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

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?

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'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.

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.

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?

So we are still at war with Afghanistan? I don't think so.

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

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?

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.

" 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."

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

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.

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.

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.

finn

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

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.

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?