AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I say there is a danger to US citizens posed by bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US.

We know that you say that. So far, you just haven't given a reason why they would be "a danger to US citizens".

@old europe,

You first OE. Make the case for why they are not a danger. If you can. While you're at it make your case for why you presume to think we should bring them to the USA, why Germany doesn't want them, and what difference it makes to you?

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You first OE. Make the case for why they are not a danger. If you can.

He already did, as have I. At this point you are engaging in intellectual cowardice.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No I'm not. I am asking you and OE to spell out your argument. If you can. I have already made my case some time back. It's your turn. I'll repeat my argument if you demonstrate intellectual courage and actually articulate a rationale or argument that is more substantial than ad hominem comments or saying that just because make a pronouncement of how something is, that is a sufficient argument. So take a chance. Really make your case here.

If you're not willing to do that, then I just assume you're waiting to pounce and attack and accuse and make more ad homenem comments because you can't defend your own opinion.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I already did.

If American prisons are safe enough to lock up all the people that are listed in this post, then they should be safe enough to detain the Guantanamo inmates. I don't see any rational reason why it would be less safe to house the Guantanamo detainees on American soil than it is to house the Unabomber, the 20th 9/11 hijacker or the shoe bomber there.

Now that I've answered your question a couple of times, I really think it's your turn. Why do you think that the Guantanamo inmates would be "a danger to US citizens".

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

While you're at it make your case for why you presume to think we should bring them to the USA, why Germany doesn't want them, and what difference it makes to you?

Again trying to divert the discussion? You're really absolutely incapable of coming up with a rational argument, aren't you?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No I'm not. I am asking you and OE to spell out your argument. I don't think you can.

You are incorrect. Both of us already have, and today, not some time back.

Quote:

I have already made my case some time back.

Bullshit. I don't care what you may or may not have done in the past. If you did make the case, link to it. Otherwise, re-state your case. It should take less time to do so, then it did for you to write your last post. You have no excuse not to other than intellectual cowardice.

Quote:

It's your turn. I'll repeat my argument if you demonstrate intellectual courage and actually articulate a rationale or argument that is more substantial than ad hominem comments or saying that just because make a pronouncement of how something is, that is a sufficient argument.

I don't care what you think about my argument; it is clear that OE and I have been accommodating of you and your refusal to clearly state your argument. This is only another construction on your part designed to once again avoid doing so.

I assert that you did not lay out your case 'some time back.' I assert that you have no case whatsoever. You can't even do better than McG's easily batted down effort, and you know it. It's up to you to prove me wrong. Try actually defending one of the dumb things that comes out of your mouth, instead of demanding that others make arguments for once.

If you don't wish to make an argument at all, it's fine with me; but you have been completely busted on yet another issue and would have been laughed out of any actual debate long ago, which I think you know. It's gotta be embarrassing to be shown up time after time - on your own favorite thread, no less.

Let me make clear that I'd rather have a discussion re: the merits of bringing terrorists here, than engage in derision of your inability to do so. That would be more satisfying. But if you refuse to hold up your end, I'll take what I can get.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@old europe,

The difference is that most of the people you listed were already here and already subject to the US civil court system. Also US citizens are entitled to certain legal processes that prisoners of war and enemy combatants are not. Our courts have already ruled that we are not obligated to give them access to our civil courts.

So again, explain why it makes more sense to move them to the USA than to detain terrorists, prisoners of war, and enemy combatants at GITMO.

Cyclop has already demonstrated his inability to articulate an argument even though he says he would like to discuss the merits of bringing those guys over here. He doesn't seem to be able to find the words for why we should do that.

Can you?

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Our Criminal Justice System Is Not Appropriate For Terrorists

Crona and Richardson point out that for this type of crime, military tribunals, which are composed of a panel of trained military officers who serve as jury and judge, have many practical advantages over our criminal justice system, which was never designed to deal with war crimes or crimes against humanity. Such tribunals are more efficient, less costly, and more likely to provide swift and sure justice.

As examples, they cite the two criminal trials of the terrorists indicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The first trial required five months of testimony, 207 witnesses, and 1,003 exhibits " not to mention many days of legal arguments and four days of jury deliberations. The second trial, involving the remaining defendants, required over eight months, 200 witnesses, and hundreds of exhibits.

