NationStates Jolt Archive

So tonight, I was having a debate with a Neo-Con, we were arguing about the government's size and power. I argued that the government is overstepping it's boundaries with warrant less wire tapping and that since they're doing that they can't be held accountable, which will lead to abuse by the government. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and NSA. Then I quoted Alberto Gonzales when he said this.

The fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme—

Which I believe was the Bush Administration way of side-stepping the fact that those imprisoned in Gitmo have not been arranged on charges and haven't stand trial. (Have any of them been arranged or on trial yet?) I basically argued that in order for the Government to retain it's respect, it must follow it's own Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which basically means that I have a right to be presented with a warrant when my phone lines are tapped, so that I may contest it. It also means that those being detained in Gitmo have a right to be arranged on charges and to a speedy trial.

My friend of course talked about "9/11", "Terrorist", and how we must think about Security.

I always believe that the day we trade in our freedom and rights for Security, we will lose both.

So what say you NSG, do you agree with my friend or me, why or why not?

I'm with you, but only because I like you better

My friend of course talked about "9/11", "Terrorist", and how we must think about Security.

Point towards the burning of the Reichstag and ask if deathcamps will be enough to placate the great god Security.

...
I always believe that the day we trade in our freedom and rights for Security, we will lose both.
...But you don't trade in your freedom. You trade in someone else's freedom.

But you don't trade in your freedom. You trade in someone else's freedom.

Well, the fortunate thing is that no one has the right to trade in anyone else's rights. Those may not be submitted to vote, and all that jazz.

Well, the fortunate thing is that no one has the right to trade in anyone else's rights.But that's exactly what the US is doing in Gitmo.

I concur. ATTICA! ATTICA! No but seriouslly. THe imprisonment of suspected terroists is silly. Yes. We need to protect the safety of the people but we must also do so without comprimising the integrity of our principles set out in the Constitution. Adter all. That's we're all about. Freedom and Rights and that.

"It's ok to strip freedom from This Guy because we're protecting the freedoms of Bob!"

Silly.

I concur. ATTICA! ATTICA! No but seriouslly. THe imprisonment of suspected terroists is silly. Yes. We need to protect the safety of the people but we must also do so without comprimising the integrity of our principles set out in the Constitution. Adter all. That's we're all about. Freedom and Rights and that.

"It's ok to strip freedom from This Guy because we're protecting the freedoms of Bob!"

Silly.

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights?

But that's exactly what the US is doing in Gitmo.

That's true, and while I hate to judge before all the facts are in, I would say that President Bush exceeded his authority. ;)

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights?

Yes. The applicable passages of the Bill of Rights begin with the phrases "nor shall any person" and "In all criminal prosecutions."

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights?

If they're a non-citizen we have no right to expect them to adhere to our laws.

Also, several suspected terroists who have been imprisoned in Gitmo are liable to be US citizens anyway. So. I don't suppose they do.

But that's exactly what the US is doing in Gitmo.

The US has said one thing and done something else pretty much all the time since WW2.

I absolutely abhor the Gitmo situation, imho the US public should hand over Bush, his cabinet and his advisors to the ICC immediatly. (and i don't care that the US hasn't ratified is, thats just one more symptom of the US' unwillingness to actually cooperate with anybody else)

So tonight,(....) a speedy trial.?

Or POW status. Or some status which allows them be detained, tried, possibly jailed under some method which would meet certain standards of fairness. Not possible now, of course, as they've fucked the whole thing up.


My friend of course talked about "9/11", "Terrorist", and how we must think about Security.
You'll get a lot of that in the opening exchanges. Round 2 sees more 'Why do u hate freedom' oriented arguments....



So what say you NSG, do you agree with my friend or me, why or why not?

You are correct sir.

You did the right thing. good man.

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights?

Yes. If they are expected to abide by the laws of the State, then in return they can expect to benefit from the security it's laws provide them.

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights?

Yes.

Well, the fortunate thing is that no one has the right to trade in anyone else's rights.
What sort of trade would you get if we could? Hopefully a deep-fried mars bar or a plasma-screen telly.
something useful like that.

I agree. Did you, by any chance, get that from Jefferson? I call plagurism!;)

So tonight, I ...

...I have a right to be presented with a warrant when my phone lines are tapped, so that I may contest it. It also means that those being detained in Gitmo have a right to be arranged on charges and to a speedy trial.

My friend of course talked about "9/11", "Terrorist", and how we must think about Security.

I always believe that the day we trade in our freedom and rights for Security, we will lose both.

So what say you NSG, do you agree with my friend or me, why or why not?

I'm afraid that I must agree with your friend. But only because they have not been given a fair reporting, the Wilgrove media is biased I tell ya!

Get your friend on here. Now!

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights?Depends on whether you consider the Declaration of Independence a worthless scrap of paper or not. For those that consider it meaningful, yes, even non-citizens are included in the collective category of "all men".

I have a prediction for 2009. After the Democrats get in, and they are, the Republicans will suddenly get much more concerned about potential abuses of warrentless wiretaps and overseas detention of "terrorists" without evidence.

I have a prediction for 2009. After the Democrats get in, and they are, the Republicans will suddenly get much more concerned about potential abuses of warrentless wiretaps and overseas detention of "terrorists" without evidence.

A point which will be moot, seeing as Democrats are that much more likely to respect people's rights.

What sort of trade would you get if we could? Hopefully a deep-fried mars bar or a plasma-screen telly.
something useful like that.

Even better -- we get Security! :p

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights?

Yes. The Bill of Rights applied to EVERYBODY or it applies to nobody.

Think about it. If we decide to codify the idea that these rights are for citizens ONLY, then what's to stop the Government from revoking one's citizenship as a pretext to ignoring their rights?

Does that also mean that forign nationals on U.S. soil are not entitled to the same protections as the U.S. citizens here?

A point which will be moot, seeing as Democrats are that much more likely to respect people's rights.

I find your lack of cynicism disturbing.

I find your lack of cynicism disturbing.

