NationStates Jolt Archive

For the past month or two, the United States government been basically arresting would be terrorist right at the planning stage of their attacks, or by using their undercover agent to expose people who want to pledge their alligence to Al-Quedia and Bin Laden, and to buy supply for a terrorist attack. I think all of those are good things. However, from the radio talk show host, I keep on hearing about how "liberals" are against the way we capture these would be terrorist, and so on. Also how when we have another attack, the liberals will be screaming why didn't the administration didn't do anything. I don't know about you guys, but I haven't heard anyone condeming the arrest and apprehension of these would be terrorist, so the statement seems alittle blanketed. What do you guys think?

He's full of shit obviously. The main tactic that "liberals are against" that is used to extract information is torture, and that's because the information isn't reliable, isn't admissable in court, violates international law, and no reasonable human being should do it. That's just the kind of person who thinks that anyone who is labeled a 'liberal' is wrong. No matter what their stance on anything is. Being liberal = them being wrong to him.

He's full of shit obviously. The main tactic that "liberals are against" that is used to extract information is torture, and that's because the information isn't reliable, isn't admissable in court, violates international law, and no reasonable human being should do it. That's just the kind of person who thinks that anyone who is labeled a 'liberal' is wrong. No matter what their stance on anything is. Being liberal = them being wrong to him.

Yea, I haven't really seen anyone come out against the apprehension of these would-be terrorist, so that's why I doubt the comments.

Yea, I haven't really seen anyone come out against the apprehension of these would-be terrorist, so that's why I doubt the comments.
Sounds like a Rush-ism. Who said it?

Sounds like a Rush-ism. Who said it?

Eh a guy who's filling in for the usual host who is much saner.

I would consider myself a "liberal". I do agree that there could be better things that could be done to arrest would-be terrorists, but this is the best that the Bush Administration could come up with.

Although what i don't agree with is his stance on several issues. One being the Federal Marrage Amendment and the whole putting phone taps on random American Citizens phones without proper authorization just cause he wants to.


But lets not open that bag of shit....

as long as the person agrees that the terrorists will get tortured for the rest of their miserable lives, I'm all for it.

Yea, I haven't really seen anyone come out against the apprehension of these would-be terrorist, so that's why I doubt the comments.

If they have committed no crime, then they have no right to jail them. You can't just jail someone for their beliefs.

as long as the person agrees that the terrorists will get tortured for the rest of their miserable lives, I'm all for it.
You must be hating life, then, since the Bush administration today said that Geneva protections (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12detain.html?hp&ex=1152763200&en=1099effbec671271&ei=5094&partner=homepage) apply to al Qaeda detainees.

If they have committed no crime, then they have no right to jail them. You can't just jail someone for their beliefs.

What about conspiracy to commit a criminal act?

That's a crime ;)

You must be hating life, then, since the Bush administration today said that Geneva protections (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12detain.html?hp&ex=1152763200&en=1099effbec671271&ei=5094&partner=homepage) apply to al Qaeda detainees.

Is there a date in the future it takes effect? I think there's like a 15 minute gap iin communications between DC and Gitmo..plenty of time to turnover the prison population.

For the past month or two, the United States government been basically arresting would be terrorist right at the planning stage of their attacks, or by using their undercover agent to expose people who want to pledge their alligence to Al-Quedia and Bin Laden, and to buy supply for a terrorist attack. I think all of those are good things. However, from the radio talk show host, I keep on hearing about how "liberals" are against the way we capture these would be terrorist, and so on. Also how when we have another attack, the liberals will be screaming why didn't the administration didn't do anything. I don't know about you guys, but I haven't heard anyone condeming the arrest and apprehension of these would be terrorist, so the statement seems alittle blanketed. What do you guys think?
same blanket assertion used when saying NEOCON this or BUSHEVIKS that or LOOKS HERE IS THE CHRISTIANS... or YET ANOTHER ISLAMIC...

yet no one will ever admit that they are guilty of making that blanket or using it.

For the past month or two, the United States government been basically arresting would be terrorist right at the planning stage of their attacks, or by using their undercover agent to expose people who want to pledge their alligence to Al-Quedia and Bin Laden, and to buy supply for a terrorist attack. I think all of those are good things. However, from the radio talk show host, I keep on hearing about how "liberals" are against the way we capture these would be terrorist, and so on. Also how when we have another attack, the liberals will be screaming why didn't the administration didn't do anything. I don't know about you guys, but I haven't heard anyone condeming the arrest and apprehension of these would be terrorist, so the statement seems alittle blanketed. What do you guys think?

What "radio show host?"

If you want to hear what liberals (http://www.airamericaradio.com) are saying, why don't you go and listen to them?
Some of them have been downplaying (relative to the administrations up-playing) the importance of the arrests that were made. They've been likening these arrests to pressing "attempted murder" charges on the basis of a policeman overhearing someone say "if he comes to the movie an hour late again I'm gonna kill him."

They've also been pointing out the many plots that Clinton's administration thwarted that never made the news because they never got to happen. Baisicly, those who are critical are just saying that it's Bush trying really hard to pat himself on the back for a mediocre job.

What about conspiracy to commit a criminal act?

That is a crime, but it's very hard to prove.

Eh a guy who's filling in for the usual host who is much saner.

Is it that corrupt politician who lost his job as Mayor because he was so corrupt? That's the guy who usually fills in for him.

That is a crime, but it's very hard to prove.

But it can be proven, it's just hard as hell to.

Is it that corrupt politician who lost his job as Mayor because he was so corrupt? That's the guy who usually fills in for him.

Eh the regular host is Jason Lewis of 1110 WBT, I don't know who's filling in for him.

You must be hating life, then, since the Bush administration today said that Geneva protections (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12detain.html?hp&ex=1152763200&en=1099effbec671271&ei=5094&partner=homepage) apply to al Qaeda detainees.
They also claimed that the Pentagon was always about following the Geneva Conventions. They just didn't feel like mentioning that until after the Supreme Court ruling.


They're so funny!