Guantanamo Ruling by SCOTUS

Jefferson · 07-05-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Now Jefferson, let's not be insultive. Please try and grow up.
I also hope every single one is tried. Simply because it is the right thing to do. I am not saying that none of them are guilty. I am saying that we are suppose to go by the laws of this country. Like I have said, more than once, don't like the laws, work to change them. Right now all the detainees should get a trial. We are wrong to run that camp the way we have been, period.
All the insults in the world will not change these facts.

First of all, as Alias pointed out, it's a tough stretch to prove that the Geneva Conventions apply to these detainees. You can deny that, but it's still FACT.

Second, you might as well admit this truth: Even if EVERY one of them was tried publicly, and it was PROVEN that they were terrorists, YOU would simply move on to something else to cry-baby about, concerning the Bush Administration. Even if it was PROVEN that Bush had a genius IQ, people like you would still call him a dumb-ass. Even if it was PROVEN that there were WMDs in Iraq, people of your ilk would still call it an illegal occupation. Even if it was PROVEN that the Bush Administration ended up being the most environmentally-friendly administration in history, you tree-huggers would still cry that he "should have done more!". And that is PRECISELY why you're not taken seriously. You blind Bush-hatred has rendered you illogical.

Third, you really do NOT know much about what is going on at Gitmo. Nor do I. You can jump to your conclusions, and I could jump to mine - if I so choose. You cannot prove, in any way, that these detainees are being mistreated in any way. So... why not go by accurate information, rather than just assumptions?

alias · 07-05-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Now Jefferson, let's not be insultive. Please try and grow up.
I also hope every single one is tried. Simply because it is the right thing to do. I am not saying that none of them are guilty. I am saying that we are suppose to go by the laws of this country. Like I have said, more than once, don't like the laws, work to change them. Right now all the detainees should get a trial. We are wrong to run that camp the way we have been, period.
All the insults in the world will not change these facts.

They get fed better than prisoners in our prison system with muslim meals. They get Korans. They get Muslim chaplain visits. They get to live in a nice temparate climate year round. The only thing they are prevented from doing is killing innocent people. Did you invent the term "bleeding heart"?

foundit66 · 07-05-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

First of all, as Alias pointed out, it's a tough stretch to prove that the Geneva Conventions apply to these detainees. You can deny that, but it's still FACT.

The Geneva Convention applies.

Alias "pointed out" some things, but then he demonstrated that he can't even answer simple questions about what the Geneva Convention says in the first place.

These people ARE COVERED under the Geneva Convention. Even if we assume they aren't "prisoners of war", there are other aspects of the convention that DO COVER them.

And I ask you...
HOW can we declare "war" on a group, and then have ever "prisoner" that we detain in association with that war be incapable of qualifying as a "prisoner of war"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Second, you might as well admit this truth: Even if EVERY one of them was tried publicly, and it was PROVEN that they were terrorists, YOU would simply move on to something else to cry-baby about, concerning the Bush Administration.

The point being that there are multiple things that are screwed up about the Bush administration?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Even if it was PROVEN that Bush had a genius IQ, people like you would still call him a dumb-ass.

Have you ever listened to the man talk?
Seriously. Just LISTEN to him talk. LISTEN to his comments.
He's not a "genius". Far from it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Even if it was PROVEN that there were WMDs in Iraq, people of your ilk would still call it an illegal occupation.

From my personal perspective? No. I wouldn't.
I personally supported the invasion of Iraq when it started under the belief that they had WMDs. My partner wasn't convinced, and he reminds me occasionally that he was right where I blindly believed Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

And that is PRECISELY why you're not taken seriously. You blind Bush-hatred has rendered you illogical.

I have never understood the "Bush-hater" line of defense.
If ALL we were saying was "we hate Bush", then yeah. Nothing of merit.

But when YOU SUMMARIZE our arguments as just "we hate Bush", that isn't an argument...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Third, you really do NOT know much about what is going on at Gitmo. Nor do I. You can jump to your conclusions, and I could jump to mine - if I so choose.

Quite frankly, I think the point should be more along the lines that SOME THIRD PARTY SHOULD know what is going on in Gitmo.
The actions inside the walls have been soooo squirrelled away from public view that it isn't rationale. The abuse in the military of situations like this has ALREADY BEEN SEEN.

And the leader of the military is fighting to keep TORTURE LEGAL???
Come ON now.
That's gotta at least raise a modicum of concern...

To me, I think the issue shouldn't revolve around "why should we..."
The issue SHOULD revolve around "Why shouldn't Bush have to respect these simple and civilized rules of conduct?"

tyreay · 07-05-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

First of all, as Alias pointed out, it's a tough stretch to prove that the Geneva Conventions apply to these detainees. You can deny that, but it's still FACT.

