Powell Says Close Gitmo

That doesn't make any sense. I'm saying my paranoia is just as grounded in reality as yours inasmuch as neither of our worst fears have ever come to fruition (to my knowledge). But don't let that stop you from looking to score points.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

Difference being that my paranoia is based in reality and yours isn't.

Yes, I forgot about all those instances in history when a democratic republic was literally destroyed by terrorism. You must be right.

"Nothing like Appealing to Extremes to make a bad argument worse. "

Then you agree that the Nation of the US faces no existential threat from Terrorism? That breaking our laws is not necessary to combat it, given there is no dire threat whatsoever?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

That doesn't make any sense. I'm saying my paranoia is just as grounded in reality as yours inasmuch as neither of our worst fears have ever come to fruition (to my knowledge). But don't let that stop you from looking to score points.

I have no fear of the US being "literally destroyed by terrorism" and have never expressed such. You are appealing to the most extreme example you can possibly think of to try to make your point.

Do you deny that terrorist have attacked the US as well other countries and represent a credible threat? If you do, then you are as paranoid as I am. If you don't, you are a fool.

So far, in the history of the "tyrannical" presidency of Bush, one American citizen has been held without due process and his case has made most newspapers head lines. Hardly a secret and hardly an epidemic.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. I'm saying my paranoia is just as grounded in reality as yours inasmuch as neither of our worst fears have ever come to fruition (to my knowledge). But don't let that stop you from looking to score points.

I have no fear of the US being "literally destroyed by terrorism" and have never expressed such. You are appealing to the most extreme example you can possibly think of to try to make your point.

I think you go out of your way to misunderstand. There have been instances of terrorism. There have been instances of abuses of power. Both of us are paranoid in as much as we see a threat from each of these things taken to their extreme, no? If you don't see a serious threat from terrorism then I don't know what your earlier diatribe about forgetting 9/11 and what would happen if we went back to the pre-9/11 way of thinking was all about.

Quote:

So far, in the history of the "tyrannical" presidency of Bush, one American citizen has been held without due process and his case has made most newspapers head lines. Hardly a secret and hardly an epidemic.

While I blame Bush for what I see as overstepping limits on his powers, my concerns are about the system and not about him. I'm not afraid of him. I'm afraid of what happens if we set certain precedents by allowing certain things to happen over time. And the fact that you poo poo this concern makes me wonder how closely you're paying attention.

0 Replies

Ex Parte Quirin. Still stands all these years later.

So it would not surprise me to see the al-Marri decision reversed.

0 Replies

One thing to remember here. All of this paranoia by the left over Bush is nothing more than politics. If Clinton was doing this, we all know there would be no stir about it at all from the left. FDR did a thousand times more, and is still considered one of the greatests, if not the greatest Democrat president in history. By whom? By Democrats and liberals. Meanwhile, Bush is virtually a confirmed criminal by the same people.

We also know that Truman is commonly quoted as one to look up to by modern Democrats. To be accurate, I think Truman did correctly to drop the bomb. I don't know about dead center on large cities twice, but bet your bottom dollar if Truman had an R by his name, we would not ever hear the end of him being the worst tyrant in history for unleashing the most terrible weapon known to man on innocent women and children, and we would be reminded of this all the time, as setting a pattern for the Republican Party, an uncaring, uncompassionate, hate filled party.

Kennedy and LBJ bear much of the blame for Vietnam, but who is labeled the villain for Vietnam, none other than Dick Nixon of Watergate fame. Other examples could be cited. It doesn't take a genius to know this current media blitz on Bush is phony.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

One thing to remember here. All of this paranoia by the left over Bush is nothing more than politics. If Clinton was doing this, we all know there would be no stir about it at all from the left. FDR did a thousand times more, and is still considered one of the greatests, if not the greatest Democrat president in history. By whom? By Democrats and liberals. Meanwhile, Bush is virtually a confirmed criminal by the same people.

This is not about presidents. It's about human rights and the balance of power. Just because the worst power usurper and rights violator was a Democrat (Roosevelt), that doesn't make it wrong to stand up against a somewhat lesser power usurper and rights violator (Bush).

0 Replies

Instead of being classed as a newbie, I'm thinking of applying to able2know for the title of "what am I, chopped liver?" status. Very Happy

Skipping back several pages, I asked McGentrix this, and asked for evidence. Any chance of a response some time in the next six pages or so?

0 Replies

Doowop wrote:

Any chance of a response some time in the next six pages or so?

I don't think so. But welcome to A2K, chopped liver, it's nice to have you on board.

0 Replies

Yeah, Doowop, welcome. We're all chopped liver when it comes to getting McG to answer direct questions.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

One thing to remember here. All of this paranoia by the left over Bush is nothing more than politics. If Clinton was doing this, we all know there would be no stir about it at all from the left.

The stir isn't coming only from the left. I think Clinton started in this same direction but had a Republican congress to keep him in check somewhat. Nobody is keeping this president in check. It's politics to abandon conservative principles in favor of the sitting president just because he represents your favored political party. Maybe you should consider whether you would favor expanded presidential power if there were a Hillary in the oval office and then get back to me on the politics of this debate.

