SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Quaunaut, please note that I never said other posters didn't know anything, I said they didn't understand it. And, part of the reason they don't (or didn't) understand was because they weren't reading the right material (or at least it wasn't previously posted here).
This, of course, leads to the point where all the answers to your posted questions are available in the post I provided. If you don't think you see it there, check <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006" target="_blank">the Wikipedia definition.</a>
Seriously, I had forgotten how defensive you all get when people don't blindly agree with everything you say.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited November 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1572621:date=Nov 2 2006, 12:47 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 2 2006, 12:47 PM) [snapback]1572621[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Quaunaut, please note that I never said other posters didn't know anything, I said they didn't understand it. And, part of the reason they don't (or didn't) understand was because they weren't reading the right material (or at least it wasn't previously posted here).
This, of course, leads to the point where all the answers to your posted questions are available in the post I provided. If you don't think you see it there, check <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006" target="_blank">the Wikipedia definition.</a> Seriously, I had forgotten how defensive you all get when people don't blindly agree with everything you say. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, there you go again, throwing out things you'll say later aren't insults when its obvious to anyone who isn't an imbecile that you are insulting them. Try to not insult people's intelligence by claiming blind authority over them in a place of discussion. I'm sure many of the posters here had read what you posted earlier.
I think part of your very own wikipedia link said it best:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:
Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[21] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Immediately after President Bush signed the Act into law, the Justice Department notified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the Court no longer had jurisdiction over a combined habeas case that it had been considering since 2004. A notice dated the following day listed 196 other pending habeas cases for which it made the same claim.[28]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1572152:date=Nov 1 2006, 06:35 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 1 2006, 06:35 PM) [snapback]1572152[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The reason none of you <strike>understand what's going on</strike> are discussing this objectively with language that provides pros and cons is because you're getting your "facts" from a Talking Head that <a href="http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061008/D8KKIT900.html" target="_blank">uses "I hate Bush" rants to get ratings</a> on an otherwise <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702355.html" target="_blank">unwatched "news" channel.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What the hell does MSNBC's ratings have to do with what's being discussed here?
I think Spooge is getting his <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067" target="_blank">"facts"</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46985-2003Aug11" target="_blank">stealing quotes</a> from a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/" target="_blank">Talking Head</a> of his own
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1572844:date=Nov 3 2006, 02:57 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Nov 3 2006, 02:57 AM) [snapback]1572844[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think Spooge is getting his <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067" target="_blank">"facts"</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46985-2003Aug11" target="_blank">stealing quotes</a> from a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/" target="_blank">Talking Head</a> of his own <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I don't watch the dreaded Fox News. They spend too much time telling me that sharks are out to get me and that spinach and chicken will doom the planet. Well, I admit that on occasion I enjoy <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/foxnewswatch/index.html" target="_blank">Fox News Watch</a>. In my opinion it's the most objective analysis show on television. The rest of the channel can blow goats with CNN and MSNBC.
However, if it makes you feel better, you can continue to convince people that I'm under the influence of the RNC/Evil Rovian/Fox News mind control rays. I'm sure it will benefit your journey into the horizons of political discussion.
<!--quoteo(post=1572919:date=Nov 3 2006, 01:24 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 3 2006, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1572919[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Well, I admit that on occasion I enjoy Fox News Watch. In my opinion it's the most objective analysis show on television. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1572919:date=Nov 3 2006, 09:24 AM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 3 2006, 09:24 AM) [snapback]1572919[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> However, if it makes you feel better, you can continue to convince people that I'm under the influence of the RNC/Evil Rovian/Fox News mind control rays. I'm sure it will benefit your journey into the horizons of political discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let's get this back on topic. Why do you think this law is a good idea?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1573196:date=Nov 3 2006, 11:20 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Nov 3 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]1573196[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Why do you think this law is a good idea? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As it turns out, I'm not completely comfortable with this law but I do understand its necessity.
In the SCOTUS Hamden case, the Court found that the Executive branch did not have the legal authority to establish military tribunals for unlawful enemy combatants. So, this law was written to establish that authority. By doing so, it is meant to appease those who have been crying out for enemies collected on the battlefield, such as those in Guantanamo, to receive their day in court.
Of course, for the critics, this isn't good enough. They would prefer the use of civilian courts due to their openness. Therein lies one of the problems - disclosure of information that could prevent future attacks.
These cases will take immeasurable amounts of time and money to facilitate with little doubt to the outcome in most events. Imagine the circus it would be if they were all televised in civilian courts (OJ Simpson anyone?).
Personally, I fall into the same bracket as I assume many of you do in regards to the Conflict in Iraq and Afganistan - clear dissaproval of the handling by the White House. I am rather certain, however, that we do not agree in why we disapprove. You see, I'm in the camp (much larger than you'd guess I'm sure) that says we're being way too soft out there. Most of the scum in Gitmo should have been cut down in the field. There should be little need for these tribunals and we should be getting on with the rearranging of backsides.
The critics are right when they say that Bush & Co. are acting schizophrenic in their approach to the battle with Islamofascists. They've criticized Clinton for treating it like a police or legal action and now this administration is falling into the same fate.
I have read more than enough stories to know that propping these human waste bags up in courts will do nothing to intimidate or reduce the pure hate that flows freely through extremist mosques around the planet. We need to get as much info as we can from them and toss them out with the rest of the garbage.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
Problem is, if thats what they wanted to do: Why allow it to happen to US citizens as well? Why not put it to only non-US citizens, or those who attack, physically, American troops? Why be so vague as to make it easily comparable to anyone in country?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1573207:date=Nov 4 2006, 01:25 AM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 4 2006, 01:25 AM) [snapback]1573207[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> These cases will take immeasurable amounts of time and money to facilitate with little doubt to the outcome in most events. Imagine the circus it would be if they were all televised in civilian courts (OJ Simpson anyone?).
Personally, I fall into the same bracket as I assume many of you do in regards to the Conflict in Iraq and Afganistan - clear dissaproval of the handling by the White House. I am rather certain, however, that we do not agree in why we disapprove. You see, I'm in the camp (much larger than you'd guess I'm sure) that says we're being way too soft out there. Most of the scum in Gitmo should have been cut down in the field. There should be little need for these tribunals and we should be getting on with the rearranging of backsides.
The critics are right when they say that Bush & Co. are acting schizophrenic in their approach to the battle with Islamofascists. They've criticized Clinton for treating it like a police or legal action and now this administration is falling into the same fate.
I have read more than enough stories to know that propping these human waste bags up in courts will do nothing to intimidate or reduce the pure hate that flows freely through extremist mosques around the planet. We need to get as much info as we can from them and toss them out with the rest of the garbage. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You refer to these people as "scum" and "human waste bags." It's no wonder that you are already convinced of their guilt. What do you really factually know about the people in there? Do you know how they were captured? Do you know what they are accused of doing? If you were concerned and wanted to know, could you even find out? I don't know very much about them myself, but I do know that some of them are <a href="http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAMR512011032003" target="_blank">children</a>, and that's enough information to give me pause, and to make me want an open process.
Did it ever occur to you that some of the people in Guantanamo Bay might simply be patriots like yourself, dutifully protecting their country from a foreign invader? or that they simply might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
I trust the US military to make the decision in the field. I do not trust the CIA or the State Department to make a valuable decision.
