Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Goodbye America.... Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2006-10-19 1:13 PM
in reply to: #572924

User image

Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

They do have access to legal council. 

OK, but the point of my post is over....................................................here



Edited by ChrisM 2006-10-19 1:13 PM


2006-10-19 1:17 PM
in reply to: #572903

User image

Expert
694
500100252525
Charleston, SC
Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
Global - 2006-10-19 1:02 PM
bcotten534 - 2006-10-19 10:28 AM
The Mac - 2006-10-19 12:11 PM

Exactly. In no way would I draw a parallel between Bush and Hitler. I'm no fan of Bush, but he's not in the same category as a Hitler or Milosavic.

If you do not draw a parelle between them then whay are you comparing the way they have obtained power. The fact of the matter is that Hitler was preaching to a desperate and hungry people, and giving them a scape goat for their problems. This was a time when a loaf of bread cost a wheel barrow full of money, and paper currency was worth more to burn than spend. Hitler, I believe, was also well liked and very charasmatic, and bush is not. The thing is is that while both of these acts are wrong, they happened in two different worlds and the effect of one will not nessisarily corelate with the effect of the other.

The reason you would draw a parallel is to demonstrate that the powers Bush has obtained are serious and used incorrectly could be disastrous. You draw attention to the seriousness of the situation by outlining a past circumstance in which the situation caused a horrific amount of damage. It's called learning from past mistakes. It doesn't mean you he likes Hitler, it doesn't mean he hates America, it's just an useful way to bring the deserved amount of attention to this issue.

 

I am no one of those "if you dont like this bill then you hate america types" so Im not really sure where that came from.  I understand the premis that a similar bill to this (this is an assuption, I like most here have not read either of the two bill in question) was inacted in the past.  Had the OP said that this may cause harm in the future by impleminting some kind of systematic disctimination of people (ie Plesy v. Furgeson) I would have no issue with the post and would have gone about my business.  The problem was the OP was left very open ended as to what the result of passing the bill would be, implying that they could be similar.

2006-10-19 1:18 PM
in reply to: #572928

User image

Extreme Veteran
474
1001001001002525
DFW Metroplex
Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
ChrisM - 2006-10-19 1:13 PM

They do have access to legal council.

OK, but the point of my post is over....................................................here

 

Not debating the point of your post just making sure that we all know. 

2006-10-19 1:19 PM
in reply to: #572506

User image

Expert
694
500100252525
Charleston, SC
Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
Oh yea, it looks like most of the OP was what has Bush done to deserve these powers, as demonstrated with his good judgement and leadership?  To that I answer, absolutly nothing.
2006-10-19 1:20 PM
in reply to: #572917

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
ChrisM - 2006-10-19 2:10 PM

So I see no difference between us holding 450 people in Gitmo (only of which 14 are stated high level bad guys) and them parading soldiers in front of a camera before killing them. Both are sick, but I do not see another way...I'm not dumb enough to say that I have the answer.

First, thank you for your service.  Truly, it is appreciated.

That said, I am not aware of soldiers being paraded before a camera and then killed.  I am aware of journalists and other hostages to whom that is done.  I assume that is to whom you refer.  If so, do you really believe that the detention of someone at Guantanamo (including providing them with their religious texts) is the equivalent (either morally, legally, or in any other sense), of holding a journalist or other hostage and videotaping them as their heads are cut off?

Really?  I don't have the answer either, and holding detainees without legal counsel is wrong,  but I think there is a huge gap between those two.

Chris,

Yes, I was referring to the reporters and those types.  To my knowledge, they have not had any soldiers on tape.  There is a gap between the two items if you look at them in the same light.  But the terrorists don't have a large prison to keep any people they want, so I say it's the same because it's what they have. 

My point was that we kill people on the battlefield just like they kill people on the battlefield.  We just  have the "luxury" (used VERY loosely) of being able to do it from afar at times.  Both sides are trying to win by any means necessary..that's the vein I was trying to stay in.

2006-10-19 1:22 PM
in reply to: #572938

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
Marvarnett - 2006-10-19 2:20 PM

Both sides are trying to win by any means necessary..that's the vein I was trying to stay in.


Some might dispute that we are not. Of course, some would argue that that's exactly what we're doing, and that we are wrong for doing it that way.


