Historical context applied to Current Events

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You implied that the US should give up our moral and ethical development because other nations don't have the same level - the equivalent. Do you agree or disagree that we should not base our ethics and morals on the behavior of others, but on what we consider to be right and wrong?

War is sometimes necessary, yes. This has nothing to do with our current conversation, though.

Cycloptichorn

I implied no such thing. I implied it isn't always possible to do such lofty things as "innocent until proven guilty" on a battlefield, like when a guy is drawing a bead on you between your eyes. Further, we cannot grant all rights to these guys as if they were all citizens of the U.S. Our court system would not be able to process them all and still do our own rightful citizens justice. Such an argument is moronic, don't you think?

What policy would you institute, cyclops? I can't wait to hear it, but give it some serious thought. I'll be back later.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You implied that the US should give up our moral and ethical development because other nations don't have the same level - the equivalent. Do you agree or disagree that we should not base our ethics and morals on the behavior of others, but on what we consider to be right and wrong?

War is sometimes necessary, yes. This has nothing to do with our current conversation, though.

Cycloptichorn

I implied no such thing. I implied it isn't always possible to do such lofty things as "innocent until proven guilty" on a battlefield, like when a guy is drawing a bead on you between your eyes. Further, we cannot grant all rights to these guys as if they were all citizens of the U.S. Our court system would not be able to process them all and still do our own rightful citizens justice. Such an argument is moronic, don't you think?

What policy would you institute, cyclops? I can't wait to hear it, but give it some serious thought. I'll be back later.

No, I don't think such an argument is moronic at all.

The vast majority of 'terrorists' we have in custody - the vast majority - were captured on no battlefield whatsoever. They weren't pointing their guns at anyone. You are conflating two completely different things in an attempt to screw up the argument. Not surprising, but ineffective.

We can grant the rights we wish to these guys. I don't know why you say we can't. If we need to hire some more judges and prosecutors to get through them all, I haven't seen any evidence at all that the vast amounts of money we spend couldn't go to pay for that as well.

You have not put forward a convincing argument for not granting these prisoners Rights, at all. You've just said it 'can't' be done. You are 100% incorrect, because it most certainly could be done.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I mean, Nazis, people who we had far more evidence of committing heinous crimes, were given public trials - and we didn't have to strip their rights to do it. To say that we can't now is ludicrous.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You implied that the US should give up our moral and ethical development because other nations don't have the same level - the equivalent. Do you agree or disagree that we should not base our ethics and morals on the behavior of others, but on what we consider to be right and wrong?

War is sometimes necessary, yes. This has nothing to do with our current conversation, though.

Cycloptichorn

I implied no such thing. I implied it isn't always possible to do such lofty things as "innocent until proven guilty" on a battlefield, like when a guy is drawing a bead on you between your eyes. Further, we cannot grant all rights to these guys as if they were all citizens of the U.S. Our court system would not be able to process them all and still do our own rightful citizens justice. Such an argument is moronic, don't you think?

What policy would you institute, cyclops? I can't wait to hear it, but give it some serious thought. I'll be back later.

If you meet at a terrorist "on a battlefield" and he's trying to kill you, I would suppose you shoot him first. Self-defense and all...

But what does the situation of the people detained in Guantanamo for years have to do with what happens "on a battlefield"? Do you mean they can't be allowed to have a competent tribunal look at their cases because they were caught "on a battlefield"? How do you know it was "on a battlefield"?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I mean, Nazis, people who we had far more evidence of committing heinous crimes, were given public trials - and we didn't have to strip their rights to do it. To say that we can't now is ludicrous.

Cycloptichorn

Nazi's wore uniforms, carried their arms openly and had a very rigid leadership structure.

Are you comparing al Qaeda to the Nazi's? Laughing

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I mean, Nazis, people who we had far more evidence of committing heinous crimes, were given public trials - and we didn't have to strip their rights to do it. To say that we can't now is ludicrous.

Cycloptichorn

Nazi's wore uniforms, carried their arms openly and had a very rigid leadership structure.

Are you comparing al Qaeda to the Nazi's?

In terms of 'can we provide special trials for foreign bad guys?' Then, yes, I am comparing them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I mean, Nazis, people who we had far more evidence of committing heinous crimes, were given public trials - and we didn't have to strip their rights to do it. To say that we can't now is ludicrous.