Indeed. The Democratic Party talks a good game about respecting this and that, and then votes to support Bush and keep his game going.

Well... it wouldnt be the first time that the USA wants to have special rights only for its citizens...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Bad_Neighbors.html

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights?

yes.

This has been another edition of "brief answers to stupid questions"

So tonight, I was having a debate with a Neo-Con, we were arguing about the government's size and power. I argued that the government is overstepping it's boundaries with warrant less wire tapping and that since they're doing that they can't be held accountable, which will lead to abuse by the government. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and NSA. Then I quoted Alberto Gonzales when he said this.



Which I believe was the Bush Administration way of side-stepping the fact that those imprisoned in Gitmo have not been arranged on charges and haven't stand trial. (Have any of them been arranged or on trial yet?) I basically argued that in order for the Government to retain it's respect, it must follow it's own Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which basically means that I have a right to be presented with a warrant when my phone lines are tapped, so that I may contest it. It also means that those being detained in Gitmo have a right to be arranged on charges and to a speedy trial.

My friend of course talked about "9/11", "Terrorist", and how we must think about Security.

I always believe that the day we trade in our freedom and rights for Security, we will lose both.

So what say you NSG, do you agree with my friend or me, why or why not?

Even I, who has always been a neo-con, oppose any reduction of civil liberties. However, I am not sure that anyone has a right to contest a warrant for a wiretap or any kind of search warrant before the lines are tapped or anything is searched and seized. You have the right to have a judge determine if one is necessary and some limited rights to challenge that decision after the fact. You have exclusionary powers in terms of evidence that was taken as a fruit of the poisonous tree. You do not have the right, nor should you have the right to challenge a search and seizure of any kind prior to the search and seizure.

You defended those imprisoned in Gitmo...




...and all you got was a stinkin' jumpsuit?

You defended those imprisoned in Gitmo...




...and all you got was a stinkin' jumpsuit?
But... but it's orange!

But if the person is a non-citizen do they have rights? Meh, I was going to answer this all smart-like but was beaten to the punch by:
Depends on whether you consider the Declaration of Independence a worthless scrap of paper or not. For those that consider it meaningful, yes, even non-citizens are included in the collective category of "all men".
But, yes, certain rights and principles in US law are extended to all people, regardless of citizenship.
I absolutely abhor the Gitmo situation, imho the US public should hand over Bush, his cabinet and his advisors to the ICC immediatly. (and i don't care that the US hasn't ratified is, thats just one more symptom of the US' unwillingness to actually cooperate with anybody else)
This is a bit silly. International Law is founded mostly upon treaty law and the US has not participated in the Rome Statute that would obligate it to the ICC. Also, there'd be a question of if the ICC would even have jurisdiction (assuming we were suddenly signatories) as, iirc, it was enacted in 2004 and has no retroactive power.

But... but it's orange!Nobody looks good in orange (no matter how religious) ...

But... but it's orange!

Damn you! :mad:





I can't make a rhyme of your post :(

You are completely right, as far as I can see.

Keep up the good fight, and debate those dumb Neo-cons into the ground.:D

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

He, also, suspended habeas corpus.

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

He, also, suspended habeas corpus.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said that he who trades freedom for security neither deserves nor gets either one.

He, also, discovered electricity. I'm more proud of my guy.

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."



Jefferson.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said that he who trades freedom for security neither deserves nor gets either one.

He, also, discovered electricity. I'm more proud of my guy.

I agree with Mr. Franklin. I'd rather have Freedom than Security any day.

With Freedom, I can take Security into my own hands! :D

Jefferson.

I don't think he also said it'd be okay to ignore it and sell the soul of America for the illusion of safety though.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said that he who trades freedom for security neither deserves nor gets either one.

He, also, discovered electricity. I'm more proud of my guy.


You would be.

You would be.

You will tell me what you mean by this.

NOW.

He, also, discovered electricity. I'm more proud of my guy.

He didn't discover electricity, he just researched and theorized about it.

Lincoln discovered top hats so there.

Click Stand;13673911']He didn't discover electricity, he just researched and theorized about it.

Lincoln discovered top hats so there.

Actually it was a Stove Top Hat *nod*

You will tell me what you mean by this.

NOW.

Why? Whatever conclusion you would draw would undoubtedly be far more entertaining.

Why? Whatever conclusion you would draw would undoubtedly be far more entertaining.

Because otherwise you'll be proven as a guy that doesn't speak his mind out of fear.

Something which would be par for the course for a person that wants to rip the Constitution due to it.

So, what is it that you're so afraid to say?

Abraham Lincoln ripped up the Constitution during the Civil War.

Although some people didn't like it at the time, we're taught that he was one of the greatest Presidents in US history.

It's usually never mentioned that he suspended habeas corpus, or forced the Maryland Legislature to vote to stay in the Union at gunpoint.

Then again, he was a Republican... But, you have to do something to free the slaves, and preserve the Union...

Abraham Lincoln ripped up the Constitution during the Civil War.

Although some people didn't like it at the time, we're taught that he was one of the greatest Presidents in US history.

It's usually never mentioned that he suspended habeas corpus, or forced the Maryland Legislature to vote to stay in the Union at gunpoint.

Then again, he was a Republican... But, you have to do something to free the slaves, and preserve the Union...

Even assuming EVERY SINGLE THING HE DID was good, which is a flawed assumption at best, the US were in a civil war. Not an outside threat. Or you're proud of everything your president during WWII did, up to and including the imprisonment of innocent Japanese-Americans?

Also, if you're claiming that the Republican Party back in Lincoln's time is the same as it is now, I have a planet to sell you.

Even assuming EVERY SINGLE THING HE DID was good, which is a flawed assumption at best, the US were in a civil war. Not an outside threat. Or you're proud of everything your president during WWII did, up to and including the imprisonment of innocent Japanese-Americans?

Also, if you're claiming that the Republican Party back in Lincoln's time is the same as it is now, I have a planet to sell you.

Ah, so it's ok during a Civil War for you....