2006-10-19 1:23 PM
in reply to: #572506

User image

Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

Careful, you're getting into Bill Maher territory

Guess it depends on how you define battlefield

2006-10-19 1:26 PM
in reply to: #572932

User image

Pro
3673
200010005001002525
MAC-opolis
Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

 

I am no one of those "if you dont like this bill then you hate america types" so Im not really sure where that came from.  I understand the premis that a similar bill to this (this is an assuption, I like most here have not read either of the two bill in question) was inacted in the past.  Had the OP said that this may cause harm in the future by impleminting some kind of systematic disctimination of people (ie Plesy v. Furgeson) I would have no issue with the post and would have gone about my business.  The problem was the OP was left very open ended as to what the result of passing the bill would be, implying that they could be similar.

That was pretty much my point; to leave it open ended and illicit a discussion on the idea that we have given new powers to the leader...how could this help/hurt?

 

2006-10-19 1:26 PM
in reply to: #572506

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

Fair point!!  The problem is that our politicians fight our wars as much as our soldiers.  It think that has something to do with it.

But like I said, I do not have the answer.  Hopefully someone does sometime soon.

2006-10-19 1:29 PM
in reply to: #572905

User image

Master
1219
1000100100
Sachse
Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
C-Ray - 2006-10-19 1:02 PM

drewb8 - 2006-10-19 12:32 PM
C-Ray - 2006-10-19 11:14 AM

drewb8 - 2006-10-19 12:02 PM I was going to put a little note on the top that some of it is a bit partisan but I thikn the overall gist is an important point- "What did the White House do between 9/11/01 and 9/11/06 to earn the trust and added authority that the Congress now has given it? What did President Bush do along the terror law front since the Twin Towers fell to cause Congress to place so much faith in him and his Administration when it comes to tiptoeing the tightrope between security and freedom?"

 

Freedom for the American people to feel safe in their own homes and securtiy from those that will slit our throats because we come from a country west of the middle east. It is time to stand up, be tough about who is out to kill us and quit worrying about wether we are going to offend someone who would slit my throat if I handed them a box cutter. Why do they deserve the freedoms my grandfather faught to protect. Enemy combatitants don't deserve to have access to my court system I don't care how you slice it. We are at war. They are the enemy. We put them in a nice cell. We give them their Quran. We give them their special meals. We give them their privacy. The ACLU should be no where near Quantanimo as far as I am concerned. This is all part of the wusification of America. I don't want to be apart of that, do you?

The point is we are losing the freedoms your grandfather fought to protect. We as in you, me and all American citizens, not the terrorists. It seems ironic that we fight against extremists because, in Bush's words "they hate freedom", yet here we are willingly giving away the same freedoms we claim are worth sacrificing countless American lives for. Does the wussification of America include shi**ing our pants so much that we are willing to sacrifice the foundation of our democracy so we are marginally safer from a tiny number of nut jobs? Is standing up to the terrorists and saying "we don't care what you do, we aren't changing who we are" a weakness? Its a knifes edge between maintaining an open society such as ours and at the same time protecting ourselves. Doubtless there is some degree of liberty that will have to be sacrificed in order to gain some security but at what point do you say enough?

 

I haven't given up any of my freedoms.  What freedoms have you given up? 



Most of the people that complain about losing freedoms, do not use half of the ones they have anyway. It just gives them something else to complain about. The World has changed since my grandfather fought....like it or not things change...Suck it up and drive on... The more time you spend complaining, the less time you have to commit to those other freedoms in life that you may actually benefit from.

  • 02

  • Kenny
    2006-10-19 1:29 PM
    in reply to: #572948

    User image

    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

    But like I said, I do not have the answer.  Hopefully someone does sometime soon.

    Amen



    2006-10-19 1:34 PM
    in reply to: #572506

    User image

    COURT JESTER
    12230
    50005000200010010025
    ROCKFORD, IL
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

    Artist: Nelson Willie

    Riding on the City of New Orleans,
    Illinois Central Monday morning rail
    Fifteen cars and fifteen restless riders,
    Three conductors and twenty-five sacks of mail.
    All along the southbound odyssey
    The train pulls out at Kankakee
    Rolls along past houses, farms and fields.
    Passin' trains that have no names,
    Freight yards full of old black men
    And the graveyards of the rusted automobiles.



    CHORUS:
    Good morning America how are you?
    Don't you know me I'm your native son,
    I'm the train they call The City of New Orleans,
    I'll be gone five hundred miles when the day is done.



