2
   

Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to reveal.

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 01:43 am
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If their case is weak, then we need to pass new laws giving them more power to control treasonous newspapers during wartime.


Wartime? Do you mean when Congress officially declares war? Or just anytime the President decides to send troops overseas or to the US border?


I mean those times when Congress declares war, like they did after 9/11.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 01:49 am
Thomas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If their case is weak, then we need to pass new laws giving them more power to control treasonous newspapers during wartime.

Then I suggest you stop barking and start biting. Write a petition to congress that you want such a law.


That isn't a bad idea. Maybe I will.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 01:49 am
blatham wrote:
That's sensible, oralloy. Why, when you wish to try or publicly indict some internal entity for treason, allow yourself to be curtailed by the laws related to the matter? Change 'em. Get those guys who aren't guilty who are guilty. They aren't guilty of treason now but they sure will be after we do a re-write.


The New York Times is trying to help Osama bin Ladn kill me.

I think that justifies closing them down.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 01:53 am
parados wrote:
Just having troops in Afghanistan doesn't mean we are at war there anymore than having troops in Germany means we are at war there. We certainly aren't at war with the country of Afghanistan.


We are at war with al-Qa'ida, and their allies.



parados wrote:
Whether the court will recognize the declaration of war on an idea, terrorism, as warfare is something else entirely. Terrorism will always exist. Is it possible to hold people because an idea hasn't been eliminated?


"The War on Terror" is a slogan, not a definition of the parameters of the war.

We are at war with al-Qa'ida.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 01:58 am
parados wrote:
So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.


We are still at war with al-Qa'ida.



parados wrote:
The idea that we can have an open ended war and hold people indefinitely should be anathema to any free people.


If Osama would like to shorten the war by surrendering, I am sure we can oblige him.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 02:00 am
parados wrote:
Who said anything about releasing them. If they are guilty, charge them and convict them. If you suspect them, charge them. If you don't have any evidence then on what basis are you holding them?


On the basis that they are captured enemy soldiers, who, as unlawful combatants, may be detained incommunicado for as long as they are deemed a security risk.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 06:37 am
oralloy wrote:
blatham wrote:
That's sensible, oralloy. Why, when you wish to try or publicly indict some internal entity for treason, allow yourself to be curtailed by the laws related to the matter? Change 'em. Get those guys who aren't guilty who are guilty. They aren't guilty of treason now but they sure will be after we do a re-write.


The New York Times is trying to help Osama bin Ladn kill me.

I think that justifies closing them down.


That sentence in red could well serve you as a signature line, oralloy. Well, perhaps it wouldn't serve you well, but it would be beneficial to the rest of us here.
Quote:
" It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Joe Goebbels
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 06:51 am
oralloy wrote:
The New York Times is trying to help Osama bin Ladn kill me.

Just a consistency check: Is it your opinion that defense layers are trying to help criminals pimp, steal, and murder? It would seem logical, as they are paid to make sure those criminals get away with as little punishment as possible. If so, do you want defense lawyers abolished, too?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 06:57 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.

We have troops there but they are not fighting the Afghani government. Since the war with Afghanistan is over shouldn't those captured on the battlefield be returned to the present Afghani government according to the Geneva convention?

Could we have continued to hold Japanese prisoners of war because there were a few hold out Japanese soldiers, some not surrendering until the 1970s
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

The question is, at what point are hostilities over? Are they over when we say they are or is there some other designation that is recognized by courts? The idea that we can have an open ended war and hold people indefinitely should be anathema to any free people.


Why are you in such a hurry to release terrorists back into the wild where they can continue murdering civilians?

Who said anything about releasing them. If they are guilty, charge them and convict them. If you suspect them, charge them. If you don't have any evidence then on what basis are you holding them?


They are being held on the basis that they were captured on the field of battle in, at least, proximity to non-uniformed combatants trying to kill American soldiers.
Except we have no way of knowing if that is true. Based on the reports of some of those released, they had nothing to do with any fighting. They were turned over for a reward.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 09:44 pm
parados wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.

We have troops there but they are not fighting the Afghani government. Since the war with Afghanistan is over shouldn't those captured on the battlefield be returned to the present Afghani government according to the Geneva convention?

Could we have continued to hold Japanese prisoners of war because there were a few hold out Japanese soldiers, some not surrendering until the 1970s
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

The question is, at what point are hostilities over? Are they over when we say they are or is there some other designation that is recognized by courts? The idea that we can have an open ended war and hold people indefinitely should be anathema to any free people.