Just wanted to know where your slippery slope began...

Because otherwise you'll be proven as a guy that doesn't speak his mind out of fear. Please. Nobody would ever fear you. You're a demonstrated Ineffectual.

Also, a nutball with about as much historical knowledge as reasoning capacity which, judging by the old Iraq thread, is none whatsoever.

No it's no wonder you're a bigger fan of Franklin, a guy who said one thing and did another, than Lincoln, a guy who did what he set out to do and knew that sometimes you have to be unpleasant if you want to keep things together.

Also, you probably call it the War of Northern Aggression. Or would if you knew enough about it to actually apply your own thinking to it. After all, it didn't have to happen. Lincoln COULD have just let the southern states secede.

Ah, so it's ok during a Civil War for you....

Just wanted to know where your slippery slope began...

Re-read my post: I said "even assuming". It wasn't right of him to do this during a civil war, but it's EVEN WORSE with an outside one.

Re-read my post: I said "even assuming". It wasn't right of him to do this during a civil war, but it's EVEN WORSE with an outside one.

And I said that in America, he is regarded as one of the greatest Presidents.

Recently, Hillary even said he was her favorite.

That should be a hint as to where she'll put the slope.

Please. Nobody would ever fear you. You're a demonstrated Ineffectual.

Also, a nutball with about as much historical knowledge as reasoning capacity which, judging by the old Iraq thread, is none whatsoever.

No it's no wonder you're a bigger fan of Franklin, a guy who said one thing and did another, than Lincoln, a guy who did what he set out to do and knew that sometimes you have to be unpleasant if you want to keep things together.

Also, you probably call it the War of Northern Aggression. Or would if you knew enough about it to actually apply your own thinking to it. After all, it didn't have to happen. Lincoln COULD have just let the southern states secede.

I have the world backing me up in that the Iraq war was a mistake. The world, the lack of WMDs, the facts, everything.

And he was, yes, wrong in abolishing Habeas Corpus.

Also, the US and the world would be better off with southern conservatives having their own country to wreck.

As for Franklin, go ahead and tell me what YOU know about him.

And I said that in America, he is regarded as one of the greatest Presidents.

Recently, Hillary even said he was her favorite.

That should be a hint as to where she'll put the slope.

1- I support Obama for a reason.

2- What, she'll suspend habeas corpus should the South try to secede again? Because that's the only thing you "prove" with this, and even it is iffy: You can admire someone without emulating them and even emulate someone without admiring them.

For instance, Stalin also suspended Habeas Corpus. Do you admire him? I don't, but if you do...

As for Franklin, go ahead and tell me what YOU know about him.

I know that anti-war ninnies like to quote Franklin as having said "there never was a good war or a bad peace."

I know that those people always then overlook the fact that 20 years after he said those words, Frankling proceeded to do everything he could to make sure a certain war dragged on as long as possible, and opposed any peace offer from Britain with any terms short of full independence.

I know that there's no such thing as a conflict where no "wrong" things happen.

I know that trying to wage a war in which no "wrong" things happen, is stupid and tantamount to surrendering. Always has been, always will be.

I know that the United States survived the Civil War, Indian Reservations, and Manzanar, and it will survive Gitmo, and any of the other crap you can throw at it, and still have a superior human rights record when compated to other nations.

I know that there are too many people whose thinking stops at "we must never do anything wrong", and never consider the consequences of "never do anything wrong" other than that it will make them sleep better at night no matter how many of their fellow citizens are losing their lives as a result.

I know that Osama bin Laden did not create Al Qaida and recruit the following that destroyed the World Trade Center by saying "look what the Americans did", he did it by committing atrocities against Americans and saying "See how helpless the Americans are, I kill them and they flail about ineffectually because Allah is on our side."

Ultimately, I know more than you do.

1- I support Obama for a reason.


Because you prefer style over substance?

I know that anti-war ninnies like to quote Franklin as having said "there never was a good war or a bad peace."

I know that those people always then overlook the fact that 20 years after he said those words, Frankling proceeded to do everything he could to make sure a certain war dragged on as long as possible, and opposed any peace offer from Britain with any terms short of full independence.

I know that there's no such thing as a conflict where no "wrong" things happen.

I know that trying to wage a war in which no "wrong" things happen, is stupid and tantamount to surrendering. Always has been, always will be.

I know that the United States survived the Civil War, Indian Reservations, and Manzanar, and it will survive Gitmo, and any of the other crap you can throw at it, and still have a superior human rights record when compated to other nations.

I know that there are too many people whose thinking stops at "we must never do anything wrong", and never consider the consequences of "never do anything wrong" other than that it will make them sleep better at night no matter how many of their fellow citizens are losing their lives as a result.

I know that Osama bin Laden did not create Al Qaida and recruit the following that destroyed the World Trade Center by saying "look what the Americans did", he did it by committing atrocities against Americans and saying "See how helpless the Americans are, I kill them and they flail about ineffectually because Allah is on our side."

Ultimately, I know more than you do.

No. You do not.

First of all, you have no proof whatsoever that torture, breaching of rights, and other things make you any safer. Indeed, there's proof that they make you LESS safe, especially torture, by keeping your soldiers busy.

Second of all, the Al Qaeda recruitment rates flew through the roof when the Iraq war started.

So, you don't know more than I do. I can appreciate that you wish you did, though.

Because you prefer style over substance?

No, because I prefer watching the US fight the war on terror with intelligence and respect to the law, and, yes, more effectively than either Hillary or McCain would.

But if that's beyond your comprehension, I will try and find some way to put it in smaller words.

For instance, Stalin also suspended Habeas Corpus. Do you admire him? I don't, but if you do...

Heh. The enture Soviet Union suspended Habeas Corpus for it's entire existence. Not a good record for the Left.

No, because I prefer watching the US fight the war on terror with intelligence and respect to the law, and, yes, more effectively than either Hillary or McCain would.


You should write for the Daily Show. This is some funny shit.

