Ugh let me point it out for you, Perry Mason, since you can't seem to piece this together yourself. You'd think that "top tier" law education would have paid for itself by now, but whatever.

You're creating a false dichotomy in this thread. You're creating two choices: 1) keeping our troops out of harm's way and 2) giving terrorists rights.

First of all, we haven't even established that everybody in custody is a terrorist. This is partially the problem -- some people being held are completely uninvolved. Just because people are trying to advocate for them doesn't mean they oppose the safety of our troops. I don't even understand how you'd start to argue for that. Neither do you, but that sure as hell doesn't stop you from arguing it.

Second of all, even if the people we do have are terrorists, it doesn't mean all bets are off when it comes to how we deal with them. I know it's macho and cool to talk about how you'd pull Osama Bin Laden's balls off with a pair of plyers, but not everybody is that barbaric. I think the bastard should have the hammer come down on him too, but there are some levels we shouldn't ever stoop to.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 10:54 PM. Reason : doh]

10/29/2006 10:53:08 PM

Just in time for Halloween, folks...the Strawman!!!! Brought to you by none other than "I think I am a badass lawyer, Wolfpack2K".

10/29/2006 10:54:37 PM

im not safe because I could get hit by a car

terrorists win

10/29/2006 10:55:34 PM

silliness

10/29/2006 10:55:36 PM

McDanger: Your first point is fair. Your second point I reject completely. If someone is out to destroy America, to kill our soldiers and civilians and destroy our way of life, I think all bets ARE off when it comes to how we deal with them. They have no rights at all. What would you do, give him a time out and say "Now Saddam, you were a very bad boy today. You don't get to play with your Playstation for a week. Now go apologize... that is, if you WANT to. We certainly wouldn't want to infringe on your free speech RIGHTS." Please.

Regarding your first point - my point is that if you give the suspects all the rights which you want them to have, then invariably you are going to give some terrorist some documents which will let him know how America caught him in the first place. Not everyone in Guantanamo is innocent. And when that terrorist gets a hold of that information, every Al Quaeda operative in the world will have it. And then, will our military men be in greater or less danger?

You are still viewing this as a law enforcement matter. If this were simply a law enforcement issue, I would be definitely on your side. I'm actually investigating bringing a federal civil rights action against a government for its treatment of a prisoner (not letting her see me, her lawyer). But this is WAR, not law enforcement. And in war, enemy combatants do not get all the privileges and protections of the Constitution.

These are people who want to DESTROY the Constitution and destroy our Constitutional government - why should they BENEFIT from the Constitution? That just seems silly to me.


[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 11:03 PM. Reason : please]

10/29/2006 10:59:44 PM

Quote :

"If someone is out to destroy America, to kill our soldiers and civilians and destroy our way of life, I think all bets ARE off when it comes to how we deal with them. They have no rights at all. "

Just because some people are out to destroy America doesn't mean that any old person we have in custody has no rights at all.

Quote :

"Regarding your first point - my point is that if you give the suspects all the rights which you want them to have, then invariably you are going to give some terrorist some documents which will let him know how America caught him in the first place. Not everyone in Guantanamo is innocent. And when that terrorist gets a hold of that information, every Al Quaeda operative in the world will have it. And then, will our military men be in greater or less danger? "

I don't think we should be giving up any information that'd give away troop movements, practices, or anything that might put current troops out in the field in danger. We know some of them must be guilty. However, just because we know that some must be guilty, why is it okay to simply assume they all are?

Quote :

"You are still viewing this as a law enforcement matter. If this were simply a law enforcement issue, I would be definitely on your side. I'm actually investigating bringing a federal civil rights action against a government for its treatment of a prisoner (not letting her see me, her lawyer). But this is WAR, not law enforcement."

Sure it's a war. But we're still talking about human beings here. Why is it okay that we've scooped up some innocents and have them locked up? Because some of them surely are guilty? This is pretty weak, Perry Mason.

Quote :

"These are people who want to DESTROY the Constitution and destroy our Constitutional government - why should they BENEFIT from the Constitution? That just seems silly to me."

