Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineMicrocosmatrix
Spiral staircasetechnician
Male

Registered: 10/20/05
Posts: 11,293
Loc: Ythan's house
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5915120 - 07/30/06 02:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Quote:

Captured enemy combatants have always been held till the cessation of hostilities -- unless they are executed or exchanged in a prisoner swap program.




If this War on Terror is anything like the War on Drugs, those enemy combatants better make themselves at home in their cells, because this is one war that isn't ending anytime soon.




Yeah it's another war which cannot possibly be won. Just as it's impossible to prevent someone from brewing some wine, or planting a few pot plants, it's also impossible to pervent some jackass from strapping on some dynamite and bombing a nightclub.

The "war on terror" will never end, at least not until the "war on drugs" ends with it. That's because the government likes being in a never-ending false war or two, it's good for the military, the police, and it lets you pass all kinds of crazy laws in a quicker span of time.


--------------------
:orly:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5915157 - 07/30/06 02:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

After being interrogated, I would put them up for a military trial. If they are found guilty, they should be jailed or executed. If there is no proof of guilt or collaboration with the enemy during the trial, they should be released immediately.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5915362 - 07/30/06 03:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Why does my name keep getting dragged into this?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5917495 - 07/31/06 01:36 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Yeah that'd be nice but I think that was far too much common sense for the govt to share that train of thought.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKonnrade
↑↑↓↓<--><-->BA
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 13,833
Loc: LA Suburbs
Last seen: 10 months, 14 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5917712 - 07/31/06 04:21 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Yeah that'd be nice but I think that was far too much common sense for the govt to share that train of thought.




While there's a specter of truth to that statement, the simple method he mentioned would most likely save time and money. Politicians love public examples of saving government money. It makes them look better to voters.


--------------------

I find your lack of faith disturbing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5918058 - 07/31/06 09:34 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

After being interrogated, I would put them up for a military trial. If they are found guilty, they should be jailed or executed. If there is no proof of guilt or collaboration with the enemy during the trial, they should be released immediately.




In other words (except for the execution part), you would follow the same procedure currently in place -- i.e. option 2).




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5918165 - 07/31/06 10:33 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I would prefer the process to be a bit more expedited.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5918230 - 07/31/06 11:14 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

But you have no problem with the current process -- you just want the captured folks to be brought in front of a military tribunal in order to determine if they are really enemy combatants more rapidly than you believe is currently the case.

Do I have that right?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5918238 - 07/31/06 11:16 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Sounds about right. I just don't like paying for someone to be detained who a) may be innocent b) may be a enemy combatant and should be executed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5918252 - 07/31/06 11:21 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

getting debunked only really hurts if you're on the top bunk.

:rofl2:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5918565 - 07/31/06 01:24 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Yeah, I'm sure they aren't holding anyone without evidence and without trial.  :rolleyes:


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5918673 - 07/31/06 02:13 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Which of the three options would you choose, Rosetta?



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5920938 - 08/01/06 03:00 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Despite the fuming over the detention of enemy combatants, I have yet to come across a serious suggestion from opponents of Guantanamo (for example) as to what should be done with captured enemy combatants. The alternatives are pretty limited --

1) Kill them
2) Detain them till hostilities are agreed by both sides to be ended
3) Detain them for an arbitrary length of time, then release them





I would say it depends on the individual. And it's really hard for me to say because I am suspect of the entire circumstances surrounding the war in the first place. If the govt did in fact orchestrate this whole thing then anything done to "enemy combatants" is just piling one grave injustice on top of another.

But if I were to think up a hypothetical situation where I knew a country was indeed attacked by terrorists by no fault of their own deeds or actions directly or indirectly and had to figure out what to do with enemy POWs, I would say there needs to be a time limit on the military tribunal to come up with evidence to support charges. I would also demand civilian oversight of these tribunals so there is some preventative measures to keep it from becoming a farce.