I thought you said AlQaeda and the Iraq insurgents were winning. That would mean that fighting without respect for the law WAS more effective, since that's pretty much all they do.

Heh. The enture Soviet Union suspended Habeas Corpus for it's entire existence. Not a good record for the Left.

Oh, but you FAVOR suspending habeas corpus, remember?

Also, so did all the RIGHT-WING dictatorships in Latin America. Not a good record on the Right.

Now will you keep using these tricks or should we argue seriously?

You should write for the Daily Show. This is some funny shit.

Well, considering that they usually are right on many things, I'll take that as a compliment. It's a shame you lack the ability to write for anyone but Fox News, though. If you become a better person, however, I might be generous and teach you.

Oh, but you FAVOR suspending habeas corpus, remember?

Also, so did all the RIGHT-WING dictatorships in Latin America. Not a good record on the Right.

Now will you keep using these tricks or should we argue seriously?

This isn't an argument. This is you throwing your poop and me playing hai-alai with it.

I thought you said AQ and the Iraq insurgents were winning. That would defeat your theory that fighting with respect for the law was more effective, since they don't do that.

This isn't an argument. This is you throwing your poop and me playing hai-alai with it.

Oh, I see. Because, apparently, CLAIMING that breaching of rights helps protect your fellow countrymen is enough evidence that it does.

Kid, listen closely: I have graduated from a language university. I know MUCH better than you what is and what isn't a logical argument, what is and what isn't a fallacy. You so far have only made baseless claims.

I thought you said AQ and the Iraq insurgents were winning. That would defeat your theory that fighting with respect for the law was more effective, since they don't do that.

I never said that. I said that the war was a mistake, that the war became a propaganda weapon for Al Qaeda, and that so did, indeed, the LACK of respect for the rule of law, all of those demonstrated facts. But by all means, let's watch you try and find where I said that.

Oh, I see. Because, apparently, CLAIMING that breaching of rights helps protect your fellow countrymen is enough evidence that it does.

Kid, listen closely: I have graduated from a language university. I know MUCH better than you what is and what isn't a logical argument, what is and what isn't a fallacy. You so far have only made baseless claims.

Do you know that this is the second different level of education you've claimed to have in the last month?

Do you know that braggiing about your education level on the internet is like bragging about your penis size during a Phone Sex call? If you need to, you're probabvly lying, and nobody cares or believes you anyway.

Do you know that this is the second different level of education you've claimed to have in the last month?

Do you know that braggiing about your education level on the internet is like bragging about your penis size during a Phone Sex call? If you need to, you're probabvly lying, and nobody cares or believes you anyway.

1- Prove that I claimed to have ANY different educational background than Language, specifically English.

2- If I wanted to buffer myself up against you I'd claim to be an American soldier.

3- You have yet to answer any of my points. Which goes to show that, whatever level my education is, yours is beneath it.

1- Prove that I claimed to have ANY different educational background than Language, specifically English. In the Iraq thread, you claimed to still be a student. Go look it up yourself. Now, while it's possible, this being finals week and all, that you're now a graduate, then you've just dated yourself as a tenderfoot, at best. Most likely with a single undergraduate degree in English. OOH. \

There's a pissing contest you'd definitely lose.


2- If I wanted to buffer myself up against you I'd claim to be an American soldier.

Nobody would believe that, either. Well, unless you were claiming to espouse the military philosophy of Gen. Arnold, or Cpr. Paul R. Hall. That might be consistent.

I don't know why you'd think that would be a buffer, though, unless you're getting too used to making factually-ungrounded assumptions.

3- You have yet to answer any of my points. You have yet to display a point that does not protrude from the top of your skull.

Which goes to show that, whatever level my education is, yours is beneath it. Sounds like a partial retraction. Good idea.

Tacitus, eh? he also said "Deos fortioribus adesse."

I know that there's no such thing as a conflict where no "wrong" things happen.

But don't you think that those who claim to be "better", actually should be?

I know that trying to wage a war in which no "wrong" things happen, is stupid and tantamount to surrendering. Always has been, always will be.


...


I know that the United States survived the Civil War, Indian Reservations, and Manzanar, and it will survive Gitmo, and any of the other crap you can throw at it, and still have a superior human rights record when compated to other nations.

And, also, a worse human rights record when compared to other nations.
C'est la vie.

In the Iraq thread, you claimed to still be a student. Go look it up yourself. Now, while it's possible, this being finals week and all, that you're now a graduate, then you've just dated yourself as a tenderfoot, at best. Most likely with a single undergraduate degree in English. OOH. \

There's a pissing contest you'd definitely lose.



Nobody would believe that, either. Well, unless you were claiming to espouse the military philosophy of Gen. Arnold, or Cpr. Paul R. Hall. That might be consistent.

I don't know why you'd think that would be a buffer, though, unless you're getting too used to making factually-ungrounded assumptions.

You have yet to display a point that does not protrude from the top of your skull.

Sounds like a partial retraction. Good idea.

Tacitus, eh? he also said "Deos fortioribus adesse."

No, I did not. Either you're mistaking me for someone else or you're actively lying. And YOU made the claim, so YOU have to back it up.

Also, no, it's NOT a partial retraction.

As for "Deos fortioribus adesse", you can be stronger without being inhumane.

And it's up to YOU to disprove any of the points I made. Which you didn't. Because you can't.

But don't you think that those who claim to be "better", actually should be?


Oh, sure. And we ARE. After all, we've not cut the throats of anybody at Gitmo. We've sent the majority of them home after a few years or less. How many captured US Soldiers have the AQ or Insurgents returned alive?

"Better" isn't "perfect." And we're so far behind the folks we're fighting on the nastiness curve, that we'd have to work a lot harder than Gitmo to ever have a hope of catching up. Ron Paul is more likely to win the Presidency.

You can't fight a clean war.


And, also, a worse human rights record when compared to other nations.
C'est la vie.

Meh, if you count the unimportant or the often-steamrolled, that's probably true. I'm sure places like Belgium have excellent human rights records. Of course, they also had to live inside Germany a few times. I'll take our place on the curve over, say, Cuba's any day.

