|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: On this day, let us all be proud of America | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Imo, the military knows better who's innocent and who's not.
Ah yes, let's trust the military. Here's an idea. If they know better over who is innocent and who is guilty, why not just let them be in charge of the entire US court system. Better yet, since they know who is guilty, why not just toss out the court system?
What would be the military's motivation for rounding up innocents?
What would be the motive of a southern justice system convicting an innocent black for the crime of a white man? How do you know the black man is innocent? Do the NAACP or the ACLU have documentation proving this? You know, there's this concept that you may have heard of. Innocent until proven guilty. You do not have to show proof of innocence (unless, of course, the evidence of guilt is quite good). You have to show proof of guilt. Why do you presume the detainees held at Gitmo and the other secret and not-so secret prisons as guilty? Hardly any of them have been brought to trial to have the evidence heard, so how do you know they are guilty? How many prisoners each year in the states are wrongly convicted? How many have been? So the question is, how do you know they are guilty? You remind me of Bill O'Reilly, who just recently said that he disagreed with Obama. In Obama's inaugural address he said that{paraphrased} "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our liberty" and that we should not compromise our values to safeguard our freedoms. Good 'ole Bill said that yes, we do have to compromise our values to safeguard our freedoms at times. Um, you do realize that those freedoms are our values, right? You are so convinced that the terrorists want to destroy our very way of life, which includes this little thing known as rule of law, civil and human liberties, general freedom, our very constitution, that you are willing to destroy the constitution, our freedoms and liberties, the rule of law, to protect us. Well, gee, I guess the terrorist won then, as you managed to destroy the very thing they sought to destroy. These people may not care about the value of life. They may want to destroy everything associated with the US. They may wish for the entire world to follow their Islamic sect. Whatever their goals, their method is fear. And once you have given into that fear, you have lost, you have surrendered, given up the fight. I, for one, plan on living my life as I have, not giving them satisfaction of surrendering to my fear. As one last parting shot:Al-Qeada, for the most part, back John McCain. Seems they really don't like the idea of an Obama administration. Why is that? You're so convinced Obama's going to lose this "war" against terrorism. If he is, why is Al-Qeada acting as it is? This is largely rhetorical here, as I don't feel like finding the appropriate thread right now, and if one doesn't exist, I'll start it later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi Buz,
quote: You are missing the point. They are innocent until proven guilty. It's also a little difficult to know what people are guilty or not guilty of, before they are charged with something. What are they accused of? Being evil? They should be given trials. To do otherwise is to squander the moral high ground.
quote: Better than who? Better than judges and juries? how far are you willing to push this principle? Should all criminals be handed over to the military? Can we do away with jury trials? If not, why should some people get trials and others not.
quote: They seem to have employed a scatter-shot approach, taking anyone who had any suspicion attached to them. This, combined with a system of financial rewards for those providing info that led to arrests, has led to a lot of people being rounded up and shipped off to Gitmo, only to be freed without charge. It has happened already. They have effectively admitted to making mistakes. The question you should be asking is what did the Bush administration have to lose from admitting that Gitmo was a wash out? They could only lose by admitting their mistake. They had little choice but to stick to their guns. Obama's moves to shut down Gitmo, have been widely welcomed abroad, not simply by Muslim nations, but by many (if not most) of America's allies. There is a reason for that. The Guantanamo Gulag has been a PR disaster for the Western democracies as a whole and it has inspired more terrorism than it has stopped. Good riddance. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Imo, the military knows better who's innocent and who's not. *Blink* You did not just say that did you? wusha wusha wusha wusha... Ok, let's assume for a moment that the military knows best. What is so horrible about showing the courts at least some of the evidence proving their guilt?
What would be the military's motivation for rounding up innocents?
What would be the police's motivation for rounding up innocents? OH MY GOD! YOU'VE JUST STUMBLED ONTO ENLIGHTENMENT! Oh, how we are blessed with your enlightenment. You have me convinced. I now believe we should rid ourselves of the judicial branch. {/sarcasm} Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5435 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Just a heads up when talking about the government/courts/congress/president/military. If you get an idea that they (most/all) are not entirely corrupt, both financially and Judicially, there is millions of people out there dying to educate you.