Their definition of a "child" is very different from ours.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030130/ai_n9681755" target="_blank">Boys rescued from Kenya's Islamic school of torture</a> Independent, The (London), Jan 30, 2003 by Declan Walsh in Nairobi
ELEVEN TEENAGE boys have been rescued from an Islamic correction centre in Nairobi where they were chained, tortured, and indoctrinated with violent anti-Christian ideas. Armed police raided the Islamic school (or madrassah) in a rundown Nairobi neighbourhood after Guleed Ahmed, a 16-year-old from Leicester, faked an illness to escape and raise the alarm.
Inside they found 10 other boys, from Kenya, Sweden and Ethiopia, chained by their hands and feet and confined to a dark, foul- smelling room.
"It was really terrible," Guleed said yesterday. "They locked my hands and legs like this" - he clasped his ankles and wrists together - "all day, every day, even when I sleep. It lasted eight months."
Abdi Noor, a wiry 13-year-old from northern Kenya, nodded furiously. "Even when we go to the toilet, we go jumping," he said. "They would only unlock us at the door."
The school, the Khadija Islamic Institute of Discipline and Education, was in Eastleigh, a rough and dangerous neighbourhood dominated by ethnic Somalis. As police led the boys out last Monday, an angry crowd pelted them with stones, forcing officers to fire warning shots in the air.
But senior Muslims have expressed their abhorrence at the way the school was run, stressing it was an anomaly among thousands of well- run Islamic schools.
The headteacher, named by students as Mowlid Abdi Ahmed, has been arrested and is expected to be charged with cruelty. Fourteen other staff are believed to have fled.
Guleed, whose family lives in Britain but who holds a Dutch passport, is being looked after by the Dutch embassy. He had no documents with him and Dutch authorities are trying to trace his mother.
Relatives had sent the teenagers to Khadija Institute to learn about Islam. Little did they know the sub-prison conditions to which they were subjected them. Schooling involved study of the Koran, with some lessons in English, Arabic and maths, always with their arms bound in chains. Sport was impossible.
Meals were spartan and usually accompanied by a thrashing. "They cane you on the head, back, legs, bottom, everywhere," Guleed said. "How many times, it was impossible to know many. They called it `the medicine'."
He had been attending Babington Community College in Leicester before his mother took him to Nairobi last summer, he said. But when she called every month, the teachers would stand over the phone. "They told me if you say something bad, we will beat you up. You tell her you love the school and you're learning to be a good Muslim."
He finally escaped by faking a heart ailment and forcing teachers to take him to a medical centre, where doctors alerted police.
<b>Hashim Ali, 16, who lived in Stockholm for 12 years before an uncle enrolled him in Khadija last June, said the killing of Christians was glorified in the school. "They told us it's called jihad," he said. "They said if you enter a church with bombs and kill yourself, you will go to heaven." </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This war is not fun. It does not play by your rules. In my opinion, it's good that you are concerned about their rights and their welfare, but they do not care about yours (unless you include your removal of rights and welfare).
Whether you accept it or not we (the West) are fighting for our way of life and it will get uglier before it gets nicer.
But how can restricting your own rights and freedoms be the right way to fight "them".
Is "them" doing it a good enough justification to do it yourself? Torture is against international law, and completely despicable behaviour, is it right to use "them" as a reason to start doing it? Doesnt that make you as bad as "them" in the eyes of the rest of the international community?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1573299:date=Nov 4 2006, 09:39 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Nov 4 2006, 09:39 AM) [snapback]1573299[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But how can restricting your own rights and freedoms be the right way to fight "them".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My rights are just fine thank you. I don't call terrorists, I don't donate money to their organizations, and I don't plot attacks against the public.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is "them" doing it a good enough justification to do it yourself?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what "doing it" means but typically I don't use others behavior to justify my own, no.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Torture is against international law, and completely despicable behaviour, is it right to use "them" as a reason to start doing it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who said anything about starting to use torture?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Doesnt that make you as bad as "them" in the eyes of the rest of the international community?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "International Community" has their own problems dealing with these issues and they don't bother worrying what I think, do they?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1573280:date=Nov 4 2006, 09:28 AM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 4 2006, 09:28 AM) [snapback]1573280[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I trust the US military to make the decision in the field. I do not trust the CIA or the State Department to make a valuable decision. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why? You don't know anything about how they've made their decisions and how accurate they have been in the past. It's impossible for you <i>to</i> know. There are citizens of countries in there whose own countries grant them civil rights commensurate to our own. What gives us the authority to violate them? <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Their definition of a "child" is very different from ours. This war is not fun. It does not play by your rules. In my opinion, it's good that you are concerned about their rights and their welfare, but they do not care about yours (unless you include your removal of rights and welfare). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are making the same mistake Bush makes when he confusedly tries to conflate Iraq with the war on terror. The people that are fighting us are not a homogenous hive mind. In particular, there isn't reason to suspect any philosophical agreement between a member of Iraq's military and a member of Afghanistan's military. Even within Al Qaida I doubt you would find a homogenous irrational hatred of the US. Contrary to how he is portrayed, Osama bin Laden's opinions on the US are objections to specific aspects of our foreign policy.
All of that is somewhat beside the point however, because the US military no matter how careful they are, makes mistakes. You may be perfectly comfortable with denying a member of the Taliban civil rights, but I assure you, there are people in there who have never harmed an American. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Whether you accept it or not we (the West) are fighting for our way of life and it will get uglier before it gets nicer. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What could they possibly do to eliminate our way of life? That isn't even their goal. Their goal is the removal of our military presence from the land they classify as Islamic, and the withdrawl of our support from Israel.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1573376:date=Nov 4 2006, 03:38 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Nov 4 2006, 03:38 PM) [snapback]1573376[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Why? You don't know anything about how they've made their decisions and how accurate they have been in the past. It's impossible for you <i>to</i> know. There are citizens of countries in there whose own countries grant them civil rights commensurate to our own. What gives us the authority to violate them?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I trust members of the US military. Why I trust them is irrelevant. As for citizens from other countries, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_allies_dc" target="_blank">I don't waste much time wondering why they can't go home.</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are making the same mistake Bush makes when he confusedly tries to conflate Iraq with the war on terror. The people that are fighting us are not a homogenous hive mind. In particular, there isn't reason to suspect any philosophical agreement between a member of Iraq's military and a member of Afghanistan's military. Even within Al Qaida I doubt you would find a homogenous irrational hatred of the US. Contrary to how he is portrayed, Osama bin Laden's opinions on the US are objections to specific aspects of our foreign policy.
All of that is somewhat beside the point however, because the US military no matter how careful they are, makes mistakes. You may be perfectly comfortable with denying a member of the Taliban civil rights, but I assure you, there are people in there who have never harmed an American. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Originally, I agreed with you about Iraq. I was holding to the belief that "nation building" was bad policy and didn't follow the footsteps of our Founding Fathers. I was, however, greatly troubled by Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people and begrudgingly accepted the charge to his defeat. That said, after the fighting started our purpose there was smeared. Many of the decisions being made are causing more problems. Little to none of this, in my opinion, has to do with the military. If the war in Iraq was existing without any and all of the concurrent Islamic terrorism throughout the world, my perspective on it might be closer to yours.
I'd be curious to hear how it is that you <i>know</i> some of the people in Gitmo have never harmed an American.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What could they possibly do to eliminate our way of life? That isn't even their goal. Their goal is the removal of our military presence from the land they classify as Islamic, and the withdrawl of our support from Israel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is where you make the mistake of the appeasement mentality. I find irony in this quote. In all the reading I've been doing, it seems that land classified as Islamic happens to be the entire planet or as much of it as the Imams desire, at least.