Oh, sure. And we ARE. After all, we've not cut the throats of anybody at Gitmo. We've sent the majority of them home after a few years or less. How many captured US Soldiers have the AQ or Insurgents returned alive?

"Better" isn't "perfect." And we're so far behind the folks we're fighting on the nastiness curve, that we'd have to work a lot harder than Gitmo to ever have a hope of catching up. Ron Paul is more likely to win the Presidency.

You can't fight a clean war.



Meh, if you count the unimportant or the often-steamrolled, that's probably true. I'm sure places like Belgium have excellent human rights records. Of course, they also had to live inside Germany a few times. I'll take our place on the curve over, say, Cuba's any day.

1- Prove you can't fight a "clean" war, whatever the hell you mean by "clean".

2- I find it telling that you only compare yourself to the worst nations.

No, I did not. Either you're mistaking me for someone else or you're actively lying. And YOU made the claim, so YOU have to back it up.



Shit.

Take notice, because this is the only time you'll hear me say this:

You're right.

I have apparently mistaken you for somebody else.

No, go free Acre.

1- Prove you can't fight a "clean" war, whatever the hell you mean by "clean".


List all wars in which no civilians died and no atrocities were committed. Wars of the Cheeses do not count.

2- I find it telling that you only compare yourself to the worst nations.

Well, I could compare us to a fine, upstanding, OLDER yet less free and less developed nation like Brazil, but I didn't want to dig that low.

Shit.

Take notice, because this is the only time you'll hear me say this:

You're right.

I have apparently mistaken you for somebody else.

No, go free Acre.

1- Told you.

2- The country that needs to be freed is yours.

3- That you will say I'm right only this once pales in comparison to the fact that REALITY says I'm right.

Oh, sure. And we ARE. After all, we've not cut the throats of anybody at Gitmo. We've sent just over half of them home after five years or less. How many captured US Soldiers have the AQ or Insurgents returned alive?

Which makes how many imprisoned without reason?

"Better" isn't "perfect." And we're so far behind the folks we're fighting on the nastiness curve, that we'd have to work a lot harder than Gitmo to ever have a hope of catching up. Ron Paul is more likely to win the Presidency.

You can't fight a clean war.

You can. however, at least try.

Meh, if you count the unimportant or the often-steamrolled, that's probably true. I'm sure places like Belgium have excellent human rights records. Of course, they also had to live inside Germany a few times. I'll take our place on the curve over, say, Cuba's any day.


There's an element of truth there, I suppose, after all you can't be a world power without being a right bastard. However... concentration camps? The PATRIOT act? Inhumane treatment of prisoners? You guys are almost catching up us Brits! ;)

Why do you hate freedom, Wilgrove?

Why do you hate freedom, Wilgrove?

Maybe because freedom hates Wilgrove.

List all wars in which no civilians died and no atrocities were committed. Wars of the Cheeses do not count.



Well, I could compare us to a fine, upstanding, OLDER yet less free and less developed nation like Brazil, but I didn't want to dig that low.

1- So you define killing civilians as "fighting dirty", yet what you favor goes WAY beyond that. And you know it.

2- Funny. You seem intent on comparing my country unfavorably to Cuba because I dared to point out that your country is doing bad things by TORTURING people. Something the soldiers of MY country aren't doing. The people of MY country also don't claim that by criticizing the President one is being unpatriotic. And so on. And yet here you are trying to offend me through my country.

Which makes how many imprisoned without reason?
About as many as we've let go who we should have kept, because they went right back to the fighting.

Really, if they're supposed to be treated as POW's, they should be in the camp until the war's over, or a prisoner exchange is agreed to. Of Course, it turns out many of their home countries don't WANT them back, or just want them back to kill them. Should we let them return under those circumstances?

You can. however, at least try.
That's what smart bombs are for. Much better at reducing mistakes than those unguided things that were all the rage before the 1970's or so.

But if you start off saying "we won't bomb any place where we might hit a kid" all that means is that the enemy will move all his high-value operations into schools and neighborhoods. Heck, they do that already. Then they will act with impunity while your hands are tied.

That's called "losing."


There's an element of truth there, I suppose, after all you can't be a world power without being a right bastard. However... concentration camps? The PATRIOT act? Inhumane treatment of prisoners? You guys are almost catching up us Brits! ;)

Well, maybe we just need an Iraqi Ghandi to help us see the error of our ways. ;)

I hope they come up with one soon, because nobody fits the bill.

About as many as we've let go who we should have kept, because they went right back to the fighting.

As opposed to the much more likely explanation that they WERE innocent but then decided to, after years of unjust imprisonment, wreak revenge, with the help of the input from ACTUAL terrorists there?

TORTURING people. Something the soldiers of MY country aren't doing.

Hey, I thought we called for a moratorium on fibbing in this thread.

Torture in Brazil is widespread and systematic according to the ex-UN Special Rapporteur. Occurrence of police torture accompanies murder or effecting intimidation and extortion. Torture has also been widely reported in detention centers and mental institutions.

You want to compate Gitmo to, say, Abaetetuba?

Hey, I thought we called for a moratorium on fibbing in this thread.

Torture in Brazil is widespread and systematic according to the ex-UN Special Rapporteur. Occurrence of police torture accompanies murder or effecting intimidation and extortion. Torture has also been widely reported in detention centers and mental institutions.

You want to compate Gitmo to, say, Abaetetuba?

1- A policy of it is not made.

2- These guys, when caught, aren't seen by anyone here as heroes. As it happens in the case of waterboarders there.

3- As a matter of fact, yes I want to compare Gitmo to Abaetetuba. If only because it didn't last 5 years, nor did it happen to 500 people. And because the government acted on it as soon as the mistake was pointed out, which is quite the opposite of what happens in Gitmo.

As opposed to the much more likely explanation that they WERE innocent but then decided to, after years of unjust imprisonment, wreak revenge, with the help of the input from ACTUAL terrorists there?