I'll admit, I'm a little sore about this current election. I disagree with most of, well, everything about it. Point is, big brother is not all good. In fact, I'm debating with myself/others about whether even having a central government is fundamental in a country. I believe there should be laws, application of laws and a military defense. But these guys have way too much power, way too much agenda and do way too many, obvious, crooked things. Both republican and democrat alike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
homunculus writes: Just a heads up when talking about the government/courts/congress/president/military. If you get an idea that they (most/all) are not entirely corrupt, both financially and Judicially, there is millions of people out there dying to educate you. I'll admit, I'm a little sore about this current election. I disagree with most of, well, everything about it. Point is, big brother is not all good. In fact, I'm debating with myself/others about whether even having a central government is fundamental in a country. I believe there should be laws, application of laws and a military defense. But these guys have way too much power, way too much agenda and do way too many, obvious, crooked things. Both republican and democrat alike. So register Libertarian if you object to big brother. Personally I'm leaving after 22 years because they don't object enough IMO so perhaps you could restore some balance to the universe. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Buz writes: Hi Straggler. What makes you so sure that many of the Gitmo prisoners are innocent victims? The fact that in the vast majority of cases there is no evidence to suggest anything else. The fact that there have already been widely reported cases of detainees declared innocent and eventually freed (after years of false imprisonment). I also thought that you broadly accepted that most Gitmo detainees have committed no actual crime? From Message 179 Stragggler writes: Buz with no evidence and no trial of any sort how many of these prisoners are completely innocent?10%? 30%? 50%? 80%? 90%? How many do you think? Likely 99.9%. Out of all of the thousands who are considered dangerous having been encountered in this global war on terror there are a scanty few of the most dangerous at Gitmo. That's a given. So what percentage of Gitmo detainees do you think are actually guilty of terrorist acts? Or indeed anything else? On what basis do you make this judgement?
Imo, the military knows better who's innocent and who's not. What would be the military's motivation for rounding up innocents? In the same way that the military knew best as to whether Iraq possessed WMD? I was on the mass anti-war demo in London a few years back. Nobody believed that Iraq had WMD. It was obviously a politically motivated declaration rather than a purely military one. There is no clear distinction between where the government ends and the military begins. As such I no more trust the military to be always honest and correct than I do the government. With regard to Gitmo - I think the military take the same view to prisoners as they do to bombs. If a few hundred innocents get caught such that one valid target gets taken out then the ends justify the means. To some extent I don't entirely blame the military for this attitude. A soldier cannot do his job if he questions the morality of everything he is told to do at every opportunity. But somewhere along the line somebody has to decide what exactly it is that the military is protecting and where the line is drawn in terms of innocent victims and the compromise of principle. Are we fighting for our values and principles or are we fighting for survival no matter what the cost? Fear and compromise or determination and righteaousness in the face of adversity? Which is it? Because it cannot be both. Edited by Straggler, : Correct link error spoted by Huntard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2294 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
He Straggler, nice post. One thing though, this quote:
Straggler writes:
Likely 99.9%. Out of all of the thousands who are considered dangerous having been encountered in this global war on terror there are a scanty few of the most dangerous at Gitmo. That's a given. Buz with no evidence and no trial of any sort how many of these prisoners are completely innocent?10%? 30%? 50%? 80%? 90%? How many do you think? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Taz writes: Ok, let's assume for a moment that the military knows best. What is so horrible about showing the courts at least some of the evidence proving their guilt? 1. Throughout war history, the military does not aire in public, strategic info, much of which is classified in the national interest relative to prisoners of war. You shoot your own military in the foot by publicizing prisoner jurisprudence. 2. These are not American citizens having Constitutional rights. 3. These are not even legitimate soldiers identifying themselves as such. They are stealth terrorists whose goal is the destruction of our nation. They have nada regard for international parameters of warfare. 4. The liberal courts have a track record of sending many dangerous people into the population. 5. Why should the American taxpayers foot the millions of $$ it would require to grant these people the amenities of American citizens? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: The fact that in the vast majority of cases there is no evidence to suggest anything else. What are those facts, specifically. How does AI know? How do you know? The military would shoot America in the foot to aire it all. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
2. These are not American citizens having Constitutional rights Tiny point I want to make. There's this amendment, known as the 14th. It says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, if you are on american soil, you have american rights. It is not just citizens who are protected by the constitution and our laws. Subbie should probably clarify this, but Gitmo is leased by the US (indefinitely), and according to treaties, it falls under US jurisdiction. Which means that persons there (not just American citizens) have their rights protected and guaranteed. I suppose now you'll argue for the repeal of the 14th? Although, you could be like Artemis Entreri and argue that the 14th is invalid, but as proved in an older thread, that's a bullshit argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Imo, the military knows better who's innocent and who's not. What would be the military's motivation for rounding up innocents? I'll let the others, who have amply demonstrated how blatantly un-American this is, continue to deconstruct it. I'll just point out simply that your vaunted military has already RELEASED many prisoners out of Gitmo that it had picked up wrongly often after holding them for many years. And this was under Former President Bush. So if the military knows best, why did they already admit that they made mistakes and wrongly imprisoned people? Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What I find interesting is whenever a conservative is speaking against some government program or policy they yap about how we can't trust the gubmint to do anything right or to do anything well.