Cycloptichorn

I presume you are talking about the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which hardly the same as the courts here in America, cyclops. Also, you must surely recognize that the Nazis tried had accumulated an indisputable track record, and the entire world pretty much had them convicted based on that record by then, I think.

I have a few questions for your proposed program to grant enemy combatants all the rights and privileges of a U. S. Citizen.

How many forensic experts will we need to secure the necessary evidence at the scene of the crime, and how many other experts will be needed to verify their work? Remember the O. J. Simpson trial? How practical is it to send crime scene experts to Afghanistan, or as an alternative, how many reliable experts can be found in that country?

How many reliable independant witnesses can be found to attest to the crime? Remember, we are talking about military units here, that are trained to work together, help each other, and stick together. Would such biased witnesses stand up in a court of law here?

When groups of people are rounded up, how are we going to prove specific charges against specific people, although we know they were generally involved in trying to kill us. How do you prove specific charges, and how do you prove one individual did something vs another individual in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt?

How long will it take to conduct a trial for just one enemy combatant, and how many lawyers, how many jurors if a jury trial, and how many appeals will take place?

If it takes 2 or 3 years for one combatant, how long will it take to try several hundred, and how many courts and lawyers will this take?

Given the burden on our justice system, is it physically possible to even accomplish the task, and if so, will it burden the system so severely that it creates a situation of depriving proper justice for American citizens?

Given the fact this is a war issue, is it even logical or advisable to give undue and undeserved attention to enemy combatants for their political advantage and use?

I could think of many more questions, cyclops, but I am quite thankful you are not president, as a bad situation as it is now would soon become a total absolute disaster.

Bottom line, why would you want to convert an act of war into a domestic crime case? Does that actually make any sense to you?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

If you meet at a terrorist "on a battlefield" and he's trying to kill you, I would suppose you shoot him first. Self-defense and all...

But what does the situation of the people detained in Guantanamo for years have to do with what happens "on a battlefield"? Do you mean they can't be allowed to have a competent tribunal look at their cases because they were caught "on a battlefield"? How do you know it was "on a battlefield"?

In the war on terror, the term, "battlefield," encompasses more than a field with a bunch of guys charging each other, shooting at each other, and some lying on the ground either dead or injured. How do I know it was on a battlefield? The answer is I will leave it up to the military that is there at the time. And no, I do not favor sending the sheriff, the police, or domestic crime scene experts over there to verify it for the military. Maybe cyclops would, but thankfully he isn't in charge.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I have a few questions for your proposed program to grant enemy combatants all the rights and privileges of a U. S. Citizen.

There is something between granting full rights of an American citizen and giving people NO rights whatsoever.

Even on US soil, there is a difference between the rights a citizen gets and the rights a non-citizen gets. Still, the non-citizen has some rights.

As stated previously, many of these prisoners were taken in sweeps. That means that somebody can be there because a neighbor who coveted his wife turned him in to someone, even though they had not done anything.

If the prisoners were on US soil proper, they would have some rights-not the same as American citizens, but some rights. Instead, they build the prison in little Guantanamo for the express purpose of making sure the prisoners don't even have the rights of non-citizens on US soil.

Building secret, unannounced prisons in Eastern European countries where God-knows-what is happening to the prisoners is even more chilling.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Setanta wrote:
This is bloody ridiculous. Okie starts a thread entitled "Historical context applied to Current Events," and then when someone applies historical context, he squeals and says it's not the same.

Talking about sea piracy in the 1800s for how we can deal with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is your historical context, not mine. Who is being ridiculous?

You are, as well as demonstrating the sort of historical hebetude, the kind of stumbling ignorance, that your conservative masters love to see.

The point of your appeal to "historical context" is to attempt to suggest that our situation is unique, and that it therefore justifies unique solutions, but in particular, solutions which contravene the civic values about which Americans are so fond of bragging. You attempt to claim that it is stupid and dangerous to assume that any enemy today be accorded any rights, that any right to fair treatment, or freedom from torture, or any right of habeas corpus is unwise.

In the period 1783 to 1815, we dealt with the threat of state-sponsored terrorism--which threatened many other nations as well, notably the English and the French--by the same means that other nations used, notably the English and the French. We paid ransoms, we paid tribute, we threatened military action, we engaged in military attacks. We negotiated treaties, and we exchanged prisoners. In short, we observed the normal conventions of the day.

But you didn't start this thread because you really wanted to find an historical context--you don't want anyone to tell you that the United States should observe the normal conventions of the world of which we are a part--you want to claim that this is a unique situation which calls for and authorizes unique and extra-legal, or illegal, actions and policies.