So I guess all of the above. Anyone proven to have purposefully targeted civilians should be executed. Anyone who has aided them or engaged in conventional warfare should be sentenced for a period of years (depending on nature of the act) where they can get a new trial when the conflict can be re-assessed. And people being held with no evidence against them should most certainly be released. Once again, civilian oversight is key. Those conducting the trials should have their jobs on the line for failure.

But most importantly, US citizens should not be subject to being classified as an "enemy combatant". This open pandoras box. We have courts for US citizens, fuck them pieces of shit if they think there is a reason to circumvent that.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Edited by RosettaStoned (08/01/06 03:02 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5921251 - 08/01/06 08:29 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Anyone who has aided them or engaged in conventional warfare should be sentenced for a period of years (depending on nature of the act) where they can get a new trial when the conflict can be re-assessed.




So you reject completely the prisoner of war concept. To you, someone captured in Iraq while launching anti-tank missiles at a coalition vehicle is not a prisoner of war, but a criminal. If he fires a rifle at the vehicle he gets maybe three years detention, if he fires an RPG he gets four years, if he fires a TOW missile he gets five years? Minus time served and with one third off for good behavior?

This illustrates (once again) how unserious the left-leaning crowd are when it comes to war, and why they should not be allowed to have anything to do with decisions made in time of war.

Quote:

But most importantly, US citizens should not be subject to being classified as an "enemy combatant".




Of course they should. It makes no difference to the occupants of the vehicle being targeted with a TOW missile if the one firing it is a Syrian citizen or a US citizen who decided to travel to Iraq and join the jihad. An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant, no matter what passport he carries. Captured enemy combatants have always been detained till the end of hostilities so they don't return to the fight once released. Why should American citizens get a pass?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921282 - 08/01/06 09:06 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> To you, someone captured in Iraq while launching anti-tank missiles at a coalition vehicle is not a prisoner of war, but a criminal.

The problem is that they are neither a criminal or soldier. The Hague and Geneva Conventions lay out four criteria defining prisoners of war. This is a direct quote:

a. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
b. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
c. that of carrying arms openly.
d. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The guerrillas firing the anti-tank missiles in Iraq do not fit the above four definitions, thus they are not protected under international law as prisoners of war. There are actually a few more provisions, so to be complete lets take a quick peek at those:

1. that guerrillas and resistance movements are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they fit the four criteria above.
2. That if a populace spontaneously rises up in defense of its territory without having time to organize formally, they are still entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they meet criteria c. and d.
3. That persons whose status is in doubt enjoy the protection of prisoner of war status until their status is determined by a "competent tribunal." They are not prisoners of war, but are to be given the same treatment until their status is determined.

Again, none of these extra provisions would allow the guerrillas in Iraq to claim prisoner of war status or get prisoner of war protections under international law.

> Captured enemy combatants have always been detained till the end of hostilities so they don't return to the fight once released.

This is inaccurate as well. Enemy combatants are not prisoners of war. Prisoners of war have rights protected by international law while enemy combatants do not.

> Why should American citizens get a pass?

Because there are criminal laws that can be used to prosecute American citizens that are fighting against America. These laws do not apply to non-US citizens. However, I can argue this point both ways...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Seuss]
    #5921305 - 08/01/06 09:25 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Your points illustrate the difficulty of talking about this without using incredibly lengthy sentences filled with qualifying clauses and subclauses.

I realize full well that the jihadis being captured are not "prisoners of war" in the sense that say captured uniformed Japanese soldiers in 1944 were prisoners of war -- or even captured Iraqi Army regulars in 2003, for that matter.

That is why the broader term "enemy combatants" -- with its subcategories (lawful and unlawful) is typically used. A Nazi spy in 1943 was an unlawful enemy combatant and not due the protections given to say a Nazi Wehrmacht sergeant.

Nonetheless, even though the captured jihadis are not due the protections described by the Geneva Conventions, the Bush Administration has extended them to to the jihadis anyway. As such, they are being handled as Prisoners of War, and the same concepts governing the detention of POWs are being applied to them.

