Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

Tell me which or our enemies has ever abided by the Geneva Conventions?

YEAH! That's right! No reason to set the standard for decency and what's right...much better to adopt the Bush philosophy of lowering ourselves to our enemies ethical standards...seems like the terrorists ethics are the same as some of the posters in this community...the ones who support torture and want to fight the terrorists without abiding by the international standards of ethics and principle....you know what I mean TOT?

 

[Joby]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

really?

the 3,000 dead people from NYC might disagree with you.

and dont start on how Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. you have no idea at all if those people at guitmo are part of the very same group that commited 9-11.

the bottom line is you are a hypocrite. you expect America to abide by rules that you do not expect the rest of the world to abide by.

ummm...yes. America should abide by rules almost nobody else does. We made a promise and we should keep it. We shouldn't have somebody defending the spread of democracy and torture in the same speech.

...OR, let's listen to the lawmakers that were POWs, were tortured, and have a first-hand view on the issue.

Besides, it's not really about al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is a man living in a cave somewhere cursing everything western. He has followers we need to take care of, but this legislation goes deeper than that.

It's about 20-50 years from now when every phone call is listened to, every criminal is a terrorist who has a following and can't see any evidence against him, and the state controls and/or monitors and/or influences every internet server in the world. Actually, they'll probably do things like make every text message published information, in which anyone with the technology can see. Ditto for e-mail, blogs (we're there) , myspace (oops, already there), everywhere your car goes (oops, did it again) and maybe we'll live to see phone calls.

The State isn't dumb. They don't want to work to find you. They want to make sure everything you say, think, write has to go through them.

Read what Huxley said 50 years ago about what it would be like, um, today. Then admit he's right. Then think about where we're going from here.

 

[Joby]

next time you're on the phone or internet say

bush is da bomb I'm so glad he's the president of america.

congratulations. your call has been traced.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

ahhh, it all makes sense now.

our enemies dont abide by it, but we must.

we dont abide by it, so our enemies dont have to.

yep. its all so much more clear to me now.

Yet another Republican in this community who is pro-torture and anti-civil rights....it's an epidemic around here!

A TRUE and REAL American has higher standards than TOT,ProudAmerican and Bush...but that's old news isn't it?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

really?

the 3,000 dead people from NYC might disagree with you.

and dont start on how Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. you have no idea at all if those people at guitmo are part of the very same group that commited 9-11.

the bottom line is you are a hypocrite. you expect America to abide by rules that you do not expect the rest of the world to abide by.

Here we have a poster boy for why America's standing in the world community has diminished so greatly.

Hard to believe that someone in this community would still write that 9-11 and the Iraq war are comingling!

Hard to believe that someone in this community has such corrupt morals that he would condone and call for torture.

Hard to believe that someone in this community has no idea what being American means....and that being American means that we set the bar for right...we do not lower it, ever...that is Un-American and anyone who professes to lower ourselves to "their" standards is no better than our enemy when it comes to morals and integrity...and that means you ProudAmerican...if you're pro-torture and pro-lowering the bar on ethical standards than you've put yourself on the same team as terrorists....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

YEAH! That's right! No reason to set the standard for decency and what's right...much better to adopt the Bush philosophy of lowering ourselves to our enemies ethical standards...seems like the terrorists ethics are the same as some of the posters in this community...the ones who support torture and want to fight the terrorists without abiding by the international standards of ethics and principle....you know what I mean TOT?

What I meant is that those Republicans who have come forward against coercive interogation have stated that their reasoning is that they want our captured soldiers to be protected by the Geneva Convention when the fact is that the Geneva Conventions have never protected our soldiers because no one abides by them but us.

Furthermore; it's good to see that you put your ethics ahead of the lives of American soldiers and civilians, I don't consider that to be all that ethical.

 

[aps]

This is the way I see it. We are morally superior to other countries, and the reason other countries look up to us is because of that. Ted Bundy, BTK, and Jeffrey Dahmer tortured people to their deaths. What did they get in return? The opportunity for a fair jury trial. This is what we do in America, and just because other countries would not follow suit shouldn't change anything for us. Again, we are morally superior and by stooping to their level, we take that superiority away.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is the way I see it. We are morally superior to other countries, and the reason other countries look up to us is because of that. Ted Bundy, BTK, and Jeffrey Dahmer tortured people to their deaths. What did they get in return? The opportunity for a fair jury trial. This is what we do in America, and just because other countries would not follow suit shouldn't change anything for us. Again, we are morally superior and by stooping to their level, we take that superiority away.

