0
   

Powell Says Close Gitmo

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:32 am
McGentrix wrote:
Are you arguing that the government shouldn't do everything in it's power to protect it's citizens from terrorism or terrorist plots under the full power of the law?

FreeDuck can talk to her self, but my answer would be yes, that's what I'm arguing. I prefer a certain risk of dying in a terrorist attack over losing my civil liberties. Consequently, there are things that are in the government's power to do that I don't want it to do.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:33 am
FreeDuck wrote:
No. Now it's your turn.


I am making the argument I stated.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:34 am
Thomas wrote:
FreeDuck can talk to her self

Argh. I meant "For herself", of course.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:36 am
Thomas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
All they see is lies and political intrigue and miss the big picture that there are people in the world planning to hurt America in any way it can.

You mean like Saddam Hussein did by hiding weapons of mass destructions from the UN, and by supporting Al Quaeda? Or like Niger did by selling uranium to Iraq? Of course there are people in the world planning to hurt America. But lies and political intrigues about them are the big picture of the Bush administration.


Thomas, the Democrats and much of the world preached that sermon about the dangers of Hussein and WMD, until, and I say until, political winds and the failure to find WMD as predicted in Iraq did not work out exactly as expected, and until the job got tough in Iraq. Then alot of people decided to turn tail and do the easy thing politically.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:37 am
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

It's a tired argument. The constitution is not being shredded and freedoms are not being lost. It's an appeal to sympathy to say it is.


Are you or are you not arguing that the president should have the power to deny rights of due process in order to fight terrorism?


Are you arguing that the government shouldn't do everything in it's power to protect it's citizens from terrorism or terrorist plots under the full power of the law?


Sophistry on your part and the refusal to answer a direct question.

But, for the record, I am arguing that the government should not exceed the boundaries of the Rule of Law in order to stop terrorism.

I couldn't agree with Thomas more - I prefer a certain risk of dying in a terrorist attack over losing my civil liberties. Apparently you prefer to have every safety provided at the expense of your Liberty.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:37 am
okie wrote:
All of this points out the need to have a balance, where we have a reasonable policy of doing reasonable things to protect ourselves in balance with respecting the rights of individuals.


I'm glad you said this. I don't agree with everything you say, okie, but I think that you have the same basic respect for our governing principles as I do. I think reasonable people can differ on the issues of Gitmo and the "war on terror". I look forward to opportunities to change your mind on those issues.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:37 am
okie wrote:
Thomas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
All they see is lies and political intrigue and miss the big picture that there are people in the world planning to hurt America in any way it can.

You mean like Saddam Hussein did by hiding weapons of mass destructions from the UN, and by supporting Al Quaeda? Or like Niger did by selling uranium to Iraq? Of course there are people in the world planning to hurt America. But lies and political intrigues about them are the big picture of the Bush administration.


Thomas, the Democrats and much of the world preached that sermon about the dangers of Hussein and WMD, until, and I say until, political winds and the failure to find WMD as predicted in Iraq did not work out exactly as expected, and until the job got tough in Iraq. Then alot of people decided to turn tail and do the easy thing politically.


Non sequitur and immaterial to our current disucssion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:40 am
Thomas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Are you arguing that the government shouldn't do everything in it's power to protect it's citizens from terrorism or terrorist plots under the full power of the law?

FreeDuck can talk to her self, but my answer would be yes, that's what I'm arguing. I prefer a certain risk of dying in a terrorist attack over losing my civil liberties. Consequently, there are things that are in the government's power to do that I don't want it to do.


I'm hanging on to the words "full power of the law". I think McG and I probably disagree on what the law is and how flexible it should be.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
No. Now it's your turn.


I am making the argument I stated.


Which is where? Link or quote or perhaps you care to paraphrase.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:40 am
okie wrote:
Thomas, the Democrats and much of the world preached that sermon about the dangers of Hussein and WMD, until, and I say until, political winds and the failure to find WMD as predicted in Iraq did not work out exactly as expected, and until the job got tough in Iraq. Then alot of people decided to turn tail and do the easy thing politically.

Fair enough, let me modify my statement: "Lies and political intrigues about them are the big picture of the Bush administration, and almost half of the Democratic opposition."

Coming from a country whose government didn't fall for Bush's WMD scam, I feel disinclined to respond to your claim about "much of the world".
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:45 am
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
No. Now it's your turn.