    Dealin' card games with the old men in the club car.
    Penny a point ain't no one keepin' score.
    Pass the paper bag that holds the bottle
    Feel the wheels rumblin' 'neath the floor.
    And the sons of pullman porters
    And the sons of engineers
    Ride their father's magic carpets made of steel.
    Mothers with their babes asleep,
    Are rockin' to the gentle beat
    And the rhythm of the rails is all they feel.



    CHORUS



    Nighttime on The City of New Orleans,
    Changing cars in Memphis, Tennessee.
    Half way home, we'll be there by morning
    Through the Mississippi darkness
    Rolling down to the sea.
    And all the towns and people seem
    To fade into a bad dream
    And the steel rails still ain't heard the news.
    The conductor sings his song again,
    The passengers will please refrain
    This train's got the disappearing railroad blues.



    Good night, America, how are you?
    Don't you know me I'm your native son,
    I'm the train they call The City of New Orleans,
    I'll be gone five hundred miles when the day is done.

    2006-10-19 1:35 PM
    in reply to: #572932

    User image

    Master
    1641
    100050010025
    Seattle, California
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    bcotten534 - 2006-10-19 11:17 AM
    Global - 2006-10-19 1:02 PM
    bcotten534 - 2006-10-19 10:28 AM
    The Mac - 2006-10-19 12:11 PM

    Exactly. In no way would I draw a parallel between Bush and Hitler. I'm no fan of Bush, but he's not in the same category as a Hitler or Milosavic.

    If you do not draw a parelle between them then whay are you comparing the way they have obtained power. The fact of the matter is that Hitler was preaching to a desperate and hungry people, and giving them a scape goat for their problems. This was a time when a loaf of bread cost a wheel barrow full of money, and paper currency was worth more to burn than spend. Hitler, I believe, was also well liked and very charasmatic, and bush is not. The thing is is that while both of these acts are wrong, they happened in two different worlds and the effect of one will not nessisarily corelate with the effect of the other.

    The reason you would draw a parallel is to demonstrate that the powers Bush has obtained are serious and used incorrectly could be disastrous. You draw attention to the seriousness of the situation by outlining a past circumstance in which the situation caused a horrific amount of damage. It's called learning from past mistakes. It doesn't mean you he likes Hitler, it doesn't mean he hates America, it's just an useful way to bring the deserved amount of attention to this issue.

     

    I am no one of those "if you dont like this bill then you hate america types" so Im not really sure where that came from. I understand the premis that a similar bill to this (this is an assuption, I like most here have not read either of the two bill in question) was inacted in the past. Had the OP said that this may cause harm in the future by impleminting some kind of systematic disctimination of people (ie Plesy v. Furgeson) I would have no issue with the post and would have gone about my business. The problem was the OP was left very open ended as to what the result of passing the bill would be, implying that they could be similar.

     

    Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you thinks he hates America because of his remarks... I was speaking more generally about it... didn't mean to paint you with that brush...

    Cheers

    2006-10-19 1:40 PM
    in reply to: #572969

    User image

    Expert
    694
    500100252525
    Charleston, SC
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    Global - 2006-10-19 1:35 PM

    Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you thinks he hates America because of his remarks... I was speaking more generally about it... didn't mean to paint you with that brush...

    Cheers

    No biggie, I was just hoping to not come off as one of those guys.  I deal with alot of them on a daily basis down here at Texas A&M and the just sound plain ignorant alot of the time.  99.9% of the time not agreeing with something america has done does not mean that you hate america. 

    2006-10-19 1:46 PM
    in reply to: #572506

    User image

    Pro
    3673
    200010005001002525
    MAC-opolis
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

    when Ty throws out a Willie Nelson reset....you know you've pretty much exhausted the life of the thread.

    Oh and Kenny,...nice post.  Seriously.

     

    2006-10-19 1:50 PM
    in reply to: #572870

    User image

    Elite
    3088
    20001000252525
    Austin, TX
    Gold member
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    Scout7 - 2006-10-19 12:39 PM

    That's not what it does. I read it. It gives due process to those who would not, under Geneva Convention, be afforded due process.

    It establishes courts for the trial of illegal combatants, it provides the accused with legal representation, translators, and a judge and jury. It prohibits the use of coerced testimony, and the use of cruel and unusual punishment. It provides for appeals, and ongoing reviews of the system, its findings, and its members.

    How is that bad?


