|
RosettaStoned
Stranger
Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
#5921975 - 08/01/06 01:56 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
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?
Did you even read all of my post? I clearly said at the end of the sentence they should get a new trial when the conflicted can be re-assessed. Or did you conveniently skip that part in favor of trying to draw an illogical assumption to make me look bad? If at the time their original sentence was up and it is still a threat to let them go, then they can be giving a longer sentence accordingly. But holding someone indefinitely and without civilian oversight is wrong and should not be tolerated by any society that values democratic principles.
Quote:
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
What this illustrates, is (once again) how the right-wing fascists try to avoid the actual discussion in favor of attacking a persons character to try and discredit them. Gods I seem to be saying that alot, but dutifully I will continue to point it out whenever that tactic is so pathetically used as the crutch it is.
Quote:
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?
So according to you, we can just do away with treason then right? We can just send anyone suspected of treason to gitmo where they can be held as long as some military man decides without trial and without evidence. Oh they're will be a military tribunal you say? And who oversees it to make sure they are fair and real evidence is used to protect the whole process from being abused? Oh yeah, another military man.
In fact, why don't we just do away with our court system all together? We can just call anyone who commits a crime an "enemy combatant" and lock them up in POW camps until all war on planet earth has ended. That would sure make it easier for our brave men an women fighting for our freedom right?
-------------------- "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
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
|
If they get away with locking "suspected" terrorists up you can bet your ass they'll be coming for "suspected" drug users next.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Alex213]
#5922284 - 08/01/06 03:46 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
whats more likely to happen is that the drug suspects will be presumed to be funding terrorism as per those assinine super bowl ads...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Did you even read all of my post? I clearly said at the end of the sentence they should get a new trial when the conflicted can be re-assessed.
Yes, I read all of your post. You clearly fail to grasp the essential difference between a criminal act and an act of war. Captured enemy combatants aren't "sentenced", they are detained till the end of hostilities. It might be for a short period of time -- as it was for Iraqi army regulars -- or it might be for a long period -- as was the case with POWs in the Viet Nam war.
Quote:
But holding someone indefinitely and without civilian oversight is wrong and should not be tolerated by any society that values democratic principles.
All POWs have always been held "indefinitely" in the sense that no one can predict with any fair degree of accuracy the date on which hostilities cease.
Quote:
What this illustrates, is (once again) how the right-wing fascists try to avoid the actual discussion in favor of attacking a persons character to try and discredit them.
I'm certainly not avoiding any discussion here, Rosie. I never avoid discussions. But as part of the discussion I also point out the essential unseriousness of the anti-war crowd's position. Their stance is that this is not a war. That it is nothing more than a bunch of criminals committing random acts of murder, therefore it is inappropriate to treat these criminals as enemy combatants. That is a fundamentally unserious position to hold. It ignores reality. Like it or not, this is a war, and to pretend otherwise is folly.
Quote:
So according to you, we can just do away with treason then right?
Not at all. If it turns out that some of the captured enemy combatants are American citizens, then of course they can be charged with treason. I take it your position is that not only can they be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? No discretion on the part of the US government here? You are aware, of course, that treason is a crime which carries the death penalty.
What is your feeling towards those who violated their oaths and the Official Secrets Act by spilling the beans to the press on the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking program involving the SWIFT center? Must the government charge them with treason as well? No option, no discretion -- automatic indictment for treason?
It is madness -- no other word for it -- to give every captured enemy combatant a full on civilian court trial. It has never been done in the history of warfare, and for good reasons.
As for your bleating about "do(ing) away with our court system all together," and "call(ing) anyone who commits a crime an 'enemy combatant' ", that is not what is being proposed by the draft legislation Annapurna1 linked to. It proposes changes to the military justice system designed to accomodate the ruling of SCOTUS in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Phred
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
#5928021 - 08/03/06 08:27 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> All POWs have always been held "indefinitely" in the sense that no one can predict with any fair degree of accuracy the date on which hostilities cease.
This is exactly why I do not like giving POW protections to terrorists/enemy combatants. The enemy combatants are not fighting for a country. If the "war on terrorism" were to end, what country would sign the surrender agreement for the terrorists? Guess what, there isn't any country that actually represents the terrorists. The GC simply does not fit the terrorist model of fighting, and thus the terrorists caught fighting against troops that are obligated to follow the GC should not be given any POW protections. They are not US citizens, and were not captured by US police on US soil, therefore, they should not get the protections of the US legal system.