I am making the argument I stated.


Which is where? Link or quote or perhaps you care to paraphrase.


"The government should do everything in it's power to protect it's citizens from terrorism or terrorist plots under the full power of the law"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:51 am
Thomas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Are you arguing that the government shouldn't do everything in it's power to protect it's citizens from terrorism or terrorist plots under the full power of the law?

FreeDuck can talk for herself, but my answer would be yes, that's what I'm arguing. I prefer a certain risk of dying in a terrorist attack over losing my civil liberties. Consequently, there are things that are in the government's power to do that I don't want it to do.


As you state here,
Quote:
Coming from a country whose government didn't fall for Bush's WMD scam, I feel disinclined to respond to your claim about "much of the world".


I don't think you really need to worry about Americans losing civil liberties, do you? You are welcome to what ever risk your government deems appropriate.

German minister outlines risks from terrorism

BERLIN: Germany saw only a slight rise last year in the number of suspected Islamic extremists, but its top security official said Tuesday that an attempted bomb attack and other incidents showed that the country was facing a "new quality of terrorist activity."

"The biggest threat for the stability and security of Germany comes again from Islamic terrorism," Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said as he presented the government's report on extremism for 2006.

Still, he noted an "alarming development" in far-right extremism, with a 9.3 percent increase in violent attacks over 2005 to 1,047, while the far-right National Democratic Party saw its membership rise by 1,000 people to 7,000.

Violent attacks by leftist extremists were down 3.8 percent to 862, but Schäuble said that with the Group of 8 summit meeting in Germany only three weeks away, the authorities were watching "specific activities of the left-extremist scene and violent globalization opponents" with care.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is playing host to the event, which will be attended by the leaders of the United States, Russia, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Japan.

About 6,000 people on the extreme left were considered potentially violent, 500 more than a year earlier. Schäuble stressed that "we will not allow for possible attacks to disrupt the smooth development of the G-8 summit."

The 333-page report, from Germany's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, listed 10,400 far-right extremists as potentially violent, the same number as in 2005.

In the fight against Islamic extremism, Schäuble pointed to failed attempts last year to blow up two trains - in which bombs in suitcases were successfully planted but failed to explode - and a sophisticated video posted on the Internet earlier this year threatening Merkel and her cabinet if the country did not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.

These "show clearly that Germany now has to deal with a new quality of terrorist activity," Schäuble said.

Where Islamic terrorists once used Germany as a place to plan missions elsewhere - three of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide pilots lived and plotted in Hamburg before heading to U.S. flight schools, for example - Schäuble said the country was now "no longer only a retreat, but also an operations area."

"The suitcase bomb attacks and the video message show clearly that Germany lies in the target spectrum of terrorist groups," he warned.

He refused to go into detail about a warning from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin last month of a "heightened threat" within Germany that prompted U.S. diplomatic facilities to increase their security.

But he said that Germany was working closely with the United States on the issue and that Washington generally was happy to share its information.

"Most of what we know, we know from the Americans," Schäuble said.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:57 am
McGentrix wrote:
I don't think you really need to worry about Americans losing civil liberties, do you?

As a Green Card holder, I do.

McGentrix wrote:
BERLIN: Germany saw only a slight rise last year in the number of suspected Islamic extremists, but its top security official said Tuesday that an attempted bomb attack and other incidents showed that the country was facing a "new quality of terrorist activity."

"The biggest threat for the stability and security of Germany comes again from Islamic terrorism," Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said as he presented the government's report on extremism for 2006.

"Biggest" thread doesn't necessarily mean "big thread". It only means that the other theats are even smaller.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 10:44 am
McGentrix wrote:
Okie, keep in mind that time diminishes threats.

9/11 was a long time ago now and many Americans (and other citizens of the world) have forgotten the feelings they had on 9/12. They have seen no recurrences of terrorism on American soil so they no longer think about it. The prisoners in Gitmo have been there a long time now and as time progresses they forget why they were put there and instead concentrate on the politics of the prison instead of it's purpose.

Bush has become a very polarizing President despite his campaign words. Nothing he can do is right to some people and that is just the way it is. Nothing anyone says will make them remember why we are at war or the consequences of going back to our pre-9/11 way of thinking. All they see is lies and political intrigue and miss the big picture that there are people in the world planning to hurt America in any way it can.


I agree with all of that.