Oh I don't know, something about not being barbarians ourselves.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 11:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2006 11:03:40 PM

We're not assuming anything. They are brought before military commissions, who will determine whether they are guilty or not. But they're certainly not going to be given any of America's military information. This is not a summary proceeding, there is investigation by a military commission to determine whether this person is indeed a terrorist or is an enemy combatant. And if they are, they do not have rights. If they are not, then there is no reason to keep them.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 11:06 PM. Reason : add]

10/29/2006 11:05:11 PM

I don't think any reasonable people are suggesting we shovel out a bunch of military information that'd compromise military safety or anything else that's tactically stupid.

Quote :

"And if they are, they do not have rights."

This is troubling. Enemy combatants have no rights? Did you glean your morality from the old testament or something? This sounds pretty old school. You'd be the military commander ordering the troops to stomp salt into the ground.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2006 11:06:51 PM

Are you sure? If they were put through the Article III judiciary system, they would probably be entitled to that information, or at least information detailing how they were caught, who the informants were, etc. You know, all those RIGHTS.

As far as I am concerned, everyone in the world needs to FEAR the shit out of America. They need to be scared to death to even look at America cross-eyed, for fear we'll smash them to bits. And right now that is not really the impression we give - we give the impression that if North Korea nuked the entire west coast, for example, there would be protesters cheering and going on about how we shouldn't be too mean to North Korea because North Korea has RIGHTS too.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 11:10 PM. Reason : add]

10/29/2006 11:07:42 PM

Well it's obvious the rights would have to be amended in some sense, such as to not fuck up the war effort. Don't you think?

You're acting like it's all or nothing. Either we shovel all of our military secrets into their laps, or we're allowed to do anything we want to them.

edit:

Quote :

"As far as I am concerned, everyone in the world needs to FEAR the shit out of America. They need to be scared to death to even look at America cross-eyed, for fear we'll smash them to bits."

What the fuck? I know you were raised Catholic and you think coercion via fear is a great way to get things done, but this isn't how mature adults handle things. Should people fear attacking America or harming Americans? Certainly. Should they fear us in every move they make, because any offense we take will warrant smashing their country and people? Come on, man. You're a violent, monstrous little man for a follower of Christ, Perry Mason.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 11:13 PM. Reason : added a response to the previous add]

10/29/2006 11:08:54 PM

Yes I do think. And that's what's happening here. Instead of being put through the Article III judiciary, they are being sent to military tribunals. Where there is still someone impartial who will decide whether they are guilty or innocent, but where they do not get all the RIGHTS that come with being an American.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 11:12 PM. Reason : add]

10/29/2006 11:11:57 PM

Quote :

"I guess since the point went right over your head, I'll have to put it in simpler terms. Why would someone be there if there wasn't a legitimate connection between them and terrorist activities? Do you think the brave Marines and soldiers there just go randomly picking up people in the middle of the night and taking them to Guantanamo Bay?"

I can't believe this kind of illogical thinking is coming from a wannabe lawyer.

Hey, obviously everyone that's ever been in prison is guilty, what do you think the brave police officers would just go around picking up anyone off the street randomly and put them in jail?
Why don't we just do away with all trials?

10/29/2006 11:35:40 PM

Quote :

"As far as I am concerned, everyone in the world needs to FEAR the shit out of America. They need to be scared to death to even look at America cross-eyed, for fear we'll smash them to bits."

So that's why they hate us..

What's the point of spreading peace, if it's done so through instilling fear? Such a method may give us the impression of security, but resentment isn't always easily detected.

10/29/2006 11:42:24 PM

^^ Apparently you did not read the distinction between law enforcement and war. You might find it helpful to read, so that you will know what you're talking about BEFORE you begin to talk about it, as opposed to learning about it afterwards.

^ St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine both said that peace comes through vanquishing the enemy. It is just common sense that if the other countries fear you, they will not attack you.

You can hate me all you want, as long as you fear me.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 11:47 PM. Reason : hate me all you want as long as you fear me.]

