Defending the Truth

alias · 07-06-2006, 12:01 PM

Some soldier gets accused of an atrocity and it's all over the media without proof. I don't hear Foundit complaining about "innocent until proven guilty" for the American soldier. The liberals care more about the rights of foreign civilian enemies against America than defending the American soldier who fights for his country in uniform. Maybe that's why you guys are a minority and will stay that way. Your thinking is not that of the average American.

foundit66 · 07-06-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Yes indeed, what happened to it?
The better question is, "Have you EVER applied that same rule of law to George W Bush?"
I have the answer to that question. NO.

No. You don't have the answer to that question...

I would be strongly opposed to remove George Bush from office without a trial finding him guilty of something first.
While it is my OPINION tha the is guilty, based on the evidence, I am not talking just about "opinions".

If all Alias was doing was talking about his OPINION that they were guilty, we wouldn't have a problem.

But with regards to the LEGAL TREATMENT of these prisoners, the LEGAL SYSTEM needs to treat them as innocent until proven guilty, with the civil legal rights afforded to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Some soldier gets accused of an atrocity and it's all over the media without proof. I don't hear Foundit complaining about "innocent until proven guilty" for the American soldier.

Cut the crap alias. I HAVE NOT EVEN COMMENTED on it. I haven't seen a thread on it either.
The media and the legal system should not be treating them as "guilty".
Happy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Maybe that's why you guys are a minority and will stay that way. Your thinking is not that of the average American.

You keep wanting to believe you're not in the minority on some things.
It's a delusion on your part....

alias · 07-06-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

No. You don't have the answer to that question...

I would be strongly opposed to remove George Bush from office without a trial finding him guilty of something first.
While it is my OPINION tha the is guilty, based on the evidence, I am not talking just about "opinions".

If all Alias was doing was talking about his OPINION that they were guilty, we wouldn't have a problem.

But with regards to the LEGAL TREATMENT of these prisoners, the LEGAL SYSTEM needs to treat them as innocent until proven guilty, with the civil legal rights afforded to them.

Cut the crap alias. I HAVE NOT EVEN COMMENTED on it. I haven't seen a thread on it either.
The media and the legal system should not be treating them as "guilty".
Happy?

You keep wanting to believe you're not in the minority on some things.
It's a delusion on your part....

There should be no legal system for them. If men in uniform of a country that are captured are detained until the war is over, then we can AT LEAST do the same for these scum who do not fight for a country but for some senile old murdering religious bastard.

thenewnoise · 07-06-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

There should be no legal system for them. If men in uniform of a country that are captured are detained until the war is over, then we can AT LEAST do the same for these scum who do not fight for a country but for some senile old murdering religious bastard.

True, but first we must prove that they are fighting for those religious bastards. Under the current policies, just about anyone could be held until the war is over with no opportunity to prove their innocence. No one is arguing that terrorists should be locked up and prevented from killing. It looks like the argument is over if the government has any burden of proof before locking people up for as long as they want.

alias · 07-06-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewnoise

True, but first we must prove that they are fighting for those religious bastards. Under the current policies, just about anyone could be held until the war is over with no opportunity to prove their innocence. No one is arguing that terrorists should be locked up and prevented from killing. It looks like the argument is over if the government has any burden of proof before locking people up for as long as they want.

How many would you invite over for dinner and a smoke after they were released?

foundit66 · 07-06-2006, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

There should be no legal system for them. If men in uniform of a country that are captured are detained until the war is over, then we can AT LEAST do the same for these scum who do not fight for a country but for some senile old murdering religious bastard.

IF men attacking U.S. soldiers ARE captured on the battle-field, we should hold them. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that we don't disagree on that.

The point is that OTHER PEOPLE that are taken into custody and held deserve a fair trial. If the government takes a "suspected" terrorist into custody, they should justify WHY he is a "suspected" terrorist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

How many would you invite over for dinner and a smoke after they were released?

You are the king of absurd hyperboles.

thenewnoise · 07-06-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

How many would you invite over for dinner and a smoke after they were released?

I don't know. But there are a lot of people I would not invite over for dinner and a smoke who are not terrorists. In fact there are a lot of law abiding people I would not want to have over.

Jefferson · 07-07-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewnoise

I don't know. But there are a lot of people I would not invite over for dinner and a smoke who are not terrorists. In fact there are a lot of law abiding people I would not want to have over.

Nice smoke screen.

alias · 07-07-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

IF men attacking U.S. soldiers ARE captured on the battle-field, we should hold them. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that we don't disagree on that.

The point is that OTHER PEOPLE that are taken into custody and held deserve a fair trial. If the government takes a "suspected" terrorist into custody, they should justify WHY he is a "suspected" terrorist.

You are the king of absurd hyperboles.

I could care less who the government takes into custody. I would assume they are doing it because the guy means to harm us. It's only important to you because the government doing it is the one you don't like and didn't vote for. We all know that so why do you all pretend you're all have some high moral standard?

foundit66 · 07-07-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

I could care less who the government takes into custody.

And that's a LOT of your problem.
You're sooooo concerned about procurring your own safety that you don't care about anybody else's freedoms and rights. You don't care when they are violated against their will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

I would assume they are doing it because the guy means to harm us.

Yes.
You ASSUME that.
ASSUME being the key-word...

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

It's only important to you because the government doing it is the one you don't like and didn't vote for.

Bullspit alias.
I don't care if it's Clinton pulling this crap.
It's wrong.

And you lying about my motive doesn't make it right...