It scares me how much the multiculturalist/politically correct dogma from Progressives has clouded the judgement and perspective of otherwise intelligent people. Islamofascists do not want to co-exist with us. They tell us this often but not everyone wants to listen.
Here's an excellent op-ed from the head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London:
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008181" target="_blank">Islam's Imperial Dreams</a> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked a worldwide wave of Muslim violence early this year, observers naturally focused on the wanton destruction of Western embassies, businesses, and other institutions. Less attention was paid to the words that often accompanied the riots--words with ominous historical echoes. "Hurry up and apologize to our nation, because if you do not, you will regret it," declared Khaled Mash'al, the leader of Hamas, fresh from the Islamist group's sweeping victory in the Palestinian elections:
This is because our nation is progressing and is victorious. . . . By Allah, you will be defeated. . . . Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you no good.
Among Islamic radicals, such gloating about the prowess and imminent triumph of their "nation" is as commonplace as recitals of the long and bitter catalog of grievances related to the loss of historical Muslim dominion. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly alluded to the collapse of Ottoman power at the end of World War I and, with it, the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate. "What America is tasting now," he declared in the immediate wake of 9/11, "is only a copy of what we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated." Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, has pointed still farther into the past, lamenting "the tragedy of al-Andalus"--that is, the end of Islamic rule in Spain in 1492.
These historical claims are in turn frequently dismissed by Westerners as delusional, a species of mere self-aggrandizement or propaganda. But the Islamists are perfectly serious, and know what they are doing. Their rhetoric has a millennial warrant, both in doctrine and in fact, and taps into a deep undercurrent that has characterized the political culture of Islam from the beginning. Though tempered and qualified in different places and at different times, the Islamic longing for unfettered suzerainty has never disappeared, and has resurfaced in our own day with a vengeance. It goes by the name of empire.
...
Whether in its militant or its more benign version, this world-conquering agenda continues to meet with condescension and denial on the part of many educated Westerners. To intellectuals, foreign-policy experts, and politicians alike, "empire" and "imperialism" are categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States. In this view of things, Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, are merely objects--the long-suffering victims of the aggressive encroachments of others. Lacking an internal, autonomous dynamic of its own, their history is rather a function of their unhappy interaction with the West, whose obligation it is to make amends. This perspective dominated the widespread explanation of the 9/11 attacks as only a response to America's (allegedly) arrogant and self-serving foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
As we have seen, however, Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining, in Zawahiri's words, the "lost glory" of the caliphate.
Nor is the vision confined to a tiny extremist fringe. This we saw in the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, in the admiring evocations of bin Laden's murderous acts during the crisis over the Danish cartoons, and in such recent findings as the poll indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.
To the contrary, now that this war has itself met with a so far determined counterattack by the United States and others, and with a Western intervention in the heart of the House of Islam, it has escalated to a new stage of virulence. In many Middle Eastern countries, Islamist movements, and movements appealing to traditionalist Muslims, are now jockeying fiercely for positions of power, both against the Americans and against secular parties. For the Islamists, the stakes are very high indeed, for if the political elites of the Middle East and elsewhere were ever to reconcile themselves to the reality that there is no Arab or Islamic "nation," but only modern Muslim states with destinies and domestic responsibilities of their own, the imperialist dream would die.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism" target="_blank">Islamism</a> is very real and is very much forcing its way into Western Civilization.
<a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ima061031mc" target="_blank">Did imam's sermon incite Van Gogh murder?</a> <a href="http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/newsupdate.aspx?articleid=1409&zoneid=4" target="_blank">IT'S OK TO KILL ######S - BRITISH IMAM</a> <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-on-an-extremist-islamic-mission/2006/04/22/1145344316019.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1" target="_blank">Wolves in sheep's clothing on an extremist Islamic mission</a> <a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1247400.ece" target="_blank">Krekar claims Islam will win</a> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wegypt18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html" target="_blank"> Statue attack fuels fears of an Islamist Egypt</a>
Whether it started that way or not, the battle in Iraq has now become a struggle to prevent another Taliban like nation in the Middle East. For our benefit as well as theirs.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1573414:date=Nov 4 2006, 06:15 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 4 2006, 06:15 PM) [snapback]1573414[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I trust members of the US military. Why I trust them is irrelevant. As for citizens from other countries, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_allies_dc" target="_blank">I don't waste much time wondering why they can't go home.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, its not irrelevant. This law forces the rest of us to trust them too, so you better be able to give us a good reason. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'd be curious to hear how it is that you <i>know</i> some of the people in Gitmo have never harmed an American. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The same way I know that there are people accused of crimes that never committed them. Even in the absence of any bad faith action, people make mistakes. That's why in a free society we have an open process to mitigate those mistakes.
Under the current system, who is accountable for someone being detained unjustly? The public would never know about it. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And this is where you make the mistake of the appeasement mentality. I find irony in this quote. In all the reading I've been doing, it seems that land classified as Islamic happens to be the entire planet or as much of it as the Imams desire, at least.
It scares me how much the multiculturalist/politically correct dogma from Progressives has clouded the judgement and perspective of otherwise intelligent people. Islamofascists do not want to co-exist with us. They tell us this often but not everyone wants to listen.
Here's an excellent op-ed from the head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London:
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008181" target="_blank">Islam's Imperial Dreams</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism" target="_blank">Islamism</a> is very real and is very much forcing its way into Western Civilization.
<a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ima061031mc" target="_blank">Did imam's sermon incite Van Gogh murder?</a> <a href="http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/newsupdate.aspx?articleid=1409&zoneid=4" target="_blank">IT'S OK TO KILL ######S - BRITISH IMAM</a> <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-on-an-extremist-islamic-mission/2006/04/22/1145344316019.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1" target="_blank">Wolves in sheep's clothing on an extremist Islamic mission</a> <a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1247400.ece" target="_blank">Krekar claims Islam will win</a> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wegypt18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html" target="_blank"> Statue attack fuels fears of an Islamist Egypt</a>
Whether it started that way or not, the battle in Iraq has now become a struggle to prevent another Taliban like nation in the Middle East. For our benefit as well as theirs. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You and that author are again making the same mistake I described in my last post. Militant Islam is not Homogenous. It is not a faceless force that operates like an alien body snatcher through the brown-skinned people of the middle east. It is just a word for a wide array of opinions, objectives, and values, some of which are reasonable, and some of which can be reasoned with. Read what Osama bin Laden has <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden" target="_blank">said.</a> There will always be radicals. What matters is whether they have the will and the capability to do damage, and most importantly, whether they have popular support.
Rather than invading Iraq, if we had stabilized Afghanistan, successfully negotiated a democratic Palestinian state, and pressured Saudi Arabia into democratic reforms, Islamic terrorism would cease to be a threat. Yes there would still be radicals intending to attack the US, but without popular support they would evaporate. If you'd like to debate current Iraq policy, I suggest we move it to another thread.
This is getting away from the original thrust of the debate however. Why is it that you think we should trust the military absolutely?