10/29/2006 11:46:28 PM

Quote :

"Apparently you did not read the distinction between law enforcement and war. You might find it helpful to read, so that you will know what you're talking about BEFORE you begin to talk about it, as opposed to learning about it afterwards."

The logic of "you got caught, you have to be guilty" is stupid applied in any situation.

10/29/2006 11:49:49 PM

Ok, agree somewhat. Now, getting back to what we are talking about here...

10/29/2006 11:51:46 PM

which is that detainees in guantanamo deserve a trial.

10/29/2006 11:54:42 PM

Why? Why should they get a trial as opposed to a military tribunal hearing? This is war.

10/29/2006 11:59:58 PM

Hell either one, just not held indefinately. That's kind of messed up.
If it's war they should be treated as prisoners of war.

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 12:56 AM. Reason : ]

10/30/2006 12:55:34 AM

So then you are in favor of military tribunal hearings for unlawful enemy combatants. Just like me. Wonderful, so what is the dispute?

10/30/2006 12:56:25 AM

No, I'm in favor of the Geneva conventions, rather than playing semantics to justify inhumane treatment.

10/30/2006 1:50:25 AM

Quote :

", "No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.""

-Pope John Paul II

I like him. Good man, good Pope, good Christian. Set the church on a path which I hope people like Wolfpack2K won't try to alter towards the aims of "eye for an eye", as the deeds of all God's children can unfortunately reflect back on God. Not that I'm Catholic or anything(I'd like to think we're all equal children of God here on earth, regardless of category), just saying, I admired the man.

Quote :

"On May 6, 2001, Pope John Paul II became the first Roman Catholic pope to enter and pray in an Islamic mosque. He visited Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria, where John the Baptist is believed to be interred, and gave a speech including the statement: "For all the times that Muslims and Christians have offended one another, we need to seek forgiveness from the Almighty and to offer each other forgiveness." [15] He also famously kissed the Quran in Syria [16], an act which made him popular amongst Muslims."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_paul_II

huh, the more you know....


[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 2:47 AM. Reason : .]

10/30/2006 2:36:45 AM

I'm glad you admire the late Holy Father. However, neither His Holiness nor the Church has ever taught that war is never an appropriate answer. See the Catechism para. 2308 (promulgated by JP2). The Ven. John Paul II himself said: "Christians, even as they strive to resist and prevent every form of warfare, have no hesitation in recalling that in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, people have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor." (World Day of Peace, 1982)

In fact, in many nations including the United States, military ordinariates (archdioceses) have been set up to minister to the noble service men and women. This is the site of the US Military Ordinariate, presided over by His Excellency the Most Rev. Edwin O'Brien: http://www.milarch.org

Furthermore, nothing in the history of the Church or of Christianity support the 100% peacenik view. As G. K. Chesterton wrote: "a man reading the Gospels would not find ... ordinary platitudes in favor of peace. He would find several paradoxes in favor of peace..... But he would not find a word about all that obvious rhetoric against war which has filled countless books and odes and orations; not a word about the wickedness of war, the appalling scale of the slaughter in war and all the rest of the familiar frenzy; indeed not a word about war at all. There is nothing that throws a particular light on Christ’s attitude towards organized warfare, except that he seems to have been rather fond of Roman soldiers."

Further, this view is supported by doctors of the Church such as Aquinas and Augustine.

St. Augustine: Just wars are usually defined as those in which injustices are avenged if any nation or city, attacked in war, either neglects to avenge what was done wickedly by its own, or to recover what was taken away unjustly. But also this kind of war is without doubt just, which God commands....
(420 AD, Questions on the Heptateuch 6, 10)

St. Thomas Aquinas: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

10/30/2006 3:03:06 AM

You do realize which war he said that in response to, right?

Also, how about that kissing the Koran?

10/30/2006 3:14:08 AM

Yes. What's the point?

And about kissing the Koran, I'm not sure I would have done it, but I don't think I am in any position to criticize the decision of a Pope who is now a Venerable Servant of God. What about it?

