President Bush's Crusade Against Justice Continues..

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by BeBro
Undermining the Geneva Conventions is stupid.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists because they are not uniformed combatants of a sovereign nation. Wht can't people get that straight?

[Arrian]

Heh, we've gone all Canadian. Mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore? Write a LETTER!

You will get a form letter/email back in about a month thanking you for expressing your opinion. Just like I did after I sent something in right after 9/11.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by The diplomat


The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists because they are not uniformed combatants of a sovereign nation. Wht can't people get that straight?

And that's the other side of the above referenced coin.
Quite a quandry. Founding fathers could identify redcoats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I agree, but listen what I'm saying happens around you in the opinions that some people express.
A perfect world doesn't exist. A choice has to be made.

Listen, Sloww, I see what you are saying. I do. But like the slogan goes "Freedom isn't Free". In this context freedom requires that we make a few sacrifices. To be free, we must sacrifice the efficiency of a dictatorial police force. To be free, we must grant basic human rights to all in our borders, no matter who they may be.

The problem is that while saying "Freedom isn't Free" this administration has decided the price is too high and therefore freedom isn't worth the price, which is not the intent of that statement (but it can be made to support that viewpoint).

[SlowwHand]

And again, I agree. I'm just saying when we make this decision to reman moral, expect the body bag suppliers to profit.
I'm not arguing with you a bit. People pay a price of some kind for their stance.

[DinoDoc]

Where might I find details on the competing proposal the NYT is waving hysterically about?

[Arrian]

I'd rather have a slightly higher chance of being blown up by terrorists than have my nation behave the way it is behaving at Gitmo and these CIA prisons.

Furthermore, I am unconvinced that way the government has run Gitmo/the prisons has actually made us safer. We really can't know if it has, because we don't know what info was obtained and how much it helped, and further it's really hard to quantify the PR value (for Al-Q and its ilk) of something like Gitmo and the secret prisons.

I'd rather we take the high road when in doubt.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


And that's the other side of the above referenced coin.
Quite a quandry. Founding fathers could identify redcoats.

But just for devils advocacy sake (because I truly want to see these inherently depraved bastards fry and fry well) the founding fathers couldn't on sight tell a mass murder on the street from the next person and yet they still argued for due process for these kinds of monsters.

The fact that the executive is instructing the senate to do their damn job and resolve ambiguities and update the UCMJ as they are instructed by the constitution. To do it lest the executive and by extension the military are required to interpret the mandate is a good thing. You may want to be argue that the executive is trying its best to give as much wiggle room as possible, but hey thats the nature of negotiation now isn't it?

There is however issue of continuing practices of holding prisoners even after SCOTUS judgment, but realistically what is the course of action that should be taken considering the military tribunal route in its present form is kyboshed. It would seem that SCOTUS has instructed Congress they need to advise and are unwilling to do so. Arguing the President is taking a hard line is no different than arguing Congress is taking a soft line. At the end of the day SCOTUS has said something needs to be done and damnded if both branches better start crackin on it and stop the flippin rhetoric. That means you too NYT. Its a process damn it.

[SlowwHand]

"Founding fathers could identify redcoats."

Yepper. It is a problem. Either way that's taken, going to get dirty.

[Victor Galis]

So... I'm just thinking. If the goal of the terrorists is to terrorize us to achieve their ends, and Bush is fear-mongering, isn't he supporting the terrorists?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are either with us or with my Administration.

[Velociryx]

Victor, for all intents and purposes, Bush IS a terrorist, and he's far more effective than OBL ever *dreamed* of being.

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

What's your suggestion? I sit here and see you being critical. What's your plan?
What are you actually for in the world?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. "
- Friedrich Nietzsche

This quote was much funnier the way that Russian dude said it. "In Soviet Russia, abyss stare into you!" Yeah, baby.

[Velociryx]

Not sure who your question was directed at, Sloww, but I'll take a stab at answering it nonetheless.

Right now, I'm in the "genuinely and royally p*ssed off" stage. I don't have any firm plans, and even if I did, I'm no politician, and have no means of implementing any proposals I might dream up.

What I *do* know is this. The country I was born in is better than this President is doing his level best to make us.

We CAN live up to the ideals we were founded on...hell, we could at least TRY, which we're not doing at present.

And we should.

They're good ideals. They're noble ideals. They are WORTH something.

So's our Constitution, which Shrub seems to want to treat with about as much respect as toilet paper.

He's a criminal.

A thug in a suit.

Arrest him, for starters.

Begin impeachment proceedings.

Close the secret prisons and start acting like the "good guys" we keep claiming to be.

That'd be a good beginning.

-=Vel=-