What Should Happen to George W. Bush?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
To dismiss my argument with nothing more than saying "your single opinion doesn't matter all that much" doesn't cut it.

Would you be satified if he answered it along the lines of this: ___________ is irrelevent. Why? Because I'm not ______________. ? Fill in the blanks with the words of your choosing and you have yourself a pat response.

[drake]

I thought I did explain my thinking. While you ask how this is going to make things safer, I ask of you, how do you know it's not? These government agencies have more information than we ever will and allowing some of these people free because of technicalities and loopholes creates a potential danger to society. It's like letting a known guilty murderer walk free because he wasn't read his miranda rights or something. It's bullsh1t (but it's another discussion).

If there is evidence and a man is known to be guilty with the risk of creating an obvious risk to society, I see no harm in keeping him in custody.

In the scheme of things as a whole, does it help a lot? No, it's very insignificant. Terrorism isn't going to dry up overnight because a few of them were captured. I am aware of the overwhelming underlying problems, and yes, they need to be addressed. But those underlying issues, for the most part are not domestic.

A true and just country is a great thing, but what good is the country if it's people live in fear? I myself do not feel I am in immediate danger, but obviously there are people that still do. Being naive and friendly and lovey dovey to everyone isn't a good policy. Our lax immigration laws and political correctness has gotten people in trouble.

You demonstrate to me how this will change the country for the worse, besides in your personal opinions and views, and I will possibly consider looking at this differently.

[drake]

Even if Bin Laden dies it's a victory for them, because Bin Laden doesn't care if he dies or not.

And you call Giani ignorant? Bin Laden is a leader. And if he didn't care if he died or not, he would have been a suicide bomber or fighting on the front line with the rest of his men. But he's not. He's in hiding. A man that fears no death doesn't hide.

His strength lies in his power to both persuade and manipulate, mostly young and impressionable angry young men to fight his fight. His power lies in his ability to make other do his dirty work. He is never directly (as in hands on) involved with terrorist operations because he has so many people under him. So many minions.

No doubt Osama isn't the only leader in al quaeda, and total decapitation isn't going to occur when he dies, but it will certainly make a large dent. Thinking it won't is silly.

[Saint Marcus]

Bin Laden is a leader

and dead he's a marter. He'll be a hero.

A man that fears no death doesn't hide.

I didn't say he had a death-wish did I? He doesn't want to die, but if he would die he would accept it readily and without any remorse.

Thinking it won't is silly.

What about the blind egyptian who was a terrorist leader quite some time ago. After they got him the movement didn't stop. Quite the oposite. A new leader will stand up and take his place.

[drake]

If Bin Laden, or his followers though he was dispensable, then why isn't he a hijacker or foot soldier? He is an asset to them. He isn't just some stupid angry kid who is used as cannon fodder by the group. Not some fanatic used as a puppet. He is very valuable to the organization. I didn't say al quaeda would fall apart without him, but I said his death would be a large blow to them, a "dent". You say martyr, but Osama is much more valuable alive than dead.

He doesn't want to die, but if he would die he would accept it readily and without any remorse.

If one dies they don't usually readily accept it. And if they're dead, they usually don't have time to be remorseful.

[Ramo]

Would you be satified if he answered it along the lines of this: ___________ is irrelevent. Why? Because I'm not ______________. ? Fill in the blanks with the words of your choosing and you have yourself a pat response.

Immigration laws are coercive. One of the principle bases for my beliefs is the non-initiation of force. I don't see why I need to justify freedom of movement any more than freedom of expression. I make an assumption that freedom is good. If you don't like that assumption, too goddamn bad.

These government agencies have more information than we ever will

I hardly see why a warrant is too much to ask.

It's like letting a known guilty murderer walk free because he wasn't read his miranda rights or something. It's bullsh1t (but it's another discussion).

It's nothing of the sort. If there's appropriate evidence to lock up the terrorist, the jury will convict. If there's reasonable cause to believe a person is suspect, a warrant will be issued.

If there is evidence and a man is known to be guilty with the risk of creating an obvious risk to society, I see no harm in keeping him in custody.

There are things called trials to determine if a man is guilty.

No, it's very insignificant.

Which is my point. The danger for decreased public safety due to state abuses, on the other hand, is very significant.

You demonstrate to me how this will change the country for the worse, besides in your personal opinions and views, and I will possibly consider looking at this differently.

The IMF protestor example would be one way in which the country would be worse. You'd be surprised at the groups the FBI has tagged as terrorist organizations. The NRA, for instance, is classified as such.

Then there's indefinite detention of aliens without judical review.

If you don't understand already that a situation in which the gov't can lock up whoever it wants is screwed up, I don't know how to explain it to you.

Our lax immigration laws and political correctness has gotten people in trouble.

Bull. Our dicking around in the ME is what has gotton people in trouble.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Mark L

Anyway, to address your ignorant remark. Al Qaida is active in 68 countries. If you kick them out of Afghanistan that still leaves 67. Even if Bin Laden dies it's a victory for them, because Bin Laden doesn't care if he dies or not. So all in all, the terrorists have gotten what they want, namely killing Americans and changing American policies both internally as internationally. So tell me, they have met their objectives while the US has so far met none. Who's victory is this then?