Second, you might as well admit this truth: Even if EVERY one of them was tried publicly, and it was PROVEN that they were terrorists, YOU would simply move on to something else to cry-baby about, concerning the Bush Administration. Even if it was PROVEN that Bush had a genius IQ, people like you would still call him a dumb-ass. Even if it was PROVEN that there were WMDs in Iraq, people of your ilk would still call it an illegal occupation. Even if it was PROVEN that the Bush Administration ended up being the most environmentally-friendly administration in history, you tree-huggers would still cry that he "should have done more!". And that is PRECISELY why you're not taken seriously. You blind Bush-hatred has rendered you illogical.

Third, you really do NOT know much about what is going on at Gitmo. Nor do I. You can jump to your conclusions, and I could jump to mine - if I so choose. You cannot prove, in any way, that these detainees are being mistreated in any way. So... why not go by accurate information, rather than just assumptions?

Lsiten to yourself. You do more crying about my posts than I do about Bush. You are the real Crybaby. The Supreme Court has made a decision and they know alot more about the law than you do. Deal with it.

tyreay · 07-05-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

They get fed better than prisoners in our prison system with muslim meals. They get Korans. They get Muslim chaplain visits. They get to live in a nice temparate climate year round. The only thing they are prevented from doing is killing innocent people. Did you invent the term "bleeding heart"?

Answer my question please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

To apply a standard of rules(the Genea convention) you must have a legal means to show these rules actually apply, or don't apply. These people are not legally terrorists. There is no court set up to prove, or even decide, this. Show me how the Geneva doesn't apply to these people.

And who cares if they are locked up, for what could be for some(that are not proven guilty), forever.

alias · 07-05-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

The Geneva Convention applies.

Alias "pointed out" some things, but then he demonstrated that he can't even answer simple questions about what the Geneva Convention says in the first place.

These people ARE COVERED under the Geneva Convention. Even if we assume they aren't "prisoners of war", there are other aspects of the convention that DO COVER them.

And I ask you...
HOW can we declare "war" on a group, and then have ever "prisoner" that we detain in association with that war be incapable of qualifying as a "prisoner of war"?

The point being that there are multiple things that are screwed up about the Bush administration?

Have you ever listened to the man talk?
Seriously. Just LISTEN to him talk. LISTEN to his comments.
He's not a "genius". Far from it...

From my personal perspective? No. I wouldn't.
I personally supported the invasion of Iraq when it started under the belief that they had WMDs. My partner wasn't convinced, and he reminds me occasionally that he was right where I blindly believed Bush.

I have never understood the "Bush-hater" line of defense.
If ALL we were saying was "we hate Bush", then yeah. Nothing of merit.

But when YOU SUMMARIZE our arguments as just "we hate Bush", that isn't an argument...

Quite frankly, I think the point should be more along the lines that SOME THIRD PARTY SHOULD know what is going on in Gitmo.
The actions inside the walls have been soooo squirrelled away from public view that it isn't rationale. The abuse in the military of situations like this has ALREADY BEEN SEEN.

And the leader of the military is fighting to keep TORTURE LEGAL???
Come ON now.
That's gotta at least raise a modicum of concern...

To me, I think the issue shouldn't revolve around "why should we..."
The issue SHOULD revolve around "Why shouldn't Bush have to respect these simple and civilized rules of conduct?"

The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. Show me where.

alias · 07-05-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Lsiten to yourself. You do more crying about my posts than I do about Bush. You are the real Crybaby. The Supreme Court has made a decision and they know alot more about the law than you do. Deal with it.

Show me where in the Geneva convention it covers terrorists that fight for no country but for an ideology. Just because some senile old farts that outnumber rational thinkers on a court decide something does not necessarily mean it is so.

tyreay · 07-05-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Show me where in the Geneva convention it covers terrorists that fight for no country but for an ideology. Just because some senile old farts that outnumber rational thinkers on a court decide something does not necessarily mean it is so.

That would be just fine if you could prove to me they are what you say. They are not until proven in a court of law. This is how America is run. Don't like it, once again, try and change these laws or move to a country where they allow facism.
You still fail to answer my question. You have no answer do you?

Jefferson · 07-05-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

Lsiten to yourself. You do more crying about my posts than I do about Bush. You are the real Crybaby. The Supreme Court has made a decision and they know alot more about the law than you do. Deal with it.

Oh boy, great comeback.

For the record, I think something SHOULD be done, immediately, about the Gitmo situation. I'm not sure exactly what - but, unlike you, I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I do.

Additionally, you might as well admit that what I said earlier is true.

alias · 07-05-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyreay

That would be just fine if you could prove to me they are what you say. They are not until proven in a court of law. This is how America is run. Don't like it, once again, try and change these laws or move to a country where they allow facism.
You still fail to answer my question. You have no answer do you?

You are the one who cannot answer the question. You say the Geneva convention covers terrorists. I say it doesn't. Show me where it does. Simple. Please proceed.

By the way, you call me a facist one more time and all hell is going to break loose and you aint gonna like it. Save your name calling for someone else. Do you understand me?