The people you listed were also American citizens and American citizens who are terrorists are afforded due process IE John Walker Lynn. Furthermore; never in the history of the U.S. have POWs (and I hesitate to use that term because they are not even up to that standard) been afforded trial by jury while the war is still being fought.

 

[danarhea]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

The people you listed were also American citizens and American citizens who are terrorists are afforded due process IE John Walker Lynn. Furthermore; never in the history of the U.S. have POWs (and I hesitate to use that term because they are not even up to that standard) been afforded trial by jury while the war is still being fought.

POW's were held until war was over under humane conditions. This is what distinguished the United States from Germany and Japan.

Also, If you read the Declaration of Independence, along with the Federalist Papers, you can get a window on what our forefathers believed, which is ALL men are endowed with unalienable rights. ALL men, not just some, but every man, woman, and child in the World. That God endowed all men with unalienable rights was the rationale behind the breakaway from England. These rights were not given to us by the Constitution, but the Constitution confirmed that these rights existed from time immemorial, and that NO government has the right to take them away. This is why it is called the Bill of Rights, and not the Bill of Privileges.

To the extent that we deny basic human rights for others, we also not only deny the same rights for ourselves, but we also deny the existence of God, who gave us these rights, and finally, we deny the whole concept behind America itself. That was the thinking behind what our forefathers wanted, and this is also the concept which has been betrayed by powermongers who will stop at nothing to see America, in the Constitutional sense, destroyed. It should come as no surprise that this is also what bin Laden wants, so each and every denial of basic God-given and unalienable rights to others, whether American or foreign, is yet another victory for the terrorists.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

POW's were held until war was over under humane conditions. This is what distinguished the United States from Germany and Japan.

Ya and the Muslim detainees being held are given specially prepared Islamic meals and allowed access to their religious texts; furthermore, your idealist vision of how WW2 was fought is just a tad bit naive we did not win by ***** footing around, after the end of major hostilities when one of Hitler's werewolves killed some of our troops with a bomb we leveled the entire town in which it happened. And if you don't think that coercive interogation was employed by the U.S. during WW2 then you're only diluting yourself.

Also, If you read the Declaration of Independence, along with the Federalist Papers, you can get a window on what our forefathers believed, which is ALL men are endowed with unalienable rights. ALL men, not just some, but every man, woman, and child in the World. That God endowed all men with unalienable rights was the rationale behind the breakaway from England. These rights were not given to us by the Constitution, but the Constitution confirmed that these rights existed from time immemorial, and that NO government has the right to take them away. This is why it is called the Bill of Rights, and not the Bill of Privileges.

To the extent that we deny basic human rights for others, we also not only deny the same rights for ourselves, but we also deny the existence of God, who gave us these rights, and finally, we deny the whole concept behind America itself. That was the thinking behind what our forefathers wanted, and this is also the concept which has been betrayed by powermongers who will stop at nothing to see America, in the Constitutional sense, destroyed. It should come as no surprise that this is also what bin Laden wants, so each and every denial of basic God-given and unalienable rights to others, whether American or foreign, is yet another victory for the terrorists.

Actually what the DOI said is that all men are CREATED equal that does not mean that they stay that way those inalienable rights CAN be taken away due to the person in question actions; furthermore, I don't recall hearing anything about captured Red Coats being afforded due process while the revolution was still being fought.

 

[akyron]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

CAN be taken away due to the person in question actions;

NO NO NO All prisoners should have the right to bear arms right now!
Give them all guns, a jack daniels, a good hooker, and western civilization will then be safe.

 

[danarhea]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

Ya and the Muslim detainees being held are given specially prepared Islamic meals and allowed access to their religious texts; furthermore, your idealist vision of how WW2 was fought is just a tad bit naive we did not win by ***** footing around, after the end of major hostilities when one of Hitler's werewolves killed some of our troops with a bomb we leveled the entire town in which it happened. And if you don't think that coercive interogation was employed by the U.S. during WW2 then you're only diluting yourself.