Your points are pointless.
If they're active in 68, and it's cut down to 67, that's one down and 67 to go. That's perfectly fine.
You eat a meal one bite at a time, don't you?

As noted by others, bin Laden is a liar, a fake, and a fraud.
He's having people with no brains do his dirty work, dying while he hides.
George W. Bush strolled out to the pitcher's mound to throw out first pitch during the World Series, alone. Which was one of the coolest things I've seen lately.

It took 2 1/2 months to get the Taliban out of controlling Afghanistan, and no objectives have been met?
Um, ok. You're a hard guy to please.

[drake]

Lets give Bin Laden a trial while we're at it

So ramo, you suggest a trial with a jury selected from the public for each and every terror suspect? To try people that aren't even American citizens?

Should we allow them bail and time to flee the country?

Did it occur to you that some of the evidence presented in these trials might be sensitive to national security? There are some things that the public shouldn't be privy to. Don't you think?

If you don't understand already that a situation in which the gov't can lock up whoever it wants is screwed up, I don't know how to explain it to you.

The government isn't going door to door and arresting people ramo. You need to relax with that paranoia of yours. This little investigation effects less people that were killed to spark this whole mess.

You say ME is the problem. And it may very well be. But who should pay the price? The American public? Do you think we should all be punished?

A group might not agree with Americas policies, but it doesnt change the fact that mass murdering innocent people is wrong and certainly not the way to get things done. Fact is ramo, things DO need to change, but they are not going to change overnight. It will take time. And during that time, there will still be people that want to kill Americans. Hell, even if we stopped backing Israel for instance, some palestinians and ME arabs would still hate us, and their kids would be taught to hate us as well. Middle Eastern countries have been kicked around by other countries for a long damn time. They have a lot to be pissed about. However, trying to pin all blame on the America of today is crap. Many of the problems these countries are in were caused not only by other countries, other than America, but by themselves.

And guess what else? A country as large as America is ALWAYS going to piss someone off. Compatibility with so many countries different agendas is impossible. There will always be someone that has a problem with the US.

Anyway....we're getting way off topic now.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't see why I need to justify freedom of movement any more than freedom of expression. I make an assumption that freedom is good. If you don't like that assumption, too goddamn bad.

The difference is that I can give reasons why freedom of expression should be protected and don't have to resort to Bob Dornan/Wiglaf debate tactics to do it.

[Ramo]

I need to go to school. This'll be quick:

Re trials: All crimes committed here must be trial by jury.

Re paranoia: The gov't has authority to do just that. That's what I have a problem with.

Re ME policy: No one deserves to be murdered. You're putting words in my mouth.

Dino:

You need a basic set of assumptions to justify anything. My assumption is that coercion is wrong.

[drake]

I didn't say you advocated murder ramo

What you did offer was an explanation for the reason people were murdered. And in part, I accept your reason ( as I stated). But as I also pointed out, there will always be threats to Americans from other countries and groups.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ramo
I need to go to school. This'll be quick:

Re trials: All crimes committed here must be trial by jury.

Definitely need to go to school. Pay attention today though.

All trials do not have to go before a jury. There is the right to a jury trial, but many go before a judge instead.
Why? Because a judge deals with human debris daily, and may not be as firm as a jury who is fed up and wants to send a message.
Very doubtful that bin Laden, given the choice, would want to be judged by an American jury at this point.

[Ramo]

Sorry for the half-assed response earlier. I had to write it in about a minute...

There is the right to a jury trial, but many go before a judge instead.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Why? Because a judge deals with human debris daily, and may not be as firm as a jury who is fed up and wants to send a message.

You're missing my point. Ashcroft now has authority to deny them a trial, with or without jury. He can detain aliens indefinitely without judicial review, as I pointed out earlier.

Very doubtful that bin Laden, given the choice, would want to be judged by an American jury at this point.

I believe bin Laden's attack is considered an act of war, and is not under the contraints of criminal law.

Did it occur to you that some of the evidence presented in these trials might be sensitive to national security? There are some things that the public shouldn't be privy to.

I don't know what "national security" issues the state wants to use as an excuse to throw people in prison, but I don't think it deserves this much discretion.

Should we allow them bail and time to flee the country?

If the flight risk is high, the bail could always be higher.

Don't you think?

Did it ever occur to you that the gov't might abuse the ability of placing whoever it wants in detention indefinitely?

This little investigation effects less people that were killed to spark this whole mess.

What "little investigation?" These laws affect all federal investigations.

A country as large as America is ALWAYS going to piss someone off.

By backing countries with some of the worst human rights records in the region, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, you don't make many friends.

[DinoDoc]

I really hate unstable connections.

Originally posted by Ramo
Re trials: All crimes committed here must be trial by jury.

Most trials in the US don't have juries, Ramo. The SCOTUS has also validated the creation of military tribunals for enemy sabetours(sp) and the like.

Did I mention that I really hate unstable connections?

[Ramo]

Yes, I did not intend to write that, as I told Sloww.

As for enemy sabatours, that's a technical point which does not apply to the provision concerning indefinite detention of immigrants.