This leaves us very few choice:
1) kill them 2) detain them indefinitely 3) return them to their country of origin
Personally, I like option 3 with the extra clause that should they be taken a second time on the battlefield, option 1 will be invoked.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
quiver
freedrug
Registered: 10/25/05
Posts: 8,047
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Seuss]
#5928136 - 08/03/06 09:55 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
i prefer option 1 myself
another thing i've always thought i'd do when taking surrenedered/captured pows is to check for ammo
no ammo,no weapons then surrender=death
ammo and armed but surrenders=option3
ofcourse thats for criminal insurgents only,otherwise id follow the gc unless ofcourse we were getting reports of our own getting murdered or tortured on the field,then i'd use fire with fire and spit on the gc
--------------------
Edited by quiver (08/03/06 10:03 AM)
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger
Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
#5928622 - 08/03/06 01:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You clearly fail to grasp the essential difference between a criminal act and an act of war. Captured enemy combatants aren't "sentenced", they are detained till the end of hostilities.
That's exactly what I said, I just used different wording. They should be sentenced for a period of time depending on the nature of the act. Then when that period of time is up they get a new trial, where if a new sentence is needed because of ongoing hostilities, it can be imposed. This is why I always ask if you even read my posts. I say something that in essence mean the same thing as indefinitely, but yet somehow to you it means the opposite.
Quote:
All POWs have always been held "indefinitely"
They aren't POWs and the GC doesn't apply to them, hence why there needs to be some new rules that aren't just "hold them until we feel like it". Because the WOT could go on forever, do all these people deserve life sentences? And what has already been pointed out, no country is going to sign for them when hostilities end (not like they ever will: see war on drugs).
Quote:
I take it your position is that not only can they be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason?
What else do you call it when you take up arms against the country you are a citizen of? I know there are other forms of treason but hasn't that always been treason? Do I need to dig up a dictionary definition? Oh yeah that's right, repubs make up word meanings as they go dictionaries don't mean shit to them.
Quote:
What is your feeling towards those who violated their oaths and the Official Secrets Act by spilling the beans to the press on the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking program involving the SWIFT center?
Well for one a reporter should not have to reveal their source. When you start making them reveal their sources or go to jail you undermine one of the fundamental aspects that makes democracy work: free media. Which I personally think they have the media on a very short lease, with the exception of the net. Given time they'll have their boot on our necks here too. That's what you want after all right? Wouldn't you enjoy a debate with a room full of right-wingers so you all can talk about how great bush is?
-------------------- "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
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
|
When the act of divulging the information to the reporter is a crime itself then the reporter must be compelled to reveal the criminal
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
They should be sentenced for a period of time depending on the nature of the act.
The nature of the act is fighting in a war. That's why captured enemy combatants are detained for the length of the war -- because if released, they will return to the fight. And that's why it's not a "sentence". They haven't been convicted of a crime, they have been captured fighting a war.
Do you believe the North Vietnamese should have released American POWs captured in, say, 1965, some time in 1970 or 1971, for example?
There's no point "reviewing" a POW's "sentence" if the war is still continuing. If the war is still on, he doesn't get released. Similarly, there is no point "reviewing" a POW's "sentence" if the war is over. If the war is over, he is released.
Quote:
They aren't POWs and the GC doesn't apply to them, hence why there needs to be some new rules that aren't just "hold them until we feel like it".
It is true the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them, but they are nonetheless POW's to all intents and purposes. They are enemy combatants captured during wartime. The fact that they don't wear uniforms doesn't alter the fact that they are enemy combatants.
Quote:
Because the WOT could go on forever, do all these people deserve life sentences?
If it does go on forever, then yes, they do.
Quote:
What else do you call it when you take up arms against the country you are a citizen of? I know there are other forms of treason but hasn't that always been treason? Do I need to dig up a dictionary definition? Oh yeah that's right, repubs make up word meanings as they go dictionaries don't mean shit to them.
So is it your position that not only can they be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? The US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?
Quote:
Well for one a reporter should not have to reveal their source.