10/30/2006 3:21:07 AM

Jesus himself seemed to hold a strict peacenik point of view. But other aspects of the Bible would contradict this. I don't think anyone else would argue otherwise. Personally, I don't think a 100% peace ideology is rational in the face of inherent human greed and corruption.

I also don't see how the Iraq war can be placed in the mold of just wars outline ^^^ in that post.

"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, Spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain" -Hitler

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 3:24 AM. Reason : ]

10/30/2006 3:24:26 AM

I disagree about Jesus being a peacenik. Read the Chesterton quote, I think it is a fair summary. Aquinas and Augustine go into a little more depth, but I think I agree that nowhere in the Gospels do you find the platitudes Chesterton speaks of.

10/30/2006 3:41:00 AM

but we're not at war. we are in a state of conflict, but not war.

we'll be at war when our gov. grows a pair of balls and declares it. until then - until the gov. officially acknowledges and assumes the responsibilities of war, they shouldn't get any of the benefits.

10/30/2006 7:13:16 AM

i would just like to point out that Aquinas and Augustine are some of the worst examples to have when trying to justify blowing the shit out of other countries. Bastardized interpretations of Plato and Aristotle is no way to argue war. Expecially since both of them lived in a time when everyone was fighting. Im glad that worked out for the best.

10/30/2006 7:25:10 AM

Why do you keep quoting Aquinas? He was refuted in the freaking 17th century, do we really have to do it again for you?

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 8:43 AM. Reason : Oooookay I didn't read the post above mine. That was pretty much my point ^]

10/30/2006 8:42:54 AM

Quote :

"I disagree about Jesus being a peacenik. Read the Chesterton quote, I think it is a fair summary. Aquinas and Augustine go into a little more depth, but I think I agree that nowhere in the Gospels do you find the platitudes Chesterton speaks of."

I read that, but the famous line "turn the other cheek" comes to mind.

You can search Google for quotes of Jesus, and pretty much all of them heir on the side of peace, humility, and forgiveness.

I can't think of a single word that Jesus spoke that would endorse war.

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ]

10/30/2006 10:21:57 AM

Quote :

"but we're not at war. we are in a state of conflict, but not war"

Dammit, I keep calling it the vietnam war, not the vietnam conflict.

10/30/2006 11:22:30 AM

Quote :

"I disagree about Jesus being a peacenik. Read the Chesterton quote, I think it is a fair summary. Aquinas and Augustine go into a little more depth, but I think I agree that nowhere in the Gospels do you find the platitudes Chesterton speaks of."

How about you read the words of Jesus to determine this instead of relying on Chesterton and Augustine to justify your political views?

The red letters stand alone.

I mean, it just bothers me when people forgo the actual scriptures and go straight to man's interpretations to gather their own beliefs. They end up just doing so based, sadly, on the ones they agree with, not necissarily the direct words of Christ. Just saying...

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2006 12:18:48 PM

Jesus once met a Roman centurion and did not rebuke him for his warlike ways. Jesus showed anger and acheived retrebution against those who defiled the temple. Jesus was not a socialist as some claim. Jesus was not a peacenik, obviously. Liberal christians need to read up on the scripture again without some radical preacher on the Daily Kos trying to tell them that Jesus was actually some socialist who would give everyone's money away. Jesus wants you to be rich and successful, and jesus would protect our troops before anything else.

10/30/2006 12:38:18 PM

I doubt Jesus would hold a priority of troops over anyone else. Why would he rebuke a centurion? Jesus pretty much didn't rebuke anyone, not even a prostitute. It doesn't necessarily mean he would support prostitution.

Also, the reason Jesus got pissed off at the temple was because they were exploiting the church for monetary gain. It's pretty clear Jesus doesn't want people using religion for promotion of Earthly pleasures, and he'd probably get pissed at a lot of Republicans (and politicians in general, but mostly the Republicans) for doing exactly that.

10/30/2006 12:42:00 PM

what about terrrorists using a false religion to kill innocents?

