detainees have to be tried under our laws, ship 'em back to 'Stan and then they are off U.S. soil, and under complete military control.
 

Vince

......
Originally posted by vraiblonde
And I'm disturbed that a judge ordered that POWs at Gitmo should be tried and punished under our US judical system instead of the military.

I thought those detainees were soldiers?:confused:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I guess I'm confused about the difference between a terrorist/enemy combatant and a plain ol' run of the mill criminal. Jose Padilla was working with a foreign terrorist organization and could certainly be considered an "enemy combatant". Yet, since he's an American citizen - native born, no less - does that automatically cancel out any military involvement?

I mean, our military is trying to bust up the Al Qaeda network. That's THEIR job, not the job of the domesic police force. So wouldn't it stand to reason that THEY would be responsible for Padilla and not the cops?
 

Otter

Nothing to see here
Re: Re: Re: Disturbing

Originally posted by Warron
I'm not a democrat, but this comment is kind of funny. You and those like you want to give the president the absolute authority to declare someone an enemy combatant and lock them up indefinitely with no oversight of any kind, and you are calling those who disagree sheep. This situation is the epitome of the concept.

I know it’s the republican/conservatives who like to throw around the big words like un-American. But if anything ever was un-American, unquestioned authority is.

Hilarious, Warron, that you derived all that from my opinion of the democratic party. My hat is off to you.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by Vince
I thought those detainees were soldiers?
I think the argument is that since Al Qaeda isn't a real government, the folks fighting for them can't be considered real soldiers - only terrorists - and therefore can't be considered POWs.

Is that right? :confused:
 

Frank

Chairman of the Board
I think that liberals have a paranoia that Bush and Ashcroft will slowly turn the US into a fascist state. They also believe they're *morons*, but somehow they can DO this and get away with it.

*I* fear that if liberals have their way in this matter, every terrorist that comes to trial will be exonerated, win a counter-suit and be awarded a book deal on the way out of the courtroom. MY fear is, they'll basically let them go.

So my paranoia is as great as theirs.

Except I'm kidding. They're not.
 

tlatchaw

Not dead yet.
Since terrorists specifically target civilians in order to maximize their unpredictable nature it would make them worse than foreign soldiers. Perhaps they deserve fewer rights than POWs and not more?

I'm glad that the USA is the country of the "good guys" that at least try to look out for the rights of all and to do the right thing, but sometimes I can empathize with those countries that have swift trials and brutal punishments for wrongdoers.

Can you imagine what the Saudis would have done with these guys in Guantanamo? We wouldn't even be talking about them anymore.
 

Vince

......
Re: Re: Re: Disturbing

Originally posted by Warron
I know it’s the republican/conservatives who like to throw around the big words like un-American. But if anything ever was un-American, unquestioned authority is.

It's apparent you've never spent any time in the military.
 

Vince

......
Originally posted by vraiblonde
I think the argument is that since Al Qaeda isn't a real government, the folks fighting for them can't be considered real soldiers - only terrorists - and therefore can't be considered POWs.

Is that right? :confused:

So if these guys are to be considered terrorists and not soldiers fighting a war, that would be the reason they want to try them under the judicial system?:confused: Confusing. How can we try non-soldiers, from another country, under the US Judicial system?
 

ceo_pte

New Member
Re: Re: Disturbing

Originally posted by otter
Certainly, they can sell it when a vast part of the democratic party is made up with sheep.

On another note and a bit off topic, over the past couple years I have fun into more and more blacks with a conservative slant to them. Anyone else noticed this?

Yes, they are finally starting to realize that people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are full of $hit...
 

ceo_pte

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
I'm kind of upset about that judge ordering the dirty bomber released from military custody.

And I'm disturbed that a judge ordered that POWs at Gitmo should be tried and punished under our US judical system instead of the military.

Do liberals really think Bush is out to round up innocent citizens and stick them in concentration camps? Really?

I like you Vrai... :biggrin:
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
Requiring the release or formal charging of Padilla is a good thing...He's an American citizen busted by American cops on American soil. To say he does not have rights because of an arbitrary determination by a fed ain't what this Country is about. They could indict him, get warrants to search/watch him, and charge him if possible. The feds need to do their jobs, not just ice someone until they can get around to investigating. This isn't the first time this garbage was pulled (Lincoln, FDR, et.al), and I'm sure it won't be the last, but thank goodness we have checks-n-balances.

The Gitmo ruling is another matter...
 

Warron

Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disturbing

Originally posted by Vince
It's apparent you've never spent any time in the military.

Sorry, but I spent my six years in the Navy. Including plenty of time in the persian gulf. Unquestioned authority isn't any more a part of the military then any place else within US culture. Every person in the military is answerable for their actions and every decision is open for review. The only place members of the military are expected to be sheep are in totalitarian countries and the movies.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The Ninth Circuit got it half right. Padilla is a traitor and felon that should be subjected to US laws and the judicial system. The POWs at Gitmo are just that POWs and should only be subjected to the laws of the US if they commit a crime while being detained.

Defined by the Geneva Conventions a POW is, “A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labor units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.”
 
Top