By some of the statements of those who spoke after leaving, yes.

Do the research, graduate.

Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi - who released, went back to Iraq and detonated himself in a crowd of IRAQIS in Mosul (poor choice of target for someone whose intent was to get revenge on Americans, no?)

Abdullah Mehsud went back to Pakistan and orchestrated the kidnapping of CHINESE engineers (again, not Americans).

The list is longer, but I don't have the inclination.

1- A policy of it is not made.

Ah, yeah, that's what "widespread and systematic" MEANS. It may not be an official policy, but it's widely done and usually NOT punished. Far more widely done, and usually less punished.

By some of the statements of those who spoke after leaving, yes.

Do the research, graduate.

Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi - who released, went back to Iraq and detonated himself in a crowd of IRAQIS in Mosul (poor choice of target for someone whose intent was to strike at Americans, no?)

Abdullah Mehsud went back to Pakistan and orchestrated the kidnapping of Chinese engineers (again, not Americans).

So... You're using TWO cases as evidence for... Five hundred.

And for that matter, the fact that they were not Americans means nothing in the face of the fact that they wanted to strike at whatever they perceived as helping the Americans.

If only because it didn't last 5 years, Or wasn't reported for 5 years.nor did it happen to 500 people. No way to tell that. Your police kill a lot of folks.And because the government acted on it as soon as the mistake was pointed out, which is quite the opposite of what happens in Gitmo.I didn't know gang rape was a "mistake," nor have I heard any indication that it happened at Gitmo. Heck, even the alledged incidents of waterboardiung were not at Gitmo (Though I can understand the foreign media's tendency to conflate the two. They aren't generally very good.)

Ah, yeah, that's what "widespread and systematic" MEANS. It may not be an official policy, but it's widely done and usually NOT punished. Far more widely done, and usually less punished.

1- Give me numbers.

2- As opposed to the US, that MAKES an official policy of it, all the while people like YOU cheer the torturers on. So, again, what in the nine hells is your point?

So... You're using TWO cases as evidence for... Five hundred. I could use the case of the kid they released who said he wished he could stay, because it was so much better than where he HAD been.

Like I said, the list is actually longer.


And for that matter, the fact that they were not Americans means nothing in the face of the fact that they wanted to strike at whatever they perceived as helping the Americans.
Given the attack in Iraq, apparently that perception extends to everyone. That's indication of a serious pre-existing psychological condition. Clearly he shouldn't have been let go.

The latter one, by the way, publicly bragged about fooling the Americans into letting him go. So his intent was clearly preexisting.

Or wasn't reported for 5 years.No way to tell that. Your police kill a lot of folks.I didn't know gang rape was a "mistake," nor have I heard any indication that it happened at Gitmo. Heck, even the alledged incidents of waterboardiung were not at Gitmo (Though I can understand the foreign media's tendency to conflate the two. They aren't generally very good.)

Considering the gang rape was committed by felons, not by officers, and considering that breaches of rights take place in Gitmo and elsewhere regularly, with, yes, your support, are you one to talk?

About as many as we've let go who we should have kept, because they went right back to the fighting.

Umm... I'd like to see a source on this, please.

Well, maybe we just need an Iraqi Ghandi to help us see the error of our ways. ;)

I hope they come up with one soon, because nobody fits the bill.

Mohammed Ghandi? ;)

(Please, no rocks!)

I could use the case of the kid they released who said he wished he could stay, because it was so much better than where he HAD been.

Like I said, the list is actually longer.


Given the attack in Iraq, apparently that perception extends to everyone. That's indication of a serious pre-existing psychological condition. Clearly he shouldn't have been let go.

The latter one, by the way, publicly bragged about fooling the Americans into letting him go. So his intent was clearly preexisting.

So you're saying not even half of the freed ones are innocent? Because even half is a fucking big number, especially seeing as they get no compensation whatsoever. And YOU claim to be a "good guy". Heh.

1- Give me numbers.

According to Global Justice, in 2003, the police killed 1,195 people in the State of Rio de Janeiro alone.

Unofficial estimates show there are over 3000 deaths annually from police violence in Brazil, according to Human Rights Watch.

And that's just killings. Extrajudicial killings, obviously, are > torture.

2- As opposed to the US, that MAKES an official policy of it, all the while people like YOU cheer the torturers on. So, again, what in the nine hells is your point?

What you mean is that you don't have the courage to admit that it's a condoned activity. WE punish it worse than you do. Whether or not yor people generally approve of the police is, well, not reported here. Nevertheless, your position seems hypocritical.

According to Global Justice, in 2003, the police killed 1,195 people in the State of Rio de Janeiro alone.

Unofficial estimates show there are over 3000 deaths annually from police violence in Brazil, according to Human Rights Watch.

And that's just killings. Extrajudicial killings, obviously, are > torture.



What you mean is that you don't have the courage to admit that it's a condoned activity. WE punish it worse than you do. Whether or not yor people generally approve of the police is, well, not reported here. Nevertheless, your position seems hypocritical.

Why is it hypocritical, exactly? Did I make any claims that it's fine for us to do it? If we make a thread to discuss the police situation HERE, I'll be glad to: What these cops do is repulsive. It should (and, when found out, tends to) be investigated, and the responsible people punished. But this is GITMO we are talking about. And you see, the difference between Brazil and the USA in this point is that just about no one HERE condones what these officers do. Can you say the same about the US and Gitmo, and ITS torture?

So you're saying not even half of the freed ones are innocent? We don't know. Terrorists lie, and a system which is set up to give people the benefit of the doubt (like ours) gives credence to those lies when the facts cannot be completely determined.

And YOU claim to be a "good guy". Heh.

No, no I don't. Not me personally, in any case. Don't make that mistake.

If we make a thread to discuss the police situation HERE, I'll be glad to

It's your country, why haven't you?

And you see, the difference between Brazil and the USA in this point is that just about no one HERE condones what these officers do. Can you say the same about the US and Gitmo, and ITS torture?
If just about no one condoned it, it wouldn't be "widespread and systematic" It'd be as rare as it is here.