Your entire thesis is full of sh!t. You're just trying to spray perfume over the sh!t stench of this administration's activities.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
If terrorists want to be protected by the Geneva conventions, they should act accordingly. Otherwise they do not apply to them.

The Geneva conventions are to protect soldiers and civilians, not terrorists.

This is the same stupidity for which i already called Okie. How do you know they're terrorists, McWhitey? Just because you say so? We should ignore the terms of the Geneva Convention just because McWhitey says they're all terrorists?

In war, it is sometimes hard to tell, Setanta. If they are trying to kill you, that would be your first clue.

Anyone who tries to kill you in wartime is automatically a terrorist? And here i thought you'd already plumbed the depths of incredibly stupid remarks--oh well, live and learn.

0 Replies

By the way, Okie--if your idiotic thesis is that anyone attempting to kill you in time of war is a terrorist, then we have battled terrorists on many, many occasions in our history: 1798, when we fought the French in the Caribbean; 1812, when we fought the English and the Canadians; 1846, when we fought the Mexicans; both sides of the 1861 Civil War; 1871, when we invaded Korea; 1898, when we fought the Spanish; 1917, when we fought the Germans; 1941, when we fought the Japanese and the Germans--and of course, all those damned Indians we had to keep killing off.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it Okie?

0 Replies

Pat Tillman was killed by terrorists.

0 Replies

By what passes for logic at Okie's house, every American who ever died in combat was killed by terrorists.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

okie wrote:
Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
If terrorists want to be protected by the Geneva conventions, they should act accordingly. Otherwise they do not apply to them.

The Geneva conventions are to protect soldiers and civilians, not terrorists.

This is the same stupidity for which i already called Okie. How do you know they're terrorists, McWhitey? Just because you say so? We should ignore the terms of the Geneva Convention just because McWhitey says they're all terrorists?

In war, it is sometimes hard to tell, Setanta. If they are trying to kill you, that would be your first clue.

Anyone who tries to kill you in wartime is automatically a terrorist? And here i thought you'd already plumbed the depths of incredibly stupid remarks--oh well, live and learn.

I must have missed this stupidity disguised as a reply.

Only a fool would say "Anyone who tries to kill you in wartime is automatically a terrorist?"

I only see one person here saying that.

The Geneva Conventions are pretty clear about who is and who is not protected by it. We have lawyers and advisers in the military and government whose job it is to analyze and clarify such documents and make decisions based on that analysis to decide who is and who is not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

If you really need me to tell you who is and who is not a terrorist, then you need some serious help.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

By what passes for logic at Okie's house, every American who ever died in combat was killed by terrorists.

You mean by your ability to hyperbolize what okie said.

0 Replies

McG said;

Quote:

You mean by your ability to hyperbolize what okie said.

I don't believe it's actually possible to hyperbolize anything okie says.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

McG said;

Quote:
You mean by your ability to hyperbolize what okie said.

I don't believe it's actually possible to hyperbolize anything okie says.

bullshit dys. That's the only way Setanta can warp most arguments around to a more satisfying (for him anyways) outcome.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If they are trying to kill you, that would be your first clue [they are terrorists].

Source.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I must have missed this stupidity disguised as a reply.

You haven't been reading Okie's posts?

Quote:

Only a fool would say "Anyone who tries to kill you in wartime is automatically a terrorist?"

I only see one person here saying that.

OK, i see, you haven't been reading Okie's posts.

Quote:

The Geneva Conventions are pretty clear about who is and who is not protected by it. We have lawyers and advisers in the military and government whose job it is to analyze and clarify such documents and make decisions based on that analysis to decide who is and who is not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

If you really need me to tell you who is and who is not a terrorist, then you need some serious help.

I've already both posted a link to, and quoted Article Five of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, so i'll not repeat that. That article clearly states that anyone taken in arms about whom there is any doubt is to be afforded all the protections of the Convention, until such time as the individual's status is determined by a competent tribunal. Nowhere does it say until such time as lawyers and advisers in the military and the government, and nowhere does it acknowledge the right of any government to proceed in such a manner, which would be a clear violation of the Convention.

For once, McWhitey, why don't you try actually reading the thread, reading the links--why don't you actually attempt to learn what the truth is before you let your mouth run--or rather, your fingers run over the keyboard. Engage your brain for once, before posting a reply.

0 Replies

Historical context applied to Current Events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know