Most troublingly, however, such criminal trials placed the lives of the American citizens who serve as jurors, and their families, in jeopardy of harm from other terrorists. While jurors are purportedly anonymous, in fact they could easily end up living in fear, which would not be unfounded. Witnesses in such cases are, if necessary, placed in the federal witness protection program.

None of these problems exist with military tribunals. Trials without juries are always more efficient. And military officers have accepted the risk of personal harm as a concomitant of their work.

Our criminal justice system, which requires a unanimous finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by twelve jurors, Crona and Richardson note, "is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty go free rather than convicting the innocent. However, when this nation is faced with terrorist attacks that inflict mass murder or hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in a single instance, we can no longer afford procedures that err so heavily on the side of freeing the guilty. Protection of society and the lives of thousands of potential victims becomes paramount."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...You can't even do better than McG's easily batted down effort, ...
Cycloptichorn

Excuse me? You have batted down nothing. You have made your opinion noted, that's about it.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Quote:
Foxie wrote:
I have already made my case some time back.

Cyclo wrote:
Bullshit. I don't care what you may or may not have done in the past. If you did make the case, link to it. Otherwise, re-state your case. It should take less time to do so, then it did for you to write your last post. You have no excuse not to other than intellectual cowardice.

This is another old Foxie ploy; she'll claim she won't be able to find it, because she's posted so many...and she doesn't want to go look for her own post where she claims she said something.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...You can't even do better than McG's easily batted down effort, ...
Cycloptichorn

Excuse me? You have batted down nothing. You have made your opinion noted, that's about it.

Oh, really? Explain then why closed trials and sealed evidence won't solve your objection. In detail. You seem to have forgotten to do so at some point.

Your other reasons, while well-presented, were not compelling - and I think you know that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The difference is that most of the people you listed were already here and already subject to the US civil court system.

This means nothing in terms of the dangers they pose to the outside society.

Quote:

Also US citizens are entitled to certain legal processes that prisoners of war and enemy combatants are not. Our courts have already ruled that we are not obligated to give them access to our civil courts.

Keeping them in military prisons in America wouldn't change this.

Quote:

So again, explain why it makes more sense to move them to the USA than to detain terrorists, prisoners of war, and enemy combatants at GITMO.

Cyclop has already demonstrated his inability to articulate an argument even though he says he would like to discuss the merits of bringing those guys over here. He doesn't seem to be able to find the words for why we should do that.

Can you?

Laughable.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The difference is that most of the people you listed were already here and already subject to the US civil court system.

So? That doesn't make them less dangerous, right? Your argument was that the Guantanamo inmates would pose "a danger to US citizens". That's certainly the case with the people I've listed as well, right? I mean, the fact that the Unabomber already was in the United States certainly didn't make him less dangerous, right?

Foxfyre wrote:

Also US citizens are entitled to certain legal processes that prisoners of war and enemy combatants are not.

So? Access to certain legal processes doesn't make a person less dangerous. The fact that the Unabomber was entitled to certain rights once he was caught certainly didn't make him less dangerous, right?

Foxfyre wrote:

Our courts have already ruled that we are not obligated to give them access to our civil courts.

So? Whether or not somebody has access to a civil court doesn't decide how much of a danger to the public he is. The fact that the Unabomber had access to a civil court once he was caught certainly didn't make him less dangerous, right?

Seriously, how long do want to avoid giving one single reason for your claim that the Guantanamo inmates would pose a danger to US citizens if brought to the States?

2 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Foxie wrote:
The difference is that most of the people you listed were already here and already subject to the US civil court system.

oe wrote:
So? That doesn't make them less dangerous, right? Your argument was that the Guantanamo inmates would pose "a danger to US citizens". That's certainly the case with the people I've listed as well, right? I mean, the fact that the Unabomber already was in the United States certainly didn't make him less dangerous, right?

The Unabomber is only one of many American-born who were responsible for terrorist acts. People like Foxie suffer from myopia; she only sees what she wants to see by ignoring the common-known facts. Foxie does this often.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Keeping them in military prisons in America wouldn't change this.