It is insane to treat someone firing a TOW missile at a tank in a war zone as a common criminal. If he were wearing a uniform or identifying insignia, he would be a soldier. The fact of the matter is that he is an enemy combatant, and enemy combatants have always been at the very least detained till the cessation of hostilities. Sometimes of course spies and saboteurs and other clandestine combatants (i.e. unlawful combatants) were detained just long enough to be hanged or shot, but so far in this conflict the coalition side has refrained from doing this. Clearly some of the respondents to this thread think that is showing too much restraint, but gallows and firing squads can be assembled at short notice. If the enemy combatant is detained, he can always be trotted out to the gallows at some later point. This is not the case if they are given a "sentence" of X years and then released back to the battlefield.

As for your position that there are criminal laws which can be used against American citizens -- apart from charging him with treason, which criminal charge did you have in mind for an American citizen who assembles, buries, and detonates an IED in a Baghdad suburb which destroys a US Army vehicle filled with US troops? Murder? Attempted murder? Assault?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921330 - 08/01/06 09:38 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> apart from charging him with treason

Treason works for me, as defined in the US constitution. Oddly enough, this is also the only time I approve of the death penalty as punishment.

Quote:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.




and

Quote:

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. ยง 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."




Seems pretty cut and dry. (To be clear, this is for US citizens fighting against the US. I would not offer this "protection" to non-US citizens captured fighting against the US.)

> Your points illustrate the difficulty of talking about this without using incredibly lengthy sentences filled with qualifying clauses and subclauses.

Very true. Now that I re-read what you originally said, along with the above, I think we are pretty much saying the same thing.

> Nonetheless, even though the captured jihadis are not due the protections described by the Geneva Conventions, the Bush Administration has extended them to to the jihadis anyway

To me, this was a mistake. They are enemy combatants and do not deserve the protections of the Geneva Conventions. I'm not saying that they should not get due process, only that they should not be given POW protections.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921368 - 08/01/06 10:04 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

It is insane to treat someone firing a TOW missile at a tank in a war zone as a common criminal

If anyone in Gitmo had been caught doing anything remotely like this there wouldn't be any problem charging them. The trouble is that they are all there on little more than scuttlebutt. And no matter how good you think your scuttlebutt is it shouldn't be enough to lock someone up for years.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921411 - 08/01/06 10:30 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Any United States citizen classified as a enemy combatant should be tried in the citizen courts for treason.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921422 - 08/01/06 10:40 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Nonetheless, even though the captured jihadis are not due the protections described by the Geneva Conventions, the Bush Administration has extended them to to the jihadis anyway. As such, they are being handled as Prisoners of War, and the same concepts governing the detention of POWs are being applied to them.




wrong...the whole point of the hamdan ruling was that the captured jihadis are due the protections described by the geneva conventions...and the bush administration deservs no credit for denying them those protections until the SCOTUS said otherwise..and now calling on his lackeys in congress to reverse the courts' decision...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Edited by Annapurna1 (08/01/06 03:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 5,143 56 08/18/05 11:33 PM
by trick
* History Channel debunks 9/11 "Truthers"
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Phred 6,654 83 10/29/07 11:17 AM
by afoaf
* Debunking 911 myths
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Great_Satan 9,759 134 03/20/05 02:19 AM
by Rose
* Debunking the "Official" 9/11 story
( 1 2 all )
barfightlard 2,445 28 12/12/05 05:38 PM
by afoaf
* Debunkers' Best Rebuttal: "Willie Smokes Pot" Visionary Tools 1,468 14 02/06/08 06:53 PM
by Teragon
* Debunking another Gitmo myth. lonestar2004 741 4 06/23/05 08:43 AM
by Phred
* .
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
AnonymousRabbit 4,674 100 10/08/08 04:53 PM
by johnm214
* A gift for Phred: Palinphobes and the audacity of type
( 1 2 all )
Green_T 2,023 26 03/21/09 01:06 AM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,735 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.