'Beginning of the end of America'

**j2k4** · 10-24-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by vidcc

Add to my last post. A number (not all) of the "enemy combatants" held at gitmo were people rounded up by "contractors" Some of which were Afgan drug and warloards for want of a better description.
What better way for them to rid themselves of competition than to hand over their competitors?

I think this post suffers from severe over-qualification.

Even if it were true, it might account for what, five detainees?

Even then, they're scum and riff-raff caught in the net; Afghanistan hasn't claimed them, so what?

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Very sensationalistic, though, I commend you for that.

**ahctlucabbuS** · 10-24-2006, 01:17 PM

I find it incredible that you can't fathom that there need to be procedures in place to protect the innocent in any decent democracy.

You just prove time after time that you're nothing more than a radical nationalist governed by fear and uncritical loyalty towards your nation; not constructive action.

**vidcc** · 10-24-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by j2k4

I think this post suffers from severe over-qualification.

Even if it were true, it might account for what, five detainees?

So basically you are for false imprisonment of the innocent and presume guilty until proven innocent.....except you are against any way of proving that innocence or even questioning the imprisonment.

Because if you are against those things and for due process for the innocent you have a funny way of saying it.

Yup you have reason to vote republican

**Busyman™** · 10-24-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by j2k4

Originally Posted by vidcc

And there in is something that seems to be lost in emotion.

Due process does not protect the guilty. It protects the innocent.

No one wants to give the terrorists rights...they want to give the innocent rights...

We had just a short while ago a case of a man arrested, suffer rendition to syria and held for about a year...... then released because they had the wrong person.

Your post makes the assumption that the person in detention is in fact a terrorist.

BTW American citizens can be labled combatants under this bill and have no rights to question their detention.

You recount one anecdotal case, then attach the rest of the detainees as situational adjuncts.

Neat trick.

What then would you do with a genuine enemy combatant, assuming you can bring yourself to countenance the possibility one might exist?

Busyman-why don't you sit this one out if you can't make sense.

Go eat a sammich or something.

Need an interpreter?

It's quite foolish to think one case cannot fit many.

edit: I see you have been exposed....quite easily.

**j2k4** · 10-24-2006, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by vidcc

The guilty terrorist can rot forever for all I care,

I merely believe what you believe, it seems.

We have merely lacked a suitable mechanism by which they might be found guilty or innocent-we couldn't trust the job to the World Court, whose reaction would have been to turn them loose, and instead try Bush, Rumsfeld and Franks, and we couldn't depend on international opinion to even agree they should be prosecuted.

We didn't move fast enough for you?

Blame the U.N.

As an aside, what if we had chosen, say, the courts of Israel as a venue for trial?

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

I find it incredible that you can't fathom that there need to be procedures in place to protect the innocent in any decent democracy.

What makes you think I have any trouble "fathoming" anything?

Again, where were you when we were casting about for a suitable venue?

You can't even grasp the idea of what an "enemy combatant" is, nor the ramifications of an unattached free-agent international criminal-that's what the "non-innocent" amongst these people are.

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

You just prove time after time that you're nothing more than a radical nationalist governed by fear and uncritical loyalty towards your nation; not constructive action.

I am certainly not "uncritical" of Bush or my government, but neither am I a loyal and unreconstructed acolyte of Noam Chomsky.

Sorry, Busyman, your post doesn't warrant a comment.

Maybe next time.

**Busyman™** · 10-24-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by j2k4

I merely believe what you believe, it seems.

We have merely lacked a suitable mechanism by which they might be found guilty or innocent-we couldn't trust the job to the World Court, whose reaction would have been to turn them loose, and instead try Bush, Rumsfeld and Franks, and we couldn't depend on international opinion to even agree they should be prosecuted.

We didn't move fast enough for you?

Blame the U.N.

As an aside, what if we had chosen, say, the courts of Israel as a venue for trial?

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

I find it incredible that you can't fathom that there need to be procedures in place to protect the innocent in any decent democracy.

What makes you think I have any trouble "fathoming" anything?

Again, where were you when we were casting about for a suitable venue?

You can't even grasp the idea of what an "enemy combatant" is, nor the ramifications of an unattached free-agent international criminal-that's what the "non-innocent" amongst these people are.

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

You just prove time after time that you're nothing more than a radical nationalist governed by fear and uncritical loyalty towards your nation; not constructive action.

I am certainly not "uncritical" of Bush or my government, but neither am I a loyal and unreconstructed acolyte of Noam Chomsky.

Sorry, Busyman, your post doesn't warrant a comment.

Maybe next time.

You just commented.

DUH!

Next time try not commenting if it doesn't warrant comment.

Oh and of course you won't comment since you have no answer for it. Your belief is counter to was America is.

Maybe you could start not looking so exposed by saying the MCA shouldn't apply to American citizens. If you say it should then take your ass to Russia.