Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:29:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2962 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Enemy combatants have never had a right to trial.
|
But they are entitled to certain protections that, by design, are denied to
this latest batch. For example, prisoners of war are to be released at the
war’s end, but Dubya has pretty clearly stated that the War on Terror will
never be over. So when might these prisoners, in theory, be released?
|
Excellent question. I don’t know. But I do know that if they are released,
they will attack us again.
| |
| |
| |
If these people have committed crimes, let them stand trial and be
sentenced. If they have not committed crimes, then release them. It’s
really that simple, and artificial, self-serving designators like “enemy
combatant,” designed to subvert the intent of the Geneva convention, are no
excuse.
|
This term wasn’t invented or coined by President Bush, so don’t blame him or
Gonzo.
|
If you mean “enemy combatant” as a synonym for “prisoner of war,” then you’re
correct of course. But in this new context it definitely was put forth by
Bush et al as a way to do an end run around the Geneva convention.
|
No, I think it was in response to a new category of enemy who isn’t represented
by a nation-state. They don’t deserve a trial by jury. Would a trial by a
military tribunal suffice? But then I suppose that the left would scream that
the trials wouldn’t be fair. Heck, the left would scream at anything that
wouldn’t include complete exoneration along with millions in reparations.
| |
| |
| |
I’m addressing the entire policy of indefinite incarceration without trial,
so specific examples aren’t really needed (though there are many). What
are you asking, exactly?
|
Is your rant against the classification of “enemy combatant” and its legal
status? Or are you focusing on the case of Padilla?
|
I’m ranting against the deliberately nebulous and beyond-the-law status of
“enemy combatant,” of which Padilla is only one example.
|
The combatants themselves have created this dilemma! Okay, form a tribunal
and hold trials.
| |
| |
| |
That’s a gross overstatement, and even if true, it’s still no excuse. The
various branches do not exceed their Constitutionally-granted powers,
and they certainly don’t claim blanket authority to do it. Bush, in
horrifying contrast, has done so repeatedly and with no justification
beyond an obedient Republican Congress.
|
I think that is a matter of opinion, not law. Otherwise, the dems would
have impeached President Bush long ago.
|
It’s also a matter of practicality. An impeachment process initiated today
would likely take 18 months or more to complete (with all of the
investigations, etc.), so what’s the point? Me, I’d like to see a formal
motion of censure, but who knows if that’ll happen?
Instead, I think that Dems will work to counteract some of Dubya’s more
dubious policies, effectively undoing some of his mess without having to
worry about some pundit claiming that they’re “getting back at Repubs” for
the Clinton impeachment.
| |
| |
| |
How do you solve a problem like Sharia? How do you catch a thug and pin it
down?
|
First of all, I initially read that as Shania, to which I say “What the
heck is the problem?!?” Then I read it again.
|
Agreed. Your initial cognitive assessments don’t impress me much, Dave!
|
Nice!
| |
This is the crux of the issue IMO-- how does a free society effectively
protect itself against those who have access to WMDs and are bent on its
destruction.
|
One good way is for the target nation not to invade a sovereign nation in an
act of preemptive war. By all accounts, Bush’s Iraq fiasco has made the
region and situation far less stable. If those same huge resources had been
devoted to improvements in intelligence gathering (for example), I suspect
that we’d be a lot better off.
|
But what about governments like the Taliban and SH’s regime that sponsored
terrorism? These pukes don’t operate in a void. They need safe haven from
governments. Holding these governments accountable for the actions of
terrorists whom they sponsor is perfectly justified in my mind.
| |
| |
| |
If they’re guilty, then punish them. If they’re not guilty, then release
them. But it is imperative that their cases be heard, otherwise the
Constitution is moot. (Or mute, if you work in my office, of course.)
|
Most of these are bad guys captured on a battlefield. Logistically we can’t
put them all on trial.
|
If they’re prisoners of war, then they’re entitled to those protections. If
they’re not prisoners of war, then they must be tried, regardless of the
logistical problems.
| |
And I’m guessing that that practice is against the
Geneva Convention, in order to protect the combatants against summary
execution. And it protects our captive soldiers as well.
|
That’s why Bushco’s novel interpretations of “torture” are so troubling, by
the way.
|
Look, torture cuts to the chase. Haven’t you learned anything from 5+ years of
24?
Bauer in ‘08
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) John, with due respect, you don't know that. Many of these detainees were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they were mistaken for someone else, or they were coerced into fighting against invading US forces. We have only the word (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) But they are entitled to certain protections that, by design, are denied to this latest batch. For example, prisoners of war are to be released at the war's end, but Dubya has pretty clearly stated that the War on Terror will never be over. So (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