10/30/2006 12:43:07 PM

He'd probably get pissed at that too.

10/30/2006 12:44:08 PM

Quote :

"Jesus wants you to be rich and successful, and jesus would protect our troops before anything else."

Yes im sure he does but does he also want people making above what they need and then others making so little they can barely live?

a good way to protect our troops is to not put them in a conflict which is doomed.

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 1:06 PM. Reason : and who said making money makes you rich and successful?? or money is something jesus cared about]

10/30/2006 1:06:18 PM

Quote :

"jesus would protect our troops before anything else."

would jesus protect the iraqi soldiers or the insurgents, or just american soldiers?

how does jesus choose sides?

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ,]

10/30/2006 1:11:30 PM

Quote :

"Jesus was actually some socialist who would give everyone's money away"

Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Quote :

"Jesus was not a peacenik"

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

10/30/2006 1:19:02 PM

Matthew 10:34-35: "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

(Did you ever wonder why your mother in law is such a bitch? There you go.)

Apocalypse 19:11-16: "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and with justice doth he judge and fight. And his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems, and he had a name written, which no man knoweth but himself. And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD. And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty. And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh written: KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

His clothes dipped in blood; he fights and leads the armies and strikes the nations with a sharp sword - doesn't exactly sound like a hippie peacenik to me. The horse is white, not tie-dye.


[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 3:14 PM. Reason : and behold.. a tie dyed horse...]

10/30/2006 3:12:50 PM

so whens the end of the world?

also im sure jesus isnt exactly happy you idiots are waging wars in his name.

10/30/2006 4:45:08 PM

^ Thursday at 10, 9 central.

Jesus is not against war. Show me anyplace in the Bible where it says that Jesus was against war. He did say that we should strive for peace of course. But still, show me anywhere where Jesus said that he was against war. Oh wait, just like Chesterton pointed out, you can't. Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 5:03 PM. Reason : add]

10/30/2006 5:02:09 PM

show me where jesus was against ASS TO MOUTH

10/30/2006 5:06:41 PM

so because Jesus wasnt against war makes it alright to take over Iraq and contain people in Cuba?

10/30/2006 6:01:05 PM

huh, and here i was thinking all those verses referred to the judgement of man, not a justification for torture.

Quote :

"Yes. What's the point? And about kissing the Koran, I'm not sure I would have done it, but I don't think I am in any position to criticize the decision of a Pope who is now a Venerable Servant of God. What about it?"

1. sounded to me from the whole speech that he hated the idea of preemptive war, specifically the one in Iraq, which is the one he was referring to.

2. well, i'd see that as a sign of respect towards "people of the covenant". Why would you have not done it? Obviously he saw no problem with a sign of resepct towards muslims, and it seems that you do see it as a problem. Why?

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 6:54 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2006 6:49:45 PM

Quote :

"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

That would be jesus explaining what he is doing through metaphor, mine is extremely clear that jesus wants peace.

Quote :

"Apocalypse 19:11-16"

I don't think some guy's shroom dream has anything to do with Jesus.

10/30/2006 8:13:37 PM

So Jesus was a flip-flopper?

10/30/2006 8:30:00 PM

All the Doctors of the Church, His Holiness the Pope, His Excellency the Archbishop of the Military Ordinariate, His Excellency the former Archbishop of Atlanta, etc. etc. etc., all disagree. And I tend to value their theosophical judgment more than yours - no offense.

Quote :

"so because Jesus wasnt against war makes it alright to take over Iraq and contain people in Cuba?"

Maybe maybe not. But it dispels one of the sound-byte non-arguments used by the hippie peaceniks, who have signs saying "Jesus was a pacifist". When clearly nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote :

"huh, and here i was thinking all those verses referred to the judgement of man, not a justification for torture."

Everyone makes mistakes, don't be too hard on yourself about it.

10/30/2006 8:31:23 PM

The Catholics have always been a bit corrupt though. I don't know if you can trust them.

10/30/2006 8:36:33 PM