|
Post by mouse on Aug 23, 2010 7:52:58 GMT
is it so impossible that we could expect an honourable polititian is it so impossible a task for people to be honest and not lie is it so impossible to expect integrity..honour..responsibility..loyalty..honesty when you the bar is set high man can hope to achieve,,when the bar is low there is no where to aim for
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Aug 23, 2010 7:56:39 GMT
is it so impossible that we could expect an honourable polititian is it so impossible a task for people to be honest and not lie is it so impossible to expect integrity..honour..responsibility..loyalty..honesty when you the bar is set high man can hope to achieve,,when the bar is low there is no where to aim for THANK YOU! THANK YOU! It's wonderful to know I'm NOT alone on here! ;D
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Aug 23, 2010 7:58:29 GMT
If someone is going to be a SEX LIAR for years then what does that say about him even POSSIBLY lying in OTHER areas? It's disgusting! He dissembled. You think dissembling in a politician is surprising? Seriously? I doubt any politician on the planet would come up to your standards. Indeed, Jesus would struggle. I'll answer this when I have more time, but do have time to ask you this: Where has the COMPROMISE on who we vote for gotten us? Here's an answer I have time to post now: "The exact level of tyranny that you're going to live under, is the level of tyranny you put up with." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 23, 2010 8:12:52 GMT
is it so impossible that we could expect an honourable polititian is it so impossible a task for people to be honest and not lie is it so impossible to expect integrity..honour..responsibility..loyalty..honesty when you the bar is set high man can hope to achieve,,when the bar is low there is no where to aim for THANK YOU! THANK YOU! It's wonderful to know I'm NOT alone on here! ;D hi pumpkin...your certainly not alone..... there is nothing wrong with expecting high standards from those we elect.....we are often dissapointed...but it should never result in lowering our expectations and acepting that dross is inevitable
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 27, 2010 12:22:53 GMT
Hey all you supporters of torturing terrorist suspects . . .how's that working out for you? The Bush administration insisted that “enhanced interrogation techniques” — torture — were necessary to extract information from prisoners and keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks. Never mind that it was immoral, did huge damage to this country’s global standing and produced little important intelligence. Now, as we had feared, it is also making it much harder to try and convict accused terrorists.
Because federal judges cannot trust the confessions of prisoners obtained by intense coercion, they are regularly throwing out the government’s cases against Guantánamo Bay prisoners.
A new report prepared jointly by ProPublica and the National Law Journal showed that the government has lost more than half the cases where Guantánamo prisoners have challenged their detention because they were forcibly interrogated. In some cases the physical coercion was applied by foreign agents working at the behest of the United States; in other cases it was by United States agentswww.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27fri1.html?hp
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 27, 2010 23:50:05 GMT
The obvious answer is that enemy combatants do not belong in our court system. Giving these terrorists access to our legal system was a huge mistake.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 28, 2010 9:46:14 GMT
OK. They're in a prison camp, and they get to go home when the war has ended. But which war? And how do we know that it's ended? Remember, also, The Geneva Convention, which Bush didn't think applied. Well done, George. Maybe he assumed that it would all drag on for so long that he wouldn't be the one who had to sort it out, which is about how he handled everything else.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 29, 2010 0:11:51 GMT
Who says terrorists should get to go home? Would that be you Aubrey? Who says a scum bag bunch of Taliban killers should have any rights under the US Court system or the Geneva Convention? Would that be you Aubrey? I think they should rot in Guantanamo forever.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 29, 2010 8:22:22 GMT
OK. They're in a prison camp, and they get to go home when the war has ended. But which war?. not necessarily as they are not part of a recognised army of any state so they dont have to be treated as prisoners of war..and the geneva convention doesnt apply there is also the point.. a very strange one that some of these prisoners dont want to go home but would prefer to be realeased into america or europe...now theres a situation and a half can you imagine any pow,s in ww2 wanting to go to japan or germany rather than being released home
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 29, 2010 8:59:31 GMT
Who says terrorists should get to go home? Would that be you Aubrey? Who says a scum bag bunch of Taliban killers should have any rights under the US Court system or the Geneva Convention? Would that be you Aubrey? I think they should rot in Guantanamo forever. Indefinite detention without trial. Gosh Bushadmirer, once again you show just how much you detest American values. The irony is that you probably consider yourself to be very patriotic.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 29, 2010 9:42:25 GMT
Is there a war at all, then? Who is it against? implies that they are POWs. So, Geneva, and all that follows. If they are criminals, put them on trail - a real and open trial. A military tribunal is not enough, especially if you don't consider them to be soldiers. (Anyway, isn't a military tribunal supposed to be for your own soldiers?)