Why are you in such a hurry to release terrorists back into the wild where they can continue murdering civilians?

Who said anything about releasing them. If they are guilty, charge them and convict them. If you suspect them, charge them. If you don't have any evidence then on what basis are you holding them?


They are being held on the basis that they were captured on the field of battle in, at least, proximity to non-uniformed combatants trying to kill American soldiers.
Except we have no way of knowing if that is true. Based on the reports of some of those released, they had nothing to do with any fighting. They were turned over for a reward.


Who has no way of knowing?

If you mean "We the People," there are quite a lot of things we have no way of knowing and yet we believe in their truth.

One of the things we have very good reason to believe is that some of the detainees who have already been released have gone back to their old ways of trying to kill Americans. I suppose we can't say that we know this to true unless we were present when these particular detainees were released and also when they subsequently tried to kill Americans -- perhaps even ourselves. Most people however believe this to be the case based sources of information which they consider credible.

Given that many of the detainees are murderers, and that some of those released returned to their killing ways, it seems to me a mistake to question what our government tells us on the basis of what some released detainees may claim. Let's face it, once they are released, they are hardly going to admit that they were indeed trying to kill Americans when they were first caught.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2006 07:19 am
Claiming something again without any reference doesn't make it so Finn..

Your evidence that some, most or all of those released have gone back to killing Americans?

Of course, we first need evidence that they were doing that in the first place before picked up.

If someone put you in prison for years, threatened you with dogs, chained you in uncomfortable positions until you defecated on yourself and treated your holy book with disrespect, I am sure you would love the people that did that to you and have no desire for revenge.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 12:46 am
parados wrote:
Claiming something again without any reference doesn't make it so Finn..

Your evidence that some, most or all of those released have gone back to killing Americans?

Of course, we first need evidence that they were doing that in the first place before picked up.

If someone put you in prison for years, threatened you with dogs, chained you in uncomfortable positions until you defecated on yourself and treated your holy book with disrespect, I am sure you would love the people that did that to you and have no desire for revenge.


I have never asserted that most or all of those released have returned to their killing ways.

If you don't believe that some have, that's fine with me.

If you wish to delude yourself that the detainees are all innocent goatherds who would not be trying to kill Americans if it were not for the horrible ways in which they were treated by Americans, be my guest.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 09:02 am
finn

Serious reflective question...have you thought much about your repeated use of "goatherd" in this discussion? I have. It's quite interesting.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 09:09 am
Finn,
I have never said they were all goatherds. You are the one that appears to be claiming they are all terrorists. I said if they are terrorists then charge them. They are not all terrorists however. Our own government has admitted that. Our government has released people because they found no evidence after holding them for 3 years.

A free society doesn't imprison people indefinitely without charges. Dictatorships do that. A free society has a process for charging people with crimes, letting them see the evidence against them and disputing that evidence.


Are we the great country we claim to be or not? It appears you seem to prefer we not be.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 07:10 pm
blatham wrote:
finn

Serious reflective question...have you thought much about your repeated use of "goatherd" in this discussion? I have. It's quite interesting.


What else can they be if they are not terrorists?

Dentists? Cobblers? Photocopier Repairmen?

Besides, I like the word "goatherd." It's not used nearly enough and in my own way I've tried to make up for that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2006 04:58 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
finn

Serious reflective question...have you thought much about your repeated use of "goatherd" in this discussion? I have. It's quite interesting.


What else can they be if they are not terrorists?

Dentists? Cobblers? Photocopier Repairmen?

Besides, I like the word "goatherd." It's not used nearly enough and in my own way I've tried to make up for that.


Humerous answer. And it does indicate you have a grasp on what your words get up to here. I like "goatherd" too. Not only does it suggest the primitive, the uncivilized, dirty fingernails, etc - but it also avoids any of the peaceful, loving/empathetic and Christ-like set of notions associated with "shepard".

But I think it's counter-productive, unless rhetorical gain, at the expense of accuracy or facts, is your senior goal or hope.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 03:49 am
Thomas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The New York Times is trying to help Osama bin Ladn kill me.

Just a consistency check: Is it your opinion that defense layers are trying to help criminals pimp, steal, and murder? It would seem logical, as they are paid to make sure those criminals get away with as little punishment as possible. If so, do you want defense lawyers abolished, too?



I do not wish to see defense lawyers abolished.

I realize that they may free a criminal that may later harm me. But I don't see their actions as being as dangerous as newspapers that print vital state secrets during wartime.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 10:07:07