<!--quoteo(post=1573308:date=Nov 4 2006, 04:22 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 4 2006, 04:22 PM) [snapback]1573308[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]Who said anything about starting to use torture?[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The law you're defending legalizes and sanctions it.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1573429:date=Nov 4 2006, 06:09 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Nov 4 2006, 06:09 PM) [snapback]1573429[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Why is it that you think we should trust the military absolutely? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said <b>you</b> must trust the military absolutely, only that I do. I could care less whether you believe in their ability to identify an enemy or not. Frankly, it's none of my business what or why you believe something. If you want to believe that Bush and Cheney are running around with pitchforks trying to skewer unshowered patchouli rats for their own amusement, go right ahead.
I have faith in members of the armed forces for reasons that do not need to be discussed. Value judgements that you or others make on that will have no effect.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You and that author are again making the same mistake I described in my last post. Militant Islam is not Homogenous. It is not a faceless force that operates like an alien body snatcher through the brown-skinned people of the middle east. It is just a word for a wide array of opinions, objectives, and values, some of which are reasonable, and some of which can be reasoned with. Read what Osama bin Laden has <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden" target="_blank">said.</a> There will always be radicals. What matters is whether they have the will and the capability to do damage, and most importantly, whether they have popular support. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's see here - "Read what Osama has said." Okay then...<ul><li> The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. </li><li> The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy. </li><li> Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. </li><li> We will continue to fight you as long as we have weapons in our hands. </li><li> There is no dialogue except with weapons. </li><li> Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians. For as long as I can remember, I have felt tormented and at war, and have felt hatred and animosity for Americans.</li></ul> Sounds reasonable enough to me. Especially that whole "no dialogue except with weapons" thing. Groovy.
Reducing Islamofascism down to nothing more than cultural differences is enough to make Jane Fonda laugh out loud. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/20/nhonour20.xml" target="_blank">Burning 6 year old girls alive,</a> <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ChuhINPOA4UJ:articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/how-to-avoid-honor-killing-in-turkey/20060716085509990006%3Fncid%3DNWS00010000000001+Derya+new+york+times&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">insisting that your grand daughter commit suicide or be killed by the family,</a>, or maybe just <a href="http://german-eurabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/horrible-murder-in-hamburg-40-year-old.html" target="_blank">cutting off your wife's head in front of your daughters for being too Western</a> are just a few examples of how we Westerners need to reach out and realize that Islamofascists are just like us. Only, different.
The "brown-skinned" comment was a real clever way of tossing out the rascism hammer. Funny though, I don't remember mentioning flesh color.
<!--quoteo(post=1573450:date=Nov 4 2006, 07:29 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 4 2006, 07:29 PM) [snapback]1573450[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The law you're defending legalizes and sanctions it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's a <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109F7MVuY::" target="_blank">link to the full text of the law</a> as passed by the Senate. Please point out each section that both legalizes and sanctions torture.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1573497:date=Nov 4 2006, 11:40 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 4 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]1573497[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I never said <b>you</b> must trust the military absolutely, only that I do. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The law applies to me too. If you think it is a just law, you must explain why I must trust the military. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Let's see here - "Read what Osama has said." Okay then...[ Sounds reasonable enough to me. Especially that whole "no dialogue except with weapons" thing. Groovy.
Reducing Islamofascism down to nothing more than cultural differences is enough to make Jane Fonda laugh out loud. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/20/nhonour20.xml" target="_blank">Burning 6 year old girls alive,</a> <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ChuhINPOA4UJ:articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/how-to-avoid-honor-killing-in-turkey/20060716085509990006%3Fncid%3DNWS00010000000001+Derya+new+york+times&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">insisting that your grand daughter commit suicide or be killed by the family,</a>, or maybe just <a href="http://german-eurabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/horrible-murder-in-hamburg-40-year-old.html" target="_blank">cutting off your wife's head in front of your daughters for being too Western</a> are just a few examples of how we Westerners need to reach out and realize that Islamofascists are just like us. Only, different. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You missed my point. My point was that this <i>isn't</i> a cultural difference. It's a political difference. His grievances against the US concern specific aspects of our foreign policy, and not "our way of life." I'm obviously not advocating Osama bin Ladin as a paragon of moderate Islam. My point is that even the most reviled, radical, and despicable enemy of the US bases his resentment on our foreign policy, and not our culture. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->or maybe just <a href="http://german-eurabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/horrible-murder-in-hamburg-40-year-old.html" target="_blank">cutting off your wife's head in front of your daughters for being too Western</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't have a link, but I recall earlier in the year an Alabama woman smothered her 13 year old daughter in front of her 8 year old sister because the 13 year old had gotten pregnant. Edit: I got some of the details wrong: <a href="http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000629.html" target="_blank">http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000629.html</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1573497:date=Nov 5 2006, 04:40 AM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Nov 5 2006, 04:40 AM) [snapback]1573497[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]Here's a <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109F7MVuY::" target="_blank">link to the full text of the law</a> as passed by the Senate. Please point out each section that both legalizes and sanctions torture. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd love to point out the relevant section(s) (and I tried), but the bill is written in legalese, not english. I speak german, danish and english, but I don't speak legalese. I suggest asking a lawyer instead, they spent years learning to read that stuff.
I have faith in members of the armed forces for reasons that do not need to be discussed. Value judgements that you or others make on that will have no effect.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abu Ghraib... and more...
<i> Hearing testimony; U.S. soldiers took turns raping 14 year old Iraqi girl before killing her From Wikinews, the free news source you can write! Jump to: navigation, search
August 9, 2006
In testimony given before a U.S. military hearing, criminal investigator Benjamin Bierce narrated his account of how an incident involving five soldiers involved the serial rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl prior to shooting her. The hearing will determine whether four current U.S. soldiers have to face a court martial hearing; an additional former soldier allegedly involved in the incident, Steven D. Green, was recently discharged from the military and has pleaded not guilty to rape and murder charges in federal court in Kentucky.</i>
And yet the armed forces are worthy of absolute trust ?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's a link to the full text of the law as passed by the Senate. Please point out each section that both legalizes and sanctions torture.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it says so....ooooh
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how 'bout there too
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is where the president can determine you to be an unlawful combatant by way of a helpful tribunal that he sets up. there goes impartiality.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:
`(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so they can sit there as long as you want them to before you actually try them...force them to serve a sentence and then "oops" find them not guilty after 20 years.
I think that about covers it...I seem to remember something else about torture evidence being admitted, but I can't seem to find it. either way. bad law. bad bad law.
Oh and by the way, there's no over-sight, so as long as the president can shell out enough incentive(read: money) to a 'tribunal' they'll call anyone they like an unlawful enemy combatant and there'll be no one to dispute it no matter how long you scream from your jail cell in yugoslavia.
we most certainly have terrorists of our own in our own country, me thinks we are not so far removed from each other, I would like to point to Wako Texas as a possible terrorist act, how about the Hollywood shootout, not motivated by religion, perhaps the worship of money, still 'terrorists'. and how about these 4 americans convicted of terrorism in Vietnam whom the administration was so quick to jump to the defense of. why do they get special treatment over the islamic terrorists we've held for years without trial? double standard here me-thinks.
We hear about murders, gang violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, sex crimes, corrupt school officials, you name it, we've got it. I'm sorry, I don't see how we're all that different. every nation has its sociopaths.
oh, and by the way, here's geneva stance on torture:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pretty sure these people should be included in that.
I realize this, thus the reason for quoting the convention in the first place.
anyway, the torture issue itself is vague and a stretch(as you can tell by my quotes), however, the bill itself is very poorly written, and if you ask me, it is completely unnecessary.