It is my theory that the polarization is unavoidable in today's world, and the reason for the polarization has alot more to do with foundational beliefs than it does with specific policies. They consider conservatives and Republicans as dinosaurs, backward, and unenlightened.

911 sort of woke them up for a short time, but as time goes on, they begin to resort to their more comfortable idealistic attitudes and blinders.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 10:47 am
okie wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Okie, keep in mind that time diminishes threats.

9/11 was a long time ago now and many Americans (and other citizens of the world) have forgotten the feelings they had on 9/12. They have seen no recurrences of terrorism on American soil so they no longer think about it. The prisoners in Gitmo have been there a long time now and as time progresses they forget why they were put there and instead concentrate on the politics of the prison instead of it's purpose.

Bush has become a very polarizing President despite his campaign words. Nothing he can do is right to some people and that is just the way it is. Nothing anyone says will make them remember why we are at war or the consequences of going back to our pre-9/11 way of thinking. All they see is lies and political intrigue and miss the big picture that there are people in the world planning to hurt America in any way it can.


I agree with all of that.

It is my theory that the polarization is unavoidable in today's world, and the reason for the polarization has alot more to do with foundational beliefs than it does with specific policies. They consider conservatives and Republicans as dinosaurs, backward, and unenlightened.

911 sort of woke them up for a short time, but as time goes on, they begin to resort to their more comfortable idealistic attitudes and blinders.


Conservatives ARE 'dinosaurs, backward, and unenlightened.' The Conservative side has consistently fought against Human progress.

Read this, and attempt to even begin to counter it -

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2710609#2710609

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Doowop
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 11:07 am
McGentrix wrote:
Okie, keep in mind that time diminishes threats.

9/11 was a long time ago now and many Americans (and other citizens of the world) have forgotten the feelings they had on 9/12. They have seen no recurrences of terrorism on American soil so they no longer think about it. The prisoners in Gitmo have been there a long time now and as time progresses they forget why they were put there and instead concentrate on the politics of the prison instead of it's purpose.


So, you know with absolute certainty why every single prisoner was put there? Evidence please.

For instance, do you know why these three were there in the first place? and why they were treated in such a manner? and why they were there so long?

"The Road To Guantanamo"

Trailer.


Interview with directors.

The award winning docudrama ( part 1)

There are more parts on youtube, but you can search them out yourself, if you're interested of course. It's certainly worth a viewing, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 11:29 am
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
No. Now it's your turn.


I am making the argument I stated.


Which is where? Link or quote or perhaps you care to paraphrase.


"The government should do everything in it's power to protect it's citizens from terrorism or terrorist plots under the full power of the law"


So you're against giving the president the power to violate an individual's rights to due process even when they are suspected terrorists? Good.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 11:36 am
If a person is suspected of being a terrorist, he/she will be investigated. If the investigations find plausible evidence of wrong doing and it becomes necessary to violate that individual's rights to due process then I am not against that at all. Are you? Oh, wait, Bush is president, of course you are against that.

You, and others, seem to be afraid of a black helicopter landing in your backyard with men in black suits are going to come and take you away for no reason and kick your cat while doing it. That's a slippery slope argument and it's just not going to happen.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 11:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
If a person is suspected of being a terrorist, he/she will be investigated. If the investigations find plausible evidence of wrong doing and it becomes necessary to violate that individual's rights to due process then I am not against that at all. Are you? Oh, wait, Bush is president, of course you are against that.


Yes, I am against violating individual rights, especially to due process. That's the law regardless of who is president. Oh wait, Bush is president, of course you are for giving him these tyrannical powers.

Quote:
You, and others, seem to be afraid of a black helicopter landing in your backyard with men in black suits are going to come and take you away for no reason and kick your cat while doing it. That's a slippery slope argument and it's just not going to happen.


I've made my argument and will continue to make my argument without said hyperbole. I am at a loss as to why you would want to live in an America with no rule of law and basic human rights. If you set up a system like this it WILL be abused no matter who is president.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 11:44 am
McGentrix wrote:
You, and others, seem to be afraid of a black helicopter landing in your backyard with men in black suits are going to come and take you away for no reason and kick your cat while doing it. That's a slippery slope argument and it's just not going to happen.

I'm delighted to see you make up your opponent's claims and than debunking them. It's evidence that you find the claims we're actually making too hard to debunk.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 03:11:51