It's your country, why haven't you?

Gee, why would I not discuss Brazil in this thread? Could it be because we're discussing GITMO in it?

If just about no one condoned it, it wouldn't be "widespread and systematic" It'd be as rare as it is here.

Funny how you define "rare". Especially seeing as your President just signed torture into LAW. With, yes, wide Republican support.

Gee, why would I not discuss Brazil in this thread? Could it be because we're discussing GITMO in it? You didn't discuss it anywhere else, either.

You say you had a language education. Are you familiar with the maxim "Silence implies consent?"

Curious indeed, that you are so much more concerned about goings-on in MY country than abuses in your own.

But then, that pot has always liked calling this particular kettle black.

Funny how you define "rare". Especially seeing as your President just signed torture into LAW. With, yes, wide Republican support.


That is a lie.

So ... those sources then?

You didn't discuss it anywhere else, either.

You say you had a language education. Are you familiar with the maxim "Silence implies consent?"

Curious indeed, that you are so much more concerned about goings-on in MY country than abuses in your own.

But then, that pot has always liked calling this particular kettle black.

1- Because it never came up as a topic in General.

2- What? Consent that torture and lawlessness is bad? I believe it is. You, however, tried repeatedly to make a case that it isn't when YOUR country does it. And you keep lashing out at MINE for doing it.

3- The difference here is I don't SUPPORT the crimes of Brazilian policemen. YOU do support torture, imprisonment without trial, and so on, of suspects.

You might also be interested in knowing that Human Rights Watch has a list of U.S. State Department’s 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
which contains two countries which regularly use waterboarding.

Tunisia... and Brazil (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture/methods/stress_duress.htm).

We condemned it. So apparently, we're all hypocrites. YAY!

That is a lie.

Waterboarding is torture. Your president wanted, and signed a law that allows it.

So ... those sources then?

Dig back a few posts. I quoted two cases. There are more. You can Google the names, I don't do homework for other people.

Waterboarding is torture. Your president wanted, and signed a law that allows it.

That is a lie. There is no law on the books which permits waterboarding. The President signed no such law.

1- Because it never came up as a topic in General.

You care about human rights abuses all over, why didn't you START a topic on it? You do know where the "new thread" button is, don't you?

I believe it is. You, however, tried repeatedly to make a case that it isn't when YOUR country does it. And you keep lashing out at MINE for doing it. I'm lashing out at your hypocrisy, not your country.

I don't SUPPORT the crimes of Brazilian policemen. Apparently, you don't do ANYTHING about it, support or oppose.

So tonight, I was having a debate with a Neo-Con, we were arguing about the government's size and power. I argued that the government is overstepping it's boundaries with warrant less wire tapping and that since they're doing that they can't be held accountable, which will lead to abuse by the government. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and NSA. Then I quoted Alberto Gonzales when he said this.



Which I believe was the Bush Administration way of side-stepping the fact that those imprisoned in Gitmo have not been arranged on charges and haven't stand trial. (Have any of them been arranged or on trial yet?) I basically argued that in order for the Government to retain it's respect, it must follow it's own Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which basically means that I have a right to be presented with a warrant when my phone lines are tapped, so that I may contest it. It also means that those being detained in Gitmo have a right to be arranged on charges and to a speedy trial.

My friend of course talked about "9/11", "Terrorist", and how we must think about Security.

I always believe that the day we trade in our freedom and rights for Security, we will lose both.

So what say you NSG, do you agree with my friend or me, why or why not?

I agree when it comes to Guantanomo Bay, but I can't say I agree with the "if you give up rights for security you don't get both" ideology. The truth is, if I was starving, or freezing, or dying of thirst, screw rights, I want to survive. In the same way, if I felt there was a true, existent threat to my security posed by "terrorists", then I wouldn't mind certain government expansions.

However, the truth is that we don't need a slew of extra measures to protect ourselves from "terrorism", we just need to stop messing around in other peoples' business and to make security better. It doesn't require Guantanomo bay or any form of torture. The threat is for the most part constructed as well, so there's no reason to "trade privacy/rights".

You might also be interested in knowing that Human Rights Watch has a list of U.S. State Department’s 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
which contains two countries which regularly use waterboarding.

Tunisia... and Brazil (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture/methods/stress_duress.htm).

We condemned it. So apparently, we're all hypocrites. YAY!

And yet I don't support it. As I don't when the US does it. So where's the hypocrisy here?

And yet I don't support it. As I don't when the US does it. So where's the hypocrisy here?

You'll massively participate in threads and condemn the US for it, but you refuse to even take the time to start a thread when it comes to your own country.

It's kind of like complaining of secondhand smoke in public places while not mentioning that your wife smokes 2 packs a day while she watched the kids.

I mentioned two cases. There are more.

So you say. Prove it.

You can Google the names, I don't do homework for other people.

But surely you do your own?

This is your claim, you have to prove it. Otherwise we get to presume that you're... mistaken.

You'll massively participate in threads and condemn the US for it, but you refuse to even take the time to start a thread when it comes to your own country.

It's kind of like complaining of secondhand smoke in public places while not mentioning that your wife smokes 2 packs a day while she watched the kids.

So you're essentially trying to invalidate a point I make against a policy you SUPPORT by claiming that I don't dislike it ENOUGH when my country does it, even though I dislike it in both cases and you support it when your country does it.

Yeah, that's insane.

So you say. Prove it.
.

Abdallah_Saleh_Ali_Al_Ajmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah_Saleh_Ali_Al_Ajmi)

Abdullah_Mehsud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Mehsud)

Slimane_Hadj_Abderrahmane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slimane_Hadj_Abderrahmane)

Abdul_Ghaffar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Ghaffar_%28Guantanamo_detainee_-_not_in_the_official_list%29)

So you're essentially trying to invalidate a point I make against a policy you SUPPORT by claiming that I don't dislike it ENOUGH when my country does it


even though I dislike it in both cases So you claim now, when caught out. Your previous silence is more telling. Actions v. Words.


and you support it when your country does it.