The bill fails to provide any sort of congressional(read: lawful) oversight of the commissions, that's whats' scary, this means that no matter what the people SAY they're doing, there's no reason to believe that's what's actually going on. this is a top-heavy bill(top being executive branch), that simply does not need to be, and before you start pointing to situations like the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus during the civil war and the internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second world war, I would like to point out that simply having historical precedent does not make any act any more 'right.' America claims to be free, but, as with all things american, there is small print taking it ALL away.
<!--quoteo(post=1573222:date=Nov 4 2006, 12:21 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Nov 4 2006, 12:21 AM) [snapback]1573222[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Problem is, if thats what they wanted to do: Why allow it to happen to US citizens as well? Why not put it to only non-US citizens, or those who attack, physically, American troops? Why be so vague as to make it easily comparable to anyone in country? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They DID put it to only non-US citizens. I don't see why people keep claiming its going to strip citizens of rights, when the bill clearly states only aliens are affected.
<!--quoteo(post=1575481:date=Nov 10 2006, 08:42 AM:name=the_johnjacob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_johnjacob @ Nov 10 2006, 08:42 AM) [snapback]1575481[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> we most certainly have terrorists of our own in our own country, me thinks we are not so far removed from each other, I would like to point to Wako Texas as a possible terrorist act,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A little off topic, but the only terrorist in the Waco, Texas incident was Janet Reno. Just my opinion. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Comments
This, of course, leads to the point where all the answers to your posted questions are available in the post I provided. If you don't think you see it there, check <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006" target="_blank">the Wikipedia definition.</a>
Seriously, I had forgotten how defensive you all get when people don't blindly agree with everything you say.
Quaunaut, please note that I never said other posters didn't know anything, I said they didn't understand it. And, part of the reason they don't (or didn't) understand was because they weren't reading the right material (or at least it wasn't previously posted here).
This, of course, leads to the point where all the answers to your posted questions are available in the post I provided. If you don't think you see it there, check <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006" target="_blank">the Wikipedia definition.</a>
Seriously, I had forgotten how defensive you all get when people don't blindly agree with everything you say.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, there you go again, throwing out things you'll say later aren't insults when its obvious to anyone who isn't an imbecile that you are insulting them. Try to not insult people's intelligence by claiming blind authority over them in a place of discussion. I'm sure many of the posters here had read what you posted earlier.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:
Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[21]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Application
Immediately after President Bush signed the Act into law, the Justice Department notified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the Court no longer had jurisdiction over a combined habeas case that it had been considering since 2004. A notice dated the following day listed 196 other pending habeas cases for which it made the same claim.[28]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason none of you <strike>understand what's going on</strike> are discussing this objectively with language that provides pros and cons is because you're getting your "facts" from a Talking Head that <a href="http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061008/D8KKIT900.html" target="_blank">uses "I hate Bush" rants to get ratings</a> on an otherwise <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702355.html" target="_blank">unwatched "news" channel.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell does MSNBC's ratings have to do with what's being discussed here?
I think Spooge is getting his <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067" target="_blank">"facts"</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46985-2003Aug11" target="_blank">stealing quotes</a> from a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/" target="_blank">Talking Head</a> of his own
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I don't watch the dreaded Fox News. They spend too much time telling me that sharks are out to get me and that spinach and chicken will doom the planet.
Well, I admit that on occasion I enjoy <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/foxnewswatch/index.html" target="_blank">Fox News Watch</a>. In my opinion it's the most objective analysis show on television.
The rest of the channel can blow goats with CNN and MSNBC.
However, if it makes you feel better, you can continue to convince people that I'm under the influence of the RNC/Evil Rovian/Fox News mind control rays. I'm sure it will benefit your journey into the horizons of political discussion.
Well, I admit that on occasion I enjoy Fox News Watch. In my opinion it's the most objective analysis show on television.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best case scenario
<img src="http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9130/notnewsjm5.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
[/offtopic]
However, if it makes you feel better, you can continue to convince people that I'm under the influence of the RNC/Evil Rovian/Fox News mind control rays. I'm sure it will benefit your journey into the horizons of political discussion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's get this back on topic. Why do you think this law is a good idea?
Why do you think this law is a good idea?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As it turns out, I'm not completely comfortable with this law but I do understand its necessity.
In the SCOTUS Hamden case, the Court found that the Executive branch did not have the legal authority to establish military tribunals for unlawful enemy combatants. So, this law was written to establish that authority. By doing so, it is meant to appease those who have been crying out for enemies collected on the battlefield, such as those in Guantanamo, to receive their day in court.
Of course, for the critics, this isn't good enough. They would prefer the use of civilian courts due to their openness. Therein lies one of the problems - disclosure of information that could prevent future attacks.
These cases will take immeasurable amounts of time and money to facilitate with little doubt to the outcome in most events. Imagine the circus it would be if they were all televised in civilian courts (OJ Simpson anyone?).
Personally, I fall into the same bracket as I assume many of you do in regards to the Conflict in Iraq and Afganistan - clear dissaproval of the handling by the White House. I am rather certain, however, that we do not agree in why we disapprove. You see, I'm in the camp (much larger than you'd guess I'm sure) that says we're being way too soft out there. Most of the scum in Gitmo should have been cut down in the field. There should be little need for these tribunals and we should be getting on with the rearranging of backsides.
The critics are right when they say that Bush & Co. are acting schizophrenic in their approach to the battle with Islamofascists. They've criticized Clinton for treating it like a police or legal action and now this administration is falling into the same fate.
I have read more than enough stories to know that propping these human waste bags up in courts will do nothing to intimidate or reduce the pure hate that flows freely through extremist mosques around the planet. We need to get as much info as we can from them and toss them out with the rest of the garbage.
just 'cause we can't vote doe- oh, wait...
These cases will take immeasurable amounts of time and money to facilitate with little doubt to the outcome in most events. Imagine the circus it would be if they were all televised in civilian courts (OJ Simpson anyone?).
Personally, I fall into the same bracket as I assume many of you do in regards to the Conflict in Iraq and Afganistan - clear dissaproval of the handling by the White House. I am rather certain, however, that we do not agree in why we disapprove. You see, I'm in the camp (much larger than you'd guess I'm sure) that says we're being way too soft out there. Most of the scum in Gitmo should have been cut down in the field. There should be little need for these tribunals and we should be getting on with the rearranging of backsides.
The critics are right when they say that Bush & Co. are acting schizophrenic in their approach to the battle with Islamofascists. They've criticized Clinton for treating it like a police or legal action and now this administration is falling into the same fate.
I have read more than enough stories to know that propping these human waste bags up in courts will do nothing to intimidate or reduce the pure hate that flows freely through extremist mosques around the planet. We need to get as much info as we can from them and toss them out with the rest of the garbage.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You refer to these people as "scum" and "human waste bags." It's no wonder that you are already convinced of their guilt. What do you really factually know about the people in there? Do you know how they were captured? Do you know what they are accused of doing? If you were concerned and wanted to know, could you even find out? I don't know very much about them myself, but I do know that some of them are <a href="http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAMR512011032003" target="_blank">children</a>, and that's enough information to give me pause, and to make me want an open process.