Actually what the DOI said is that all men are CREATED equal that does not mean that they stay that way those inalienable rights CAN be taken away due to the person in question actions; furthermore, I don't recall hearing anything about captured Red Coats being afforded due process while the revolution was still being fought.

You are dead wrong. Read the Declaration of Independence. Here is the relavent portion:

[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,

1) OK. We are in agreement there.

2) They are endowed by government by unalienable rights. They are not given rights by ANY government, but by their Creator - In other words, God.

Our forefathers recognized that rights come from God, not governments. Rights given by God cannot be taken away by man. Only privileges can be given or taken by governments. This view is reinforced by Federalist Paper number 84, which ironically argues against the Bill of Rights by stating that rights might be construed as privileges instead. It has seemed that this is what has happened - The Bill of Rights dishonestly being construed by our government as the granting of privileges, rather than upholding the Founding Fathers' argument that rights are given by God to EVERYONE. This is what we are looking at now - The usurpation of God's power by men. If you read Federalist 51, you can see again what our forefathers intended, that rights are not given by governments, and that governments are formed only to secure God-given rights.

Like I said before, you must look at the Delcaraton of Independence, and also the Federalist Papers. You selectively left out a very important clause from the Declaration of Independence which makes this perfectly clear, and you also avoid the Federalist Papers like the plague, because they support the notion that God grants rights, not governments. The Federalist Papers are important in that these ARE the documents which show how our forefathers thought when they were drafting our Constitution.


One other important reading from the Federalist Papers - Again from Federalist 84:

"To bereave a man of life, Õsays he,å or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

You are dead wrong. Read the Declaration of Independence. Here is the relavent portion:



1) OK. We are in agreement there.

2) They are endowed by government by unalienable rights. They are not given rights by ANY government, but by their Creator - In other words, God.

Our forefathers recognized that rights come from God, not governments. Rights given by God cannot be taken away by man. Only privileges can be given or taken by governments. This view is reinforced by Federalist Paper number 84, which ironically argues against the Bill of Rights by stating that rights might be construed as privileges instead. It has seemed that this is what has happened - The Bill of Rights dishonestly being construed by our government as the granting of privileges, rather than upholding the Founding Fathers' argument that rights are given by God to EVERYONE. This is what we are looking at now - The usurpation of God's power by men. If you read Federalist 51, you can see again what our forefathers intended, that rights are not given by governments, and that governments are formed only to secure God-given rights.

Like I said before, you must look at the Delcaraton of Independence, and also the Federalist Papers. You selectively left out a very important clause from the Declaration of Independence which makes this perfectly clear, and you also avoid the Federalist Papers like the plague, because they support the notion that God grants rights, not governments. The Federalist Papers are important in that these ARE the documents which show how our forefathers thought when they were drafting our Constitution.


One other important reading from the Federalist Papers - Again from Federalist 84:

lol so captured Red Coats were afforded due process during the revolutionary war?

Furthermore; the DOI nor the Federalist papers have the force of law for that we must go to the Constitution itself which clearly states that:

Amendment V


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Which obviously means that POWs are not to be afforded due process.

 

[danarhea]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

lol so captured Red Coats were afforded due process during the revolutionary war?

Furthermore; the DOI nor the Federalist papers have the force of law for that we must go to the Constitution itself which clearly states that:




Which obviously means that POWs are not to be afforded due process.

Nice dodge, but that wont work. We are not talking about POW's here. Bush created a brand new category, called illegal combatant, who not only have no inalienable rights, but are not even afforded the rights of POW's. So quit trying to mislead people.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bi

Nice dodge, but that wont work. We are not talking about POW's here. Bush created a brand new category, called illegal combatant, who not only have no inalienable rights, but are not even afforded the rights of POW's. So quit trying to mislead people.

POWs was a bad choice of words and Amendment V does not specifically mention POWs it only says: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."

And you're right these people aren't even due the same rights as POWs due to the fact that they are unlawful combatants because they do not fall under the categories described in Article 4 of the GC I'm not sure how you think this fact bolsters YOUR case; furthermore, the recent SCOTUS decision that afforded these detainees protections under Article 3 of the GC is a gross legal error in that Article 3 only pertains to cases of civil war.