    It establishes courts for trial of illegal combatants, but allows the president exclusive right to determine who falls in that category with no right to challenge the determiniation. American citizens CAN be classified as illegal combatants. There is also no requirement that the trial ever take place. It provides for legal representation, but allows for introduction of evidence that the accused and their counsel are not allowed to see. It prohibits the use or cruel and unusual punishment, but allows to president to define what methods are cruel and unusual.

    Let's fast forward a couple of years. I've won the presidential election. I decide that the failure of the administration to capture bin Laden, the invasion of Iraq that has turned it into a recruiting and training ground for terrorist organizations, and the systematic dismantling of the rights and freedoms that terrorists supposedly hate us for equates to material aid to terrorist organizations. I order that President Bush and Vice President Cheney be detained as illegal enemy combatants for that reason. They can challenge their status as illegal combatants, of course. But that challenge is decided by a panel of people that I appoint.

    Since they're not too cooperative, I decide to have them interrogated. The Geneva Conventions apply, but I get to decide what methods violate the Geneva Conventions and which do not. I decide that electric shocks and physical abuse aren't too bad. The fact that physical torture has proven to lead to invalid information is beside the point. If I'm not satisfied there, I can always render them to Syria to do the real dirty work for me.

    I don't ever have them tried, since I don't need to. I just detain them for the length of my presidency. This scenario could easily transpire. Granted, public opinion will probably shift massively against me, but if I don't care, it doesn't matter.

    "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin


    2006-10-19 1:56 PM
    in reply to: #572506

    User image

    Elite
    2733
    200050010010025
    Venture Industries,
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    Everyone keeps talking about how this act "erodes" our freedoms. My question is: How?

    Military courts have long been recognized as Constitutional. In deed military Courts exist seperate and apart from the law that governs our federal judcial establishment. Certain protections that are constitutionally guaranteed to civilians in civilian courts, are specifically exempted in Military Courts. (For example read the Fith Amendment Grand Jury Indictment clause, there is a specific exemption for 'land and naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of war or public danger.", additionally the Supreme Court has hinted that there is no sixth amendment right to counsel in summary courtmartial proceedings)

    So I guess my question is If our servicemen and women do not necessarily enjoy the same rights that are provided for to a civilian in a civilian criminal proceedings, why then do we assume that a foreign national combatant would enjoy the same Consitutional protections as a civilian in a civilian court?

    It's one think to hold the opinion that they should have those rights, it's quit another to say that their rights are being violated if in fact they don't have those rights.

    But again I'm muddying the debate with facts.
    2006-10-19 2:00 PM
    in reply to: #573002

    User image

    Pro
    3673
    200010005001002525
    MAC-opolis
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

    ASA22 - 2006-10-19 2:56 PM Everyone keeps talking about how this act "erodes" our freedoms. My question is: How? Military courts have long been recognized as Constitutional. In deed military Courts exist seperate and apart from the law that governs our federal judcial establishment. Certain protections that are constitutionally guaranteed to civilians in civilian courts, are specifically exempted in Military Courts. (For example read the Fith Amendment Grand Jury Indictment clause, there is a specific exemption for 'land and naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of war or public danger.", additionally the Supreme Court has hinted that there is no sixth amendment right to counsel in summary courtmartial proceedings) So I guess my question is If our servicemen and women do not necessarily enjoy the same rights that are provided for to a civilian in a civilian criminal proceedings, why then do we assume that a foreign national combatant would enjoy the same Consitutional protections as a civilian in a civilian court? It's one think to hold the opinion that they should have those rights, it's quit another to say that their rights are being violated if in fact they don't have those rights. But again I'm muddying the debate with facts.

    I think what is worrisome is that the President and 3 people that he appoints are the only ones who can define who is an "enemy of the state".  They could levy that decision on anyone and say they are a war criminal, thus excluding them from any judicial rights outside the military tribunals...this includes foreign and Americans alike.

     

    2006-10-19 2:05 PM
    in reply to: #572999

    User image

    Elite
    2733
    200050010010025
    Venture Industries,
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

    It establishes courts for trial of illegal combatants, but allows the president exclusive right to determine who falls in that category with no right to challenge the determiniation. American citizens CAN be classified as illegal combatants. There is also no requirement that the trial ever take place. It provides for legal representation, but allows for introduction of evidence that the accused and their counsel are not allowed to see. It prohibits the use or cruel and unusual punishment, but allows to president to define what methods are cruel and unusual.