Did it ever occur to you that some of the people in Guantanamo Bay might simply be patriots like yourself, dutifully protecting their country from a foreign invader? or that they simply might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Their definition of a "child" is very different from ours.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030130/ai_n9681755" target="_blank">Boys rescued from Kenya's Islamic school of torture</a>
Independent, The (London), Jan 30, 2003 by Declan Walsh in Nairobi
ELEVEN TEENAGE boys have been rescued from an Islamic correction centre in Nairobi where they were chained, tortured, and indoctrinated with violent anti-Christian ideas. Armed police raided the Islamic school (or madrassah) in a rundown Nairobi neighbourhood after Guleed Ahmed, a 16-year-old from Leicester, faked an illness to escape and raise the alarm.
Inside they found 10 other boys, from Kenya, Sweden and Ethiopia, chained by their hands and feet and confined to a dark, foul- smelling room.
"It was really terrible," Guleed said yesterday. "They locked my hands and legs like this" - he clasped his ankles and wrists together - "all day, every day, even when I sleep. It lasted eight months."
Abdi Noor, a wiry 13-year-old from northern Kenya, nodded furiously. "Even when we go to the toilet, we go jumping," he said. "They would only unlock us at the door."
The school, the Khadija Islamic Institute of Discipline and Education, was in Eastleigh, a rough and dangerous neighbourhood dominated by ethnic Somalis. As police led the boys out last Monday, an angry crowd pelted them with stones, forcing officers to fire warning shots in the air.
But senior Muslims have expressed their abhorrence at the way the school was run, stressing it was an anomaly among thousands of well- run Islamic schools.
The headteacher, named by students as Mowlid Abdi Ahmed, has been arrested and is expected to be charged with cruelty. Fourteen other staff are believed to have fled.
Guleed, whose family lives in Britain but who holds a Dutch passport, is being looked after by the Dutch embassy. He had no documents with him and Dutch authorities are trying to trace his mother.
Relatives had sent the teenagers to Khadija Institute to learn about Islam. Little did they know the sub-prison conditions to which they were subjected them. Schooling involved study of the Koran, with some lessons in English, Arabic and maths, always with their arms bound in chains. Sport was impossible.
Meals were spartan and usually accompanied by a thrashing. "They cane you on the head, back, legs, bottom, everywhere," Guleed said. "How many times, it was impossible to know many. They called it `the medicine'."
He had been attending Babington Community College in Leicester before his mother took him to Nairobi last summer, he said. But when she called every month, the teachers would stand over the phone. "They told me if you say something bad, we will beat you up. You tell her you love the school and you're learning to be a good Muslim."
He finally escaped by faking a heart ailment and forcing teachers to take him to a medical centre, where doctors alerted police.
<b>Hashim Ali, 16, who lived in Stockholm for 12 years before an uncle enrolled him in Khadija last June, said the killing of Christians was glorified in the school. "They told us it's called jihad," he said. "They said if you enter a church with bombs and kill yourself, you will go to heaven." </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This war is not fun. It does not play by your rules. In my opinion, it's good that you are concerned about their rights and their welfare, but they do not care about yours (unless you include your removal of rights and welfare).
Whether you accept it or not we (the West) are fighting for our way of life and it will get uglier before it gets nicer.
Is "them" doing it a good enough justification to do it yourself? Torture is against international law, and completely despicable behaviour, is it right to use "them" as a reason to start doing it? Doesnt that make you as bad as "them" in the eyes of the rest of the international community?
But how can restricting your own rights and freedoms be the right way to fight "them".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My rights are just fine thank you. I don't call terrorists, I don't donate money to their organizations, and I don't plot attacks against the public.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is "them" doing it a good enough justification to do it yourself?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what "doing it" means but typically I don't use others behavior to justify my own, no.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Torture is against international law, and completely despicable behaviour, is it right to use "them" as a reason to start doing it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who said anything about starting to use torture?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Doesnt that make you as bad as "them" in the eyes of the rest of the international community?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "International Community" has their own problems dealing with these issues and they don't bother worrying what I think, do they?
I trust the US military to make the decision in the field. I do not trust the CIA or the State Department to make a valuable decision.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? You don't know anything about how they've made their decisions and how accurate they have been in the past. It's impossible for you <i>to</i> know. There are citizens of countries in there whose own countries grant them civil rights commensurate to our own. What gives us the authority to violate them?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Their definition of a "child" is very different from ours.
This war is not fun. It does not play by your rules. In my opinion, it's good that you are concerned about their rights and their welfare, but they do not care about yours (unless you include your removal of rights and welfare).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are making the same mistake Bush makes when he confusedly tries to conflate Iraq with the war on terror. The people that are fighting us are not a homogenous hive mind. In particular, there isn't reason to suspect any philosophical agreement between a member of Iraq's military and a member of Afghanistan's military. Even within Al Qaida I doubt you would find a homogenous irrational hatred of the US. Contrary to how he is portrayed, Osama bin Laden's opinions on the US are objections to specific aspects of our foreign policy.
All of that is somewhat beside the point however, because the US military no matter how careful they are, makes mistakes. You may be perfectly comfortable with denying a member of the Taliban civil rights, but I assure you, there are people in there who have never harmed an American.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Whether you accept it or not we (the West) are fighting for our way of life and it will get uglier before it gets nicer.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What could they possibly do to eliminate our way of life? That isn't even their goal. Their goal is the removal of our military presence from the land they classify as Islamic, and the withdrawl of our support from Israel.
Why? You don't know anything about how they've made their decisions and how accurate they have been in the past. It's impossible for you <i>to</i> know. There are citizens of countries in there whose own countries grant them civil rights commensurate to our own. What gives us the authority to violate them?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I trust members of the US military. Why I trust them is irrelevant. As for citizens from other countries, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_allies_dc" target="_blank">I don't waste much time wondering why they can't go home.</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are making the same mistake Bush makes when he confusedly tries to conflate Iraq with the war on terror. The people that are fighting us are not a homogenous hive mind. In particular, there isn't reason to suspect any philosophical agreement between a member of Iraq's military and a member of Afghanistan's military. Even within Al Qaida I doubt you would find a homogenous irrational hatred of the US. Contrary to how he is portrayed, Osama bin Laden's opinions on the US are objections to specific aspects of our foreign policy.
All of that is somewhat beside the point however, because the US military no matter how careful they are, makes mistakes. You may be perfectly comfortable with denying a member of the Taliban civil rights, but I assure you, there are people in there who have never harmed an American.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Originally, I agreed with you about Iraq. I was holding to the belief that "nation building" was bad policy and didn't follow the footsteps of our Founding Fathers. I was, however, greatly troubled by Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people and begrudgingly accepted the charge to his defeat. That said, after the fighting started our purpose there was smeared. Many of the decisions being made are causing more problems. Little to none of this, in my opinion, has to do with the military. If the war in Iraq was existing without any and all of the concurrent Islamic terrorism throughout the world, my perspective on it might be closer to yours.
I'd be curious to hear how it is that you <i>know</i> some of the people in Gitmo have never harmed an American.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What could they possibly do to eliminate our way of life? That isn't even their goal. Their goal is the removal of our military presence from the land they classify as Islamic, and the withdrawl of our support from Israel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is where you make the mistake of the appeasement mentality. I find irony in this quote. In all the reading I've been doing, it seems that land classified as Islamic happens to be the entire planet or as much of it as the Imams desire, at least.
It scares me how much the multiculturalist/politically correct dogma from Progressives has clouded the judgement and perspective of otherwise intelligent people. Islamofascists do not want to co-exist with us. They tell us this often but not everyone wants to listen.