Suddenly, though, we are expected to accept that the government, without the oversight of a public trial, can be expected to correctly determine whether someone is innocent or guilty. Edited by Chiroptera, : typo Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Well, yes and no. First off, it has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. That applies only to the states and, as I'm sure you're aware, it's the federal government that runs the military. Second, obviously merely being on American soil doesn't grant one all rights that a citizen has, the right to vote perhaps being first and foremost among the rights that a non-citizen doesn't have. However, the above notwithstanding, you are correct in the sense that being in American jurisdiction does entitle a person to certain protections, regardless of citizenship. Now, exactly how that impacts on the Gitmo detainees is not something that I can speak authoritatively on. SCOTUS has issued a couple of rulings on their status and protections they are entitled to, and there have been several lower court rulings as well, I believe. But it's not something I've followed very closely. As I understand it, they are not POWs and not entitled to POW protection. (This, of course, is a completely different question from whether we should accord them the same basic protections that POWs are entitled to, if for no other reason than we are a civilized nation with respect for basic human rights.) However, merely saying they aren't POWs hardly answers the question of how to treat them. Historically, the US hasn't simply roamed the globe, grabbing people thought to be a threat and held them incommunicado indefinitely. If someone has committed criminal action against the US, we charge and prosecute them, Manuel Noriega for example. In short, you are correct when you point out that just because they are not American citizens, that doesn't mean they have no rights against the US government. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Buz
You have conveniently ignored most of the points made in my last post Message 171 Straggler writes: The fact that in the vast majority of cases there is no evidence to suggest anything else. What are those facts, specifically. How does AI know? How do you know? The military would shoot America in the foot to aire it all. Well what are the facts?
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/court-orders-release-17-innocent-guantanamo-detainees-u.s. writes:
October 7, 2008, New York - Today, for the first time, a federal court ordered the release into the United States of 17 innocent Uighur men who have been imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay for nearly seven years. What facts are present to suggest that all but a tiny minority of Gitmo prisoners are guilty of anything? Innocent until proven guilty? Does this mean nothing to you? Is no part of moral law sacrecanct in this "war on terror"
Buz writes: How does AI know? I have very little faith in what army intelligence knows. I have little faith in what the army intelligence thinks it knows. Throw in my scepticism towards army intelligence being confused with political desire and we have a recipe for which I have the deepest mistrust. Do you trust your government Buz? Where does your government end and your military start?
How do you know? All the cases brought into the public domain (kicking and screaming in many most cases) so far have implied deep miscrriages of justice.
The military would shoot America in the foot to aire it all. Answer me honestly Buz. Do you think the military are overly concerned with justice? Do you think that they care if 95% of Gitmo detainees are innocent? Do you think that the military honestly detained people on the basis of concrete evidence? Or do you think that people were rounded up on a "capture now question later" basis? Seriously? Honestly? What do you believe? Whether you believe that this was justified or not is another matter. But do you honestly think that the military care wheher the vast majority of Gitmo detainees are guilty or not? Fear and compromise. Fear and compromise, that is what you are indisputably advocating Buz. It is I, the morally compromised atheist (apparently), that is advocating determination and righteousness in the face of adversity. Principles in the face of expediency and compassion in the face of hatred. Surely this should be the Christian position? Go figure........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Answer me honestly Buz. Do you think the military are overly concerned with justice? Do you think that they care if 95% of Gitmo detainees are innocent? As a member of the US military, I take offense to these statements. Many military members including myself have the same (if not greater) sense of justice, the desire for freedom and democracy, and the sanctity of life as many civilians including yourself. Let's not demonize the military. The military is as good as the people serving and the people running the military. In addition, the military does many of the jobs that of protecting and defending our freedoms and rights that the general public cannot and sometimes will not do. With that, it is always to the benefit on democratic countries to not place too much power any one person or group of people's hands that is why the US and many other free countries have adopted a tri-branch government (executive, judicial and legislative).
Do you think that the military honestly detained people on the basis of concrete evidence? Or do you think that people were rounded up on a "capture now question later" basis? Unfortunately we as members of the military do not always have time on the field to determine the motivation of those trying to do us harm, so neutralization (sometimes in the form of deadly force) is necessary to prevent further loss of life. Only after the fact do we have the time and ability to try to triage prisoners of war and terrorist suspects to determine what should be done with them. The US military and many other foreign militaries are governed by many, many different rules and regulations from several sources including US & NATO rules of engagement and UN sanctions. The ultimate fate of terrorist suspects really is out of the hands of the military and really relies on the judicial branch of the US government (the military is part of the executive branch). Even though JAG prosecutes and sentances these POW and terrorist suspects, they do not in themselves create all the policies of how to prosecute and sentance these people. Unfortunatley sometimes I think the executive branch oversteps its bounds and treads on judicial branch terrority in this regard. Just my thoughts on the subject. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024