Quote :

"i dont know what happened with these Brits....but thats one case...and there might be others...but i am willing to take the chance of incarcerating innocent people if we can arrest and hold anyone remotely tied to a terrorist...."

it was three brit. cases. not one.

remote ties to terrorist eh? id wager a million dollars i can remotely tie you to a terrorist, and you better thank god our system doesnt detain and torture people who have remote ties, they do it when you have direct ties, like the tipton three who were around some taliban that were fighting.

Quote :

"that line of thinking is nothing new...our justice system gets it wrong sometimes too...sometimes innocent people are put in jail...thats a chance that we are all willing to take.. "

if you actually were incarcerated for something you didnt do, you wouldnt wail at God for permission to take those words back. it would be very pathetic. and before you ask if i can prove thats true, the answer is yes, but the burden of proof is on your for the 'how' part.

why is that?

Quote :

"haha...indeed you did....believe what you want to there homie...but the burden of proof is on you.... "

in your utopian world, burdens of proof are laid out by simply text. isnt that fucking amazing? or is fucking retarded? prove to me its not? i guess the burden of proof is on you, for that one too.


youre argument skills are as apt as a 13-year olds. so, this will be my last response (to you), becuase youre primitive rhetoric isnt worth the time it takes to read.



[Edited on July 2, 2006 at 11:22 PM. Reason : fasd]

7/2/2006 11:15:46 PM

Quote :

"youre argument skills are as apt as a 13-year olds. so, this will be my last response, becuase youre primitive rhetoric isnt worth the time it takes to read."

so dont respond...

btw...

Quote :

" in your utopian world, burdens of proof are laid out by simply text. isnt that fucking amazing? or is fucking retarded? prove to me its not? i guess the burden of proof is on you, for that one too."

i have no idea what this is supposed to say...

[Edited on July 2, 2006 at 11:23 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/2/2006 11:22:30 PM

I think the problems are:

1) He is uninformed - "I don't know about the Brits" - that is what the movie (and this entire thread) is about.

2) He is so ethnocentric that he can't see the broader issues - i.e. They're terrorists, we're good guys. Kill them all and let God sort them out. It's typical of people who can't deal with complex issues that have areas of gray.

What's really tragic is that people would even imagine we are torturing people. Before our behaviour during this war it would have been unthinkable, but we've done so many things against international norms that it is in the realm of possibility.

Our previous reputation was - "Well, at least with America you'll be treated fairly." Bush has thrown years of good will out the window, and now our actions are suspect.

7/3/2006 8:53:20 AM

thanks for your input...

i think your problem is...

1) you think anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and uninformed...when i say i dont know about these brits i mean i dont know what exactly went down...why they were held...what the givin reasons were....but i understand what happened to them...
2) your an elitist

you think just because i disagree with you i am incapable of thinking deeply or seeing the broader issue...please....your are a pathetic weakling who HAS to see everyone else as stupid because if you dont your whole system of thought colapses...

i say screw them because they are terrorist...you are right about that...and if you think thats barbaric..i dont care...its a perfectly legit stance...and if you feel the need to blow it off because its "uninformed"...then keep it up...thats why weak liberals keep losing elections...and its why people who agree with me will win

[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 9:36 AM. Reason : asdf]

7/3/2006 9:35:19 AM

Quote :

"2) your an elitist "

7/3/2006 3:04:33 PM

hmm...thats right

7/3/2006 10:22:34 PM

where did the competent conservatives go

7/3/2006 10:29:27 PM

where did the sane liberals go??

7/3/2006 10:30:52 PM

Quote :

"i say screw them because they are terrorist..."

That is the whole point of this thread, terrorists that aren't terrorists, and what happens to them. Do innocent people caught up in events have a chance to prove their innocence, or are they left to languish, with no legal rights.

I have no problem holding terrorists. I do have a problem with totalitarian systems of justice.

7/4/2006 10:51:45 AM

no he said its fine if some innocent brownies are in there

thiny veiled racism

7/4/2006 11:55:18 AM

2) your an elitist

7/4/2006 12:00:50 PM

josh...you responded.....why??...your post (originally) said that it was going to be your last response..right??

Quote :

"no he said its fine if some innocent brownies are in there"

show me where i said that...

it IS fine if there are some innocent people in there...however...like these brits...they should be let go if it is found that they are innocent...but i dont have a problem with grabbing anyone is tied to a terrorist
(by the way josh...feel free to tie me to a terrorist...please)...and keeping them in guantanimo

2) your an elitist

[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 1:30 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/4/2006 1:06:09 PM

i was clarifying something you said earlier in the thread, i wont be responding to any arguments you try and make from that point on.

anyway, your and elitist dictionazi.

7/4/2006 1:29:35 PM

haha..no....you responded after you said you would not respond anymore...thats what you said originally...thanks for trying to clarify though

and you still cant show me where i said that "its ok if some innocent brownies are in there"...show me josh..please ...of course you would have to respond to me to do that...sooo....what to do? what to do??

2) your an elitist pathetically weak liberal

[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 1:35 PM. Reason : elitist]

7/4/2006 1:32:28 PM

your a terrorist

7/4/2006 1:35:05 PM

you are going to stick to calling me names instead??

dont make me tell the teacher

7/4/2006 1:36:36 PM

sounds like something a terrorist would say

7/4/2006 1:45:15 PM

One last comment, in honor of the day.

I, also, don't have a problem with holding terrorists. It's only self preservation.

The real question is, what systems are in place to separate terrorists from the people who just happened to be attending a wedding when we invaded. That is called due process, and it is one of the principles on which this country was founded ... (get the 4th of July theme?)

The current policy is that anyone picked up, for any reason, can be held indefinitely, with no legal process, and no appeal (remind you of King George? - hey, no pun intended). I don't even think they let the Red Cross in until the recent stink. Thank God those guys were British, or who knows how long they would have stayed.

Due process is fundamental. It's what America stands for, and it's why we've been so respected throught the world (until recently). In the words of our Founding Fathers:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You can call me elitist, but not unpatriotic.


[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 4:50 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

7/4/2006 4:46:37 PM

why are you so worried about being called unpatriotic??

noone has even mentioned that

[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 5:50 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/4/2006 5:49:53 PM