No, I'm indifferent.

So you claim now, when caught out. Your previous silence is more telling. Actions v. Words.



No, I'm indifferent.

What, my previous silence about a topic that's unrelated to this thread or my failure to post about it in a forum that's chuck-full of Americans to a ratio of three people living in Brazil that I know of?

I don't support torture. You do. And your attempt to pin this on me just shows how desperate you are to shut me up at any cost, because I HAVE the facts by my side, and YOU can't say the same.

Wait a second.... Guantanomo Bay is still open?

Also, you probably call it the War of Northern Aggression. Or would if you knew enough about it to actually apply your own thinking to it. After all, it didn't have to happen. Lincoln COULD have just let the southern states secede.

Because we all know that the South shooting first, which they did, is a sign of Northern Aggression. Drown your persecution complex and do something productive with your free time. Please.

Abdallah_Saleh_Ali_Al_Ajmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah_Saleh_Ali_Al_Ajmi)

Abdullah_Mehsud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Mehsud)

Slimane_Hadj_Abderrahmane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slimane_Hadj_Abderrahmane)

Abdul_Ghaffar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Ghaffar_%28Guantanamo_detainee_-_not_in_the_official_list%29)

Wow, four out of over four hundred.

I stand corrected...

I know that the United States survived the Civil War, Indian Reservations, and Manzanar, and it will survive Gitmo, and any of the other crap you can throw at it, and still have a superior human rights record when compated to other nations.


Then you know nothing. But that's typical for ultra-nationalists like you. Able only to see yourself and your "inferiors", while pretending that nations with superior human rights track records to yours, like Finland, don't exist.

You are a blight on knowledge and truth.

If Gitmo was a NationState:

The Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay is a small, environmentally stunning place, renowned for being the only place in Cuba where human rights abuses are worse than the rest of the country. Its mostly Muslim population of 355 is ruled with the iron fist that is the US Department of Defense, with little regard of the qualities and values the Department is supposed to protect.

It cannot be easier to tell where the omnipresent military authority stops and the rest of society begins, because the “rest of society” is clad in bright orange jumpsuits now notorious worldwide. The average rate of the use of torture is probably 100%. Not even the black market can even exist here, let alone having any sort of economy.

Residents are classified as ‘enemy combatants’, which removes the rights they would otherwise enjoy as ‘prisoners of war’, the Muslim holy book Qu’ran is sometimes defaced, and torture is an official policy. Crime is totally unknown, except for the gross violations of human rights perpetuated by the US government, illegal under international law. Guantanamo Bay’s national beast is the US military, and its currency is gross hypocrisy.

Waterboarding is torture. Your president wanted, and signed a law that allows it.

This is actually incorrect. Vetoing a law that would define it as torture (as the US already has laws prohibiting torture) is different from enacting a law that would allow it.

If Gitmo was a NationState:

The Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay is a small, environmentally stunning place, renowned for being the only place in Cuba where human rights abuses are worse than the rest of the country. Its mostly Muslim population of 355 is ruled with the iron fist that is the US Department of Defense, with little regard of the qualities and values the Department is supposed to protect.

It cannot be easier to tell where the omnipresent military authority stops and the rest of society begins, because the “rest of society” is clad in bright orange jumpsuits now notorious worldwide. The average rate of the use of torture is probably 100%. Not even the black market can even exist here, let alone having any sort of economy.

Residents are classified as ‘enemy combatants’, which removes the rights they would otherwise enjoy as ‘prisoners of war’, the Muslim holy book Qu’ran is sometimes defaced, and torture is an official policy. Crime is totally unknown, except for the gross violations of human rights perpetuated by the US government, illegal under international law. Guantanamo Bay’s national beast is the US military, and its currency is gross hypocrisy.



Epic. Fucking. Win.

This is actually incorrect. Vetoing a law that would define it as torture (as the US already has laws prohibiting torture) is different from enacting a law that would allow it.

By how much?

By how much?



You said he legalized torture. Thats wrong. Its still illegal. The only point of contention is if it is torture or not.

It clearly is, but the Neo-cons army of Terminator esc lawyers are fighting this tooth and nail.

You said he legalized torture. Thats wrong. Its still illegal. The only point of contention is if it is torture or not.

It clearly is, but the Neo-cons army of Terminator esc lawyers are fighting this tooth and nail.

He still favors a technique that's obviously torture...

He still favors a technique that's obviously torture...

Bush's personal opinions are different from US law. You said he legalized torture. He didnt. Its still illegal. And as waterboarding is torture (no matter what anyone says) its still technically illegal. Bush is just ignoring the law.

Bush's personal opinions are different from US law. You said he legalized torture. He didnt. Its still illegal. And as waterboarding is torture (no matter what anyone says) its still technically illegal. Bush is just ignoring the law.

There are still people that will argue the same thing...

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

There are still people that will argue the same thing...

They would be wrong.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Thats awesome. Too bad its been said...several times by now.

Thats awesome. Too bad its been said...several times by now.

The guy tried to disqualify Franklin over it.

Typical.

The guy tried to disqualify Franklin over it.

Typical.

Franklin's irritating anyway. Quote someone better plz:p

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

He, also, suspended habeas corpus.If I'm not much mistaken, there's this bit in the constitution that prohibits that. Unless of course there's treason or sedition going on. One might argue that several states banding together, secceeding, and then attacking the Union would constitute treason and sedition.

Heh. The enture Soviet Union suspended Habeas Corpus for it's entire existence. Not a good record for the Left.That's funny, because I could swear there's been far more right-wing dictatorships around than otherwise. Not a good record for the Right.

It's your country, why haven't you?

Behold, the sock puppet and the red herring....

That's funny, because I could swear there's been far more right-wing dictatorships around than otherwise. Not a good record for the Right.

Depends on what scale you are looking at. It's never been sensical to me to have 'right' and 'left' wing dictatorships. It boils down to the same shit.