Bush really really screwed up on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Aug 29, 2010 17:56:33 GMT
"Enemy combatant" is a term unknown to international law. It was especially constructed by the Bush machine to somehow legitimise the illegal and cruel detention of dozens of suspects in Guantanamo; a prison camp that was, to their contorted thinking, somehow outside the jurisprudence of American law. And as that was their decision, the detainees had little or no legal rights, no access to the protection of the constitution, and no limit as to the period of their detention without trial.
In a war, one either releases prisoners at the conclusion of hostilities, or one puts them on trial in an open court of law. Gitmo is a stain on the honour of the USA. It STILL is!
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 29, 2010 19:03:03 GMT
Oh, ok. I'd misunderstood that. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 29, 2010 23:31:22 GMT
The Guantanamo terrorists should not be able to avail themselves of the US Court system. Nor should they come under the Geneva convention. They are enemy combatants. They should have no rights whatsoever. They should never be released, never be tried, never have any rights whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 30, 2010 6:49:54 GMT
The Guantanamo terrorists should not be able to avail themselves of the US Court system. Nor should they come under the Geneva convention. They are enemy combatants. They should have no rights whatsoever. They should never be released, never be tried, never have any rights whatsoever. As ever Bushadmirer, your hatred for American values shines right through. You're an embarassment to people who love America.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Aug 30, 2010 12:50:15 GMT
The Guantanamo terrorists should not be able to avail themselves of the US Court system. Nor should they come under the Geneva convention. They are enemy combatants. They should have no rights whatsoever. They should never be released, never be tried, never have any rights whatsoever. What is your definition of "enemy combatant" then, Bushman? Does it include the dozens of detainees from Gitmo who, having been held for years in cages, have now been released without trial, or further sanction? Have they suddenly become "enemy non-combatants"? Or do you think that your nations treatment of them over the years has somehow rehabilitated them? Just curious; that's all.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Aug 30, 2010 16:58:51 GMT
The Guantanamo terrorists should not be able to avail themselves of the US Court system. Nor should they come under the Geneva convention. They are enemy combatants. They should have no rights whatsoever. They should never be released, never be tried, never have any rights whatsoever. You NEVER mention anyone who was wrongly accused, etc. That's because if you did it would blow your stances out of the water.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 30, 2010 20:02:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 30, 2010 20:20:00 GMT
Gosh, I can't possibly imagine why someone detained without trial and tortured should, on return to Afghanistan, take up with the Taliban. How incredibly ungrateful of him.
The point of the law is that it doesn't matter how nasty or evil or no-good an individual is; she or he is still entitled to be judged by a judge, according to the rules of the land.
But people like you who hate American values can't see that.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 30, 2010 23:00:12 GMT
No No Riotgrrl. You're wanting to apply our laws to terrorists. They don't deserve that consideration. If I were President of the USA, my instructions to the commander of Guantanamo would be: "I don't ever want to see any headlines like this. Never, not ever. That's the priority. Do you hear me?" Al Qaeda Leader Behind Northwest Flight 253 Terror Plot Was Released by U.S. Former Guantanamo Prisoner Believed Behind Northwest Airlines Bomb Plot; Sent to Saudi Arabia in 2007 abcnews.go.com/Blotter/northwest-....tory?id=9434065and..... January 22, 2009 BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html and..... Former Gitmo detainee turned Taliban leader threatens Afghan elders - August 4, 2010 A former Guantanamo detainee who is currently a senior Taliban leader has threatened to kill tribal elders cooperating with Coalition forces and the Afghan government. www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2....zz0y7aVcFWIhttp://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/08/former_gitmo_detaine_6.php
|
|