Perhaps. What if the government investigations find through other means the identities of the leakers? Or what if some reporters willingly give up their sources? Is your position that the leakers must be charged with treason?
Phred
--------------------
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger
Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
#5930331 - 08/04/06 01:30 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So is it your position that not only can they be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? The US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?
I guess your going to force me to post a dictionary definition? Ok, here you go.
Treason: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance
There you go, it's not that this is "my position" it's that this is the meaning of the word. If you take up arms against your country that you are a citizen of, then you are committing treason...
To me, that means you use violence against your own military or govt leaders with the intent to shift or alter the balance of power in some way. Or perhaps somehow commit an action which directly aids the enemy to commit an act of violence to shift or alter the balance of power.
Leaking a govt program to our "free media" is hardly treason especially when the very circumstances of the war itself are questionable. I believe in open govt so they shouldn't be keeping secrets from the people who elect them in the first place. But while we're getting into treason, the top people at the DEA should be held and tried for treason for misleading and imprisoning the people of this country. You want to hold anyone for treason it should be them. The reporters are doing their jobs (well, some of them) by keeping the public informed. Though the extent of which they keep us informed is very sad at times.
-------------------- "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
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
|
> I guess your going to force me to post a dictionary definition?
Actually, going to the source would be much better. I already posted this once in this thread, but I guess nobody noticed:
From the US Constitution:
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.
and
Quote:
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 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."
> Leaking a govt program to our "free media" is hardly treason
I can see cases where I would disagree with you. There are times that I can see leaking information about a govt program being done to aid enemies that are at war with the US.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
|
Are yo ever going to get around to answering my question? This is the third time I've asked it --
So is it your position that not only can US citizens fighting against US armed forces be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? That the US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?
On my subsidiary point regarding treason, there is absolutely no doubt that the leakers of the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking (SWIFT) programs committed treason. There is also absolutely no doubt that the leakers of the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking (SWIFT)programs also broke their oaths and violated the Official Secrets Act. But if you want to ignore this particular tangent to the main topic of the thread, that's fine by me. The leakers committed treason, but I cannot accurately lable them enemy combatants, and this whole thread is about enemy combatants. But if you do choose to continue this side tangent, please next time answer the question being asked. I'm not asking if the reporters or the newspapers they work for must be charged with treason, I'm asking if the leakers must be.
For someone who whines about my not reading your posts, you do a piss poor job of reading mine.
Phred
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
#5931192 - 08/04/06 11:30 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> there is absolutely no doubt that the leakers of the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking (SWIFT) programs committed treason.
I would disagree, I think. Based upon the definition of treason in the constitution, and United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381, I think it would depend upon the intent of those that leaked the information. If they released the information because they don't like Bush, or they felt the program was illegal, then I don't think it would qualify as treason. (It would still be an illegal act under other US laws, but not treason.) However, if they released the information with the intent of helping terrorists, then yes, absolutely, it is treason.
I'm not a lawyer, and I could easily be incorrect here. Either way, the people that broke their oath and and the law should spend a nice long time in a pound 'em up the ass prison, if not worse.
Pulling us back on to the main topic, I am curious as well:
Quote:
Are yo ever going to get around to answering my question? This is the third time I've asked it --
So is it your position that not only can US citizens fighting against US armed forces be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? That the US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger
Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
#5935851 - 08/06/06 12:13 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So is it your position that not only can US citizens fighting against US armed forces be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? That the US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?
I thought I answered it, I guess I'll try to be clearer. I am not a legal expert, but I do know there is always an "exception to the rule" so I won't say anyone must be charged with anything. But I thought I outlined my opinion on what treason consisted of. And John walker guy probably qualified for it. But other than him I haven't seen one example even come close.
-------------------- "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
|
tak
geo's henchman
Registered: 11/20/00
Posts: 3,776
Loc: nowhereland
|
|
Can people be detained for showing public support of hizballah, or other anti-israel propaganda. I am kinda scared to express my views in fear I will be arrested..as silly as it sounds..and I am not really a paranoid person.
-------------------- The DJ's took pills to stay awake and play for seven days.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: debunking phred... [Re: tak]
#5954619 - 08/11/06 06:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
neither is it paranoia when they really are out to get you...the luxury of being paranoid no longer exists...
|
|