Here's an excellent op-ed from the head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London:
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008181" target="_blank">Islam's Imperial Dreams</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked a worldwide wave of Muslim violence early this year, observers naturally focused on the wanton destruction of Western embassies, businesses, and other institutions. Less attention was paid to the words that often accompanied the riots--words with ominous historical echoes. "Hurry up and apologize to our nation, because if you do not, you will regret it," declared Khaled Mash'al, the leader of Hamas, fresh from the Islamist group's sweeping victory in the Palestinian elections:
This is because our nation is progressing and is victorious. . . . By Allah, you will be defeated. . . . Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you no good.
Among Islamic radicals, such gloating about the prowess and imminent triumph of their "nation" is as commonplace as recitals of the long and bitter catalog of grievances related to the loss of historical Muslim dominion. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly alluded to the collapse of Ottoman power at the end of World War I and, with it, the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate. "What America is tasting now," he declared in the immediate wake of 9/11, "is only a copy of what we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated." Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, has pointed still farther into the past, lamenting "the tragedy of al-Andalus"--that is, the end of Islamic rule in Spain in 1492.
These historical claims are in turn frequently dismissed by Westerners as delusional, a species of mere self-aggrandizement or propaganda. But the Islamists are perfectly serious, and know what they are doing. Their rhetoric has a millennial warrant, both in doctrine and in fact, and taps into a deep undercurrent that has characterized the political culture of Islam from the beginning. Though tempered and qualified in different places and at different times, the Islamic longing for unfettered suzerainty has never disappeared, and has resurfaced in our own day with a vengeance. It goes by the name of empire.
...
Whether in its militant or its more benign version, this world-conquering agenda continues to meet with condescension and denial on the part of many educated Westerners. To intellectuals, foreign-policy experts, and politicians alike, "empire" and "imperialism" are categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States. In this view of things, Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, are merely objects--the long-suffering victims of the aggressive encroachments of others. Lacking an internal, autonomous dynamic of its own, their history is rather a function of their unhappy interaction with the West, whose obligation it is to make amends. This perspective dominated the widespread explanation of the 9/11 attacks as only a response to America's (allegedly) arrogant and self-serving foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
As we have seen, however, Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining, in Zawahiri's words, the "lost glory" of the caliphate.
Nor is the vision confined to a tiny extremist fringe. This we saw in the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, in the admiring evocations of bin Laden's murderous acts during the crisis over the Danish cartoons, and in such recent findings as the poll indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.
To the contrary, now that this war has itself met with a so far determined counterattack by the United States and others, and with a Western intervention in the heart of the House of Islam, it has escalated to a new stage of virulence. In many Middle Eastern countries, Islamist movements, and movements appealing to traditionalist Muslims, are now jockeying fiercely for positions of power, both against the Americans and against secular parties. For the Islamists, the stakes are very high indeed, for if the political elites of the Middle East and elsewhere were ever to reconcile themselves to the reality that there is no Arab or Islamic "nation," but only modern Muslim states with destinies and domestic responsibilities of their own, the imperialist dream would die.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism" target="_blank">Islamism</a> is very real and is very much forcing its way into Western Civilization.
<a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ima061031mc" target="_blank">Did imam's sermon incite Van Gogh murder?</a>
<a href="http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/newsupdate.aspx?articleid=1409&zoneid=4" target="_blank">IT'S OK TO KILL ######S - BRITISH IMAM</a>
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-on-an-extremist-islamic-mission/2006/04/22/1145344316019.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1" target="_blank">Wolves in sheep's clothing on an extremist Islamic mission</a>
<a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1247400.ece" target="_blank">Krekar claims Islam will win</a>
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wegypt18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html" target="_blank"> Statue attack fuels fears of an Islamist Egypt</a>
Whether it started that way or not, the battle in Iraq has now become a struggle to prevent another Taliban like nation in the Middle East. For our benefit as well as theirs.
I trust members of the US military. Why I trust them is irrelevant. As for citizens from other countries, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_allies_dc" target="_blank">I don't waste much time wondering why they can't go home.</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, its not irrelevant. This law forces the rest of us to trust them too, so you better be able to give us a good reason.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'd be curious to hear how it is that you <i>know</i> some of the people in Gitmo have never harmed an American.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same way I know that there are people accused of crimes that never committed them. Even in the absence of any bad faith action, people make mistakes. That's why in a free society we have an open process to mitigate those mistakes.
Under the current system, who is accountable for someone being detained unjustly? The public would never know about it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
And this is where you make the mistake of the appeasement mentality. I find irony in this quote. In all the reading I've been doing, it seems that land classified as Islamic happens to be the entire planet or as much of it as the Imams desire, at least.
It scares me how much the multiculturalist/politically correct dogma from Progressives has clouded the judgement and perspective of otherwise intelligent people. Islamofascists do not want to co-exist with us. They tell us this often but not everyone wants to listen.
Here's an excellent op-ed from the head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London:
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008181" target="_blank">Islam's Imperial Dreams</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism" target="_blank">Islamism</a> is very real and is very much forcing its way into Western Civilization.
<a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ima061031mc" target="_blank">Did imam's sermon incite Van Gogh murder?</a>
<a href="http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/newsupdate.aspx?articleid=1409&zoneid=4" target="_blank">IT'S OK TO KILL ######S - BRITISH IMAM</a>
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-on-an-extremist-islamic-mission/2006/04/22/1145344316019.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1" target="_blank">Wolves in sheep's clothing on an extremist Islamic mission</a>
<a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1247400.ece" target="_blank">Krekar claims Islam will win</a>
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wegypt18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html" target="_blank"> Statue attack fuels fears of an Islamist Egypt</a>
Whether it started that way or not, the battle in Iraq has now become a struggle to prevent another Taliban like nation in the Middle East. For our benefit as well as theirs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You and that author are again making the same mistake I described in my last post. Militant Islam is not Homogenous. It is not a faceless force that operates like an alien body snatcher through the brown-skinned people of the middle east. It is just a word for a wide array of opinions, objectives, and values, some of which are reasonable, and some of which can be reasoned with. Read what Osama bin Laden has <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden" target="_blank">said.</a> There will always be radicals. What matters is whether they have the will and the capability to do damage, and most importantly, whether they have popular support.
Rather than invading Iraq, if we had stabilized Afghanistan, successfully negotiated a democratic Palestinian state, and pressured Saudi Arabia into democratic reforms, Islamic terrorism would cease to be a threat. Yes there would still be radicals intending to attack the US, but without popular support they would evaporate. If you'd like to debate current Iraq policy, I suggest we move it to another thread.
This is getting away from the original thrust of the debate however.
Why is it that you think we should trust the military absolutely?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The law you're defending legalizes and sanctions it.
Why is it that you think we should trust the military absolutely?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said <b>you</b> must trust the military absolutely, only that I do. I could care less whether you believe in their ability to identify an enemy or not. Frankly, it's none of my business what or why you believe something. If you want to believe that Bush and Cheney are running around with pitchforks trying to skewer unshowered patchouli rats for their own amusement, go right ahead.
I have faith in members of the armed forces for reasons that do not need to be discussed. Value judgements that you or others make on that will have no effect.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You and that author are again making the same mistake I described in my last post. Militant Islam is not Homogenous. It is not a faceless force that operates like an alien body snatcher through the brown-skinned people of the middle east. It is just a word for a wide array of opinions, objectives, and values, some of which are reasonable, and some of which can be reasoned with. Read what Osama bin Laden has <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden" target="_blank">said.</a> There will always be radicals. What matters is whether they have the will and the capability to do damage, and most importantly, whether they have popular support. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's see here - "Read what Osama has said." Okay then...<ul><li> The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
</li><li> The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy.