Explain how this would not give them access to US civil courts.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

What difference does it make? Our courts fail all the time and let murders go scott free! OJ is but one example.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Keeping them in military prisons in America wouldn't change this.

Explain how this would not give them access to US civil courts.

Yaknow what? No. No more demands from you answered, until you explain why keeping terrorists here is dangerous to society.

You cannot do so. This is because your fears are irrational and mostly born out of media such as 24, which teaches that the tewworists will escape and go on rampages through our society.

Prove me wrong - outline your rational fears.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The difference is that most of the people you listed were already here and already subject to the US civil court system.

So? That doesn't make them less dangerous, right? Your argument was that the Guantanamo inmates would pose "a danger to US citizens". That's certainly the case with the people I've listed as well, right? I mean, the fact that the Unabomber already was in the United States certainly didn't make him less dangerous, right?

No, but why in the world would we want to increase the danger that is already here and we are currently stuck with?

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Also US citizens are entitled to certain legal processes that prisoners of war and enemy combatants are not.

So? Access to certain legal processes doesn't make a person less dangerous. The fact that the Unabomber was entitled to certain rights once he was caught certainly didn't make him less dangerous, right?

Yes it does. There is a real risk that prosecutors and judges and jurors and/or their families could become special terrorist targets if they convict and you can be sure that they would be made aware of that fact. Military personnel accept such risk as a part of the job. And there is always the risk that a terrorist would be released on a technicality or a sympathetic jury. The Mendendez brothers for instance achieved sympathy because they were orphans. (They were orphans because they brutally murdered their parents.) In a case that was 100% cut and dried two juries failed to reach a verdict--a third with a good judge did. OJ Simpson got off when there was unquestionable proof of his guilt. Again why would we want to increase the risk to the civilian population more than what we already have.

GITMO is a state of the art facility where prisoners are treated more humanely than they would be in any other prison in the world and which is virtually escape proof and which inmates pose no threat of any kind to the US population. I wish we could send all pathologically dangerous people there, but barring that, at least we could keep there those who are already there.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Our courts have already ruled that we are not obligated to give them access to our civil courts.

So? Whether or not somebody has access to a civil court doesn't decide how much of a danger to the public he is. The fact that the Unabomber had access to a civil court once he was caught certainly didn't make him less dangerous, right?

The Unabomber was a US citizen and therefore entitled to all the rights of a US citizen. The argument you make is not unlike saying that if you have a rattlesnake loose in the room, there's no reason not to release a Cobra too. The danger is already there, right?

Quote:

Seriously, how long do want to avoid giving one single reason for your claim that the Guantanamo inmates would pose a danger to US citizens if brought to the States?

Okay you have the reason.

Rebut it if you can.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, but why in the world would we want to increase the danger that is already here and we are currently stuck with?

Are you saying that imprisoned Guantanamo detainees are as much of a danger to the American public as Kaczynski was while he was free?

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Also US citizens are entitled to certain legal processes that prisoners of war and enemy combatants are not.

So? Access to certain legal processes doesn't make a person less dangerous. The fact that the Unabomber was entitled to certain rights once he was caught certainly didn't make him less dangerous, right?

Yes it does.

You're saying that access to certain legal processes makes a detainee less dangerous? Then you could simply grant him access to those processes.

In case you wanted to say the opposite - that it would make a detainee more dangerous - then why not simply keep the military commissions?

Foxfyre wrote:

The Unabomber was a US citizen and therefore entitled to all the rights of a US citizen. The argument you make is not unlike saying that if you have a rattlesnake loose in the room, there's no reason not to release a Cobra too. The danger is already there, right?

The argument I make is rather like saying that if you have a rattlesnake locked up safely in a terrarium where it cannot possibly escape, there shouldn't be any kind of problem with locking a Cobra up along with the rattlesnake in the same terrarium.

Yes, letting the Unabomber (or any other dangerous criminal locked up in a high-security prison in the US) walk away freely might endanger the public. Yes, letting all of the Guantanamo detainees walk away freely might endanger the public. Neither is being advocated here.

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay you have the reason.

Where? The only reason you gave was some kind of argument that giving the Guantanamo inmates access to a civil court would endanger Americans.

The claim you made earlier was that merely bringing the inmates to the States would pose a danger to the American public.

Not the same thing.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know