    I'm just curious where do you see in the Act that the President gets to determine what is cruel and unusual punishment? (I may have missed it. I didn't read the Act that way, but I conceed that I may have missed something or that I may be wrong) And where do you find that American citizens can be classified as illegal combatants. They may be able to be classified as "Illegal Combatants" however the jurisdictional statement of the military commissions specifically references "alien unlawful combatants"
    2006-10-19 2:09 PM
    in reply to: #573008

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    474
    1001001001002525
    DFW Metroplex
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    Do you two honestly think that is how it is going to play out.  You really believe that whoever is in office is actually that evil.  Have you two really lost that much faith in the American President?  Don't you think that is taking it just a little to far?
    2006-10-19 2:09 PM
    in reply to: #573008

    User image

    Expert
    694
    500100252525
    Charleston, SC
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    The Mac - 2006-10-19 2:00 PM

    I think what is worrisome is that the President and 3 people that he appoints are the only ones who can define who is an "enemy of the state". They could levy that decision on anyone and say they are a war criminal, thus excluding them from any judicial rights outside the military tribunals...this includes foreign and Americans alike.

    For those three appointees, is there an "advice and consent of the senate" clause?  It seems like there would be as with Judges, Secrataries, UN ambassators and the like.  I could just read it for myself, but that seems a little difficult.



    2006-10-19 2:12 PM
    in reply to: #573025

    User image

    Pro
    3673
    200010005001002525
    MAC-opolis
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    bcotten534 - 2006-10-19 3:09 PM
    The Mac - 2006-10-19 2:00 PM

    I think what is worrisome is that the President and 3 people that he appoints are the only ones who can define who is an "enemy of the state". They could levy that decision on anyone and say they are a war criminal, thus excluding them from any judicial rights outside the military tribunals...this includes foreign and Americans alike.

    For those three appointees, is there an "advice and consent of the senate" clause?  It seems like there would be as with Judges, Secrataries, UN ambassators and the like.  I could just read it for myself, but that seems a little difficult.

    No.  The signing off on this bill by the Senate was their consent.

     

    2006-10-19 2:15 PM
    in reply to: #573008

    User image

    Elite
    2733
    200050010010025
    Venture Industries,
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    The Mac - 2006-10-19 3:00 PM

    ASA22 - 2006-10-19 2:56 PM Everyone keeps talking about how this act "erodes" our freedoms. My question is: How? Military courts have long been recognized as Constitutional. In deed military Courts exist seperate and apart from the law that governs our federal judcial establishment. Certain protections that are constitutionally guaranteed to civilians in civilian courts, are specifically exempted in Military Courts. (For example read the Fith Amendment Grand Jury Indictment clause, there is a specific exemption for 'land and naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of war or public danger.", additionally the Supreme Court has hinted that there is no sixth amendment right to counsel in summary courtmartial proceedings) So I guess my question is If our servicemen and women do not necessarily enjoy the same rights that are provided for to a civilian in a civilian criminal proceedings, why then do we assume that a foreign national combatant would enjoy the same Consitutional protections as a civilian in a civilian court? It's one think to hold the opinion that they should have those rights, it's quit another to say that their rights are being violated if in fact they don't have those rights. But again I'm muddying the debate with facts.

    I think what is worrisome is that the President and 3 people that he appoints are the only ones who can define who is an "enemy of the state".  They could levy that decision on anyone and say they are a war criminal, thus excluding them from any judicial rights outside the military tribunals...this includes foreign and Americans alike.

     



    I understand your point. It's well taken. I just disagree with you.
    2006-10-19 2:17 PM
    in reply to: #572506

    User image

    Veteran
    288
    100100252525
    Austin, Texas
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....

    Please go watch this video from Keith Olberman- he's one of the few, very few, newscasters i can handle and actually believe.  this is his commentary.  he's also got a great one- the interview with the GW guy- but i think someone already mentioned it.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/from/ET/

     

    2006-10-19 2:19 PM
    in reply to: #573024

    User image

    Elite
    3088
    20001000252525
    Austin, TX
    Gold member
    Subject: RE: Goodbye America....
    C-Ray - 2006-10-19 2:09 PM

    Do you two honestly think that is how it is going to play out.  You really believe that whoever is in office is actually that evil.  Have you two really lost that much faith in the American President?  Don't you think that is taking it just a little to far?


    Honestly, no. But isn't the point of our entire constitutional form of government that I shouldn't have to even have the concern?
    New Thread
    Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Goodbye America.... Rss Feed  
     
     
    of 4