Like Thomas said, this isn't about presidents, it's about the system of government that remains when presidents are gone.

0 Replies

Gitmo=an excellent location for the George W Bush presidential library.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

This is not about presidents. It's about human rights and the balance of power. Just because the worst power usurper and rights violator was a Democrat (Roosevelt), that doesn't make it wrong to stand up against a somewhat lesser power usurper and rights violator (Bush).

I think it has alot to do with presidents. A president is granted special war powers under our constitution, and the manner in which they behave in regard to those powers are monumental. Many presidents are remembered for their service in regard to foreign policy and national defense. It is front and center in history.

I won't disagree that we need a proper balance here with all the concerns, but we need to view all of this in context with history. Again, the accusations of Bush usurping power and violating rights are accusations, thats all, and I maintain that it has more to do with politics than any other factor. The president is granted alot of power under the constitution. The left loves to accuse him of overstepping his power, but as McGentrix so aptly pointed out, those accusations vary with time after 911, and you can bet your bottom dollar (or euro) that if another very serious terrorist hit should happen, the catcalls would quiet down to a whisper. Unless someone is talking to terrorist cells overseas or actively building truck bombs to blow up bridges or something like that, I think there is no chance whatsoever of ever ending up in Gitmo. I would suggest that law abiding citizens should just chill out over this and stop being paranoid.

0 Replies

Quote:

A president is granted special war powers under our constitution, and the manner in which they behave in regard to those powers are monumental.

You have to have a declared war before those powers go into effect. The 'War on Terror' doesn't count. And we never declared war on Iraq, either.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

All of this paranoia by the left over Bush is nothing more than politics.

If it's nothing more than politics, then why does Colin Powell, formerly a general and Bush's secretary of state, at least partly agree with it? (Remember, the title of this thread is "Colin Powell says close Gitmo".) And why does Robert Gates, Bush's sitting secretary of defense, want the detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay closed as well? In your opinion, Okie, is this "paranoia by the left", too? If not, how would you categorize Powell's and Gates's opinions instead?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
A president is granted special war powers under our constitution, and the manner in which they behave in regard to those powers are monumental.

You have to have a declared war before those powers go into effect. The 'War on Terror' doesn't count. And we never declared war on Iraq, either.

I don't think it's correct that you need an explicit declaration of war. Judging by my recreational reading of the Guantanamo Bay cases, the defense briefs and the government briefs agree that the US is at war. They agree Congress's authorizations of force in Afghanistan and Iraq are sufficient to establish this -- so I suppose it's true.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
A president is granted special war powers under our constitution, and the manner in which they behave in regard to those powers are monumental.

You have to have a declared war before those powers go into effect. The 'War on Terror' doesn't count. And we never declared war on Iraq, either.

I don't think it's correct that you need an explicit declaration of war. Judging by my recreational reading of the Guantanamo Bay cases, the defense briefs and the government briefs agree that the US is at war. They agree Congress's authorizations of force in Afghanistan and Iraq are sufficient to establish this -- so I suppose it's true.

Well, either that or they don't feel that they are going to win that argument in a military court, so...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas, I think they are wrong. I admire Powell. I think he is a good man, with a great military career, but he tends to go soft and ride the fences politically. Gates is bringing in a different cadre of people to run the military, and I'm not so sure the military will perform as well with this more politically correct trend. For those that think according to their way, there are others on the other side.

Future events will prove out which course of action and philosophy is the correct one.

Cyclops, we seem to have gotten away from declaring wars. So the actual declaration does not seem to change the fact that we are at war.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I won't disagree that we need a proper balance here with all the concerns, but we need to view all of this in context with history.

Yes. And historically, whenever power is expanded it is correspondingly abused. That's why our founders came up with the idea of checks and balances and inalienable rights.

Quote:

Again, the accusations of Bush usurping power and violating rights are accusations, thats all, and I maintain that it has more to do with politics than any other factor.

You can maintain it all you like but you really can't back it up. On this thread, your greatest opposition has come from one Democrat, one Libertarian, and one registered independent who leans Libertarian. You might want to google "conservatives oppose Bush power grab" and see what you get. Or you can look here.

Quote:

The president is granted alot of power under the constitution. The left loves to accuse him of overstepping his power, but as McGentrix so aptly pointed out, those accusations vary with time after 911, and you can bet your bottom dollar (or euro) that if another very serious terrorist hit should happen, the catcalls would quiet down to a whisper.

This is undoubtedly true as with the president's expanded powers and the mood of the country after an attack, to open one's mouth would be borderline suicidal.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, either that or they don't feel that they are going to win that argument in a military court, so...

The cases were appealed to the DC appeals court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has adapted to the fact that wars aren't declared anymore these days; they now accept other resulutions in place of formal declarations of war -- and the authorizations of force are good enough for them.

It would take some work for me to dig out the precedents, but if that's what it takes to convince you, I'll do it over the weekend.

0 Replies

Powell Says Close Gitmo

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know