</li><li> Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion.
</li><li> We will continue to fight you as long as we have weapons in our hands.
</li><li> There is no dialogue except with weapons.
</li><li> Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians. For as long as I can remember, I have felt tormented and at war, and have felt hatred and animosity for Americans.</li></ul>
Sounds reasonable enough to me. Especially that whole "no dialogue except with weapons" thing. Groovy.
Reducing Islamofascism down to nothing more than cultural differences is enough to make Jane Fonda laugh out loud. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/20/nhonour20.xml" target="_blank">Burning 6 year old girls alive,</a> <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ChuhINPOA4UJ:articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/how-to-avoid-honor-killing-in-turkey/20060716085509990006%3Fncid%3DNWS00010000000001+Derya+new+york+times&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">insisting that your grand daughter commit suicide or be killed by the family,</a>, or maybe just <a href="http://german-eurabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/horrible-murder-in-hamburg-40-year-old.html" target="_blank">cutting off your wife's head in front of your daughters for being too Western</a> are just a few examples of how we Westerners need to reach out and realize that Islamofascists are just like us. Only, different.
The "brown-skinned" comment was a real clever way of tossing out the rascism hammer. Funny though, I don't remember mentioning flesh color.
<!--quoteo(post=1573450:date=Nov 4 2006, 07:29 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 4 2006, 07:29 PM) [snapback]1573450[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The law you're defending legalizes and sanctions it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's a <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109F7MVuY::" target="_blank">link to the full text of the law</a> as passed by the Senate.
Please point out each section that both legalizes and sanctions torture.
I never said <b>you</b> must trust the military absolutely, only that I do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The law applies to me too. If you think it is a just law, you must explain why I must trust the military.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Let's see here - "Read what Osama has said." Okay then...[
Sounds reasonable enough to me. Especially that whole "no dialogue except with weapons" thing. Groovy.
Reducing Islamofascism down to nothing more than cultural differences is enough to make Jane Fonda laugh out loud. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/20/nhonour20.xml" target="_blank">Burning 6 year old girls alive,</a> <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ChuhINPOA4UJ:articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/how-to-avoid-honor-killing-in-turkey/20060716085509990006%3Fncid%3DNWS00010000000001+Derya+new+york+times&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">insisting that your grand daughter commit suicide or be killed by the family,</a>, or maybe just <a href="http://german-eurabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/horrible-murder-in-hamburg-40-year-old.html" target="_blank">cutting off your wife's head in front of your daughters for being too Western</a> are just a few examples of how we Westerners need to reach out and realize that Islamofascists are just like us. Only, different.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You missed my point. My point was that this <i>isn't</i> a cultural difference. It's a political difference. His grievances against the US concern specific aspects of our foreign policy, and not "our way of life." I'm obviously not advocating Osama bin Ladin as a paragon of moderate Islam. My point is that even the most reviled, radical, and despicable enemy of the US bases his resentment on our foreign policy, and not our culture.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->or maybe just <a href="http://german-eurabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/horrible-murder-in-hamburg-40-year-old.html" target="_blank">cutting off your wife's head in front of your daughters for being too Western</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have a link, but I recall earlier in the year an Alabama woman smothered her 13 year old daughter in front of her 8 year old sister because the 13 year old had gotten pregnant. Edit: I got some of the details wrong: <a href="http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000629.html" target="_blank">http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000629.html</a>
[...]Here's a <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109F7MVuY::" target="_blank">link to the full text of the law</a> as passed by the Senate.
Please point out each section that both legalizes and sanctions torture.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd love to point out the relevant section(s) (and I tried), but the bill is written in legalese, not english. I speak german, danish and english, but I don't speak legalese. I suggest asking a lawyer instead, they spent years learning to read that stuff.
I have faith in members of the armed forces for reasons that do not need to be discussed. Value judgements that you or others make on that will have no effect.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abu Ghraib... and more...
<i>
Hearing testimony; U.S. soldiers took turns raping 14 year old Iraqi girl before killing her
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
August 9, 2006
In testimony given before a U.S. military hearing, criminal investigator Benjamin Bierce narrated his account of how an incident involving five soldiers involved the serial rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl prior to shooting her. The hearing will determine whether four current U.S. soldiers have to face a court martial hearing; an additional former soldier allegedly involved in the incident, Steven D. Green, was recently discharged from the military and has pleaded not guilty to rape and murder charges in federal court in Kentucky.</i>
And yet the armed forces are worthy of absolute trust ?
Please point out each section that both legalizes and sanctions torture.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it says so....ooooh
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
here
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->`© Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how 'bout there too
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
not torture, still an issue
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->`© Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is where the president can determine you to be an unlawful combatant by way of a helpful tribunal that he sets up. there goes impartiality.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:
`(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so they can sit there as long as you want them to before you actually try them...force them to serve a sentence and then "oops" find them not guilty after 20 years.
I think that about covers it...I seem to remember something else about torture evidence being admitted, but I can't seem to find it. either way. bad law. bad bad law.
Oh and by the way, there's no over-sight, so as long as the president can shell out enough incentive(read: money) to a 'tribunal' they'll call anyone they like an unlawful enemy combatant and there'll be no one to dispute it no matter how long you scream from your jail cell in yugoslavia.
we most certainly have terrorists of our own in our own country, me thinks we are not so far removed from each other, I would like to point to Wako Texas as a possible terrorist act, how about the Hollywood shootout, not motivated by religion, perhaps the worship of money, still 'terrorists'. and how about these 4 americans convicted of terrorism in Vietnam whom the administration was so quick to jump to the defense of. why do they get special treatment over the islamic terrorists we've held for years without trial? double standard here me-thinks.
We hear about murders, gang violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, sex crimes, corrupt school officials, you name it, we've got it. I'm sorry, I don't see how we're all that different. every nation has its sociopaths.
Ball's in your court, Spooge.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
© Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pretty sure these people should be included in that.
anyway, the torture issue itself is vague and a stretch(as you can tell by my quotes), however, the bill itself is very poorly written, and if you ask me, it is completely unnecessary.
The bill fails to provide any sort of congressional(read: lawful) oversight of the commissions, that's whats' scary, this means that no matter what the people SAY they're doing, there's no reason to believe that's what's actually going on. this is a top-heavy bill(top being executive branch), that simply does not need to be, and before you start pointing to situations like the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus during the civil war and the internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second world war, I would like to point out that simply having historical precedent does not make any act any more 'right.' America claims to be free, but, as with all things american, there is small print taking it ALL away.
Problem is, if thats what they wanted to do: Why allow it to happen to US citizens as well? Why not put it to only non-US citizens, or those who attack, physically, American troops? Why be so vague as to make it easily comparable to anyone in country?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They DID put it to only non-US citizens. I don't see why people keep claiming its going to strip citizens of rights, when the bill clearly states only aliens are affected.
<!--quoteo(post=1575481:date=Nov 10 2006, 08:42 AM:name=the_johnjacob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_johnjacob @ Nov 10 2006, 08:42 AM) [snapback]1575481[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
we most certainly have terrorists of our own in our own country, me thinks we are not so far removed from each other, I would like to point to Wako Texas as a possible terrorist act,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A little off topic, but the only terrorist in the Waco, Texas incident was Janet Reno.
Just my opinion. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
But yeah, we've got our sociopaths too.