see my previous post...i was calling out his strawman

6/13/2008 4:13:39 PM

do you even know what a strawman is?

6/13/2008 4:15:22 PM

Quote :

"i guess its easier for you to feel mighty about your point when you assume i think they're all guilty, even though in the gitmo thread i pointed out that all prisons or jails have some innocent people locked up there"

Seeing as the original person this quote was directed to was operating under that assumption, that would make it - and get this - not a strawman!

Quote :

"hey let me act angry and boldface some words"

I find that bolding key words and phrases makes it easier for dolts to get my meaning sometimes.

6/13/2008 4:15:43 PM

Quote :

"Seeing as the original person this quote was directed to was operating under that assumption"

i'm sure that would be relevant if you were talking to the original person, but you chose to quote yourself in response to one of my posts

6/13/2008 4:16:13 PM

We've noticed. Since that's all you ever do.

6/13/2008 4:17:23 PM

nice job of excusing your strawman by claiming it wasnt a strawman when you used it against another person (even though i didnt mention anything about the first time you used it)

maybe laying off the self quotes would help?

6/13/2008 4:18:33 PM

I find when people don't read things the first time, repetition helps.

Kind of like boldfacing.

6/13/2008 4:20:03 PM

Quote :

"I'd love to see anybody who said they were all guilty"

I was making that assumption for your sake.

The fact that you recognize that there are probably some innocent people in Gitmo, and you are still alright with not allowing habeas corpus is pretty shocking.

It's pretty darn cowardly to so willingly trade someone's freedom for a tick of perceived security.

6/13/2008 4:20:05 PM

Indeed.

By that logic, we shouldn't even be fighting Al Qaeda. We should be taking more cues from them...

6/13/2008 4:21:35 PM

Quote :

"Seeing as the original person this quote was directed to was operating under that assumption, that would make it - and get this - not a strawman!"

this is brilliant logic

i could find someone who thought we should nuke iraq...then i can say something to them based on that assumption...then later in the thread, i could quote myself except direct it at someone else, who didn't think we should nuke iraq, and i could have strawman amnesty

Quote :

"I was making that assumption for your sake."

no, you too were using a strawman

6/13/2008 4:21:42 PM

I find it fairly nonsensical that someone could legitimately believe that there may be some innocent people in Gitmo and still argue we should treat them like sub-human animals. Either you have to be convinced - quite wrongly - that they're somehow all guilty, or you're pretty much just an asshole. That's really what it comes down to.

6/13/2008 4:23:25 PM

Haha, you can't "call out a strawman" by giving an example you don't believe in.

Besides, you don't have a stawman if you are using an if -> then statement.

"I'm sure [you believe] none of them are guilty" - strawman

"IF you believe none of them are guilty THEN ...." - Not a strawman

6/13/2008 4:23:46 PM

Quote :

"still argue we should treat them like sub-human animals"

theres another strawman

6/13/2008 4:24:07 PM

Yeah that might be - at that point you have to argue that the people at Gitmo either are or should be treated with basic human rights.

6/13/2008 4:26:22 PM

Quote :

"no, you too were using a strawman"

Strawmen are used to discredit an argument

I was doing the opposite.

6/13/2008 4:27:04 PM

Quote :

"i could find someone who thought we should nuke iraq...then i can say something to them based on that assumption...then later in the thread, i could quote myself except direct it at someone else, who didn't think we should nuke iraq, and i could have strawman amnesty"

I know the idea of context is lost upon dimwits like you, but perhaps you can try this with me now - read the quote in its entirety. Let's parse it together, shall we?

If we assume in our infinite clairvoyance that somehow, everyone in Gitmo is guilty, then the original statement goes, why bother putting them in Gitmo at all? But clearly since this statement is sarcasm, given that no sensible person believes that you or the original poster is clairvoyant, then this sarcasm must then be pointing out the flaw in the premise that everyone there is guilty.

"But!" you protest, "I didn't say I believe they were all guilty!"

Then, I reply, what the hell are you in such a huff about? Surely then, the rest of the statement follows - if you don't believe they're all guilty, not being a clairvoyant, why in the world would you be against innocent people petitioning their imprisonment before a judge? Unless you really like letting innocent people suffer, kicking puppies, and eating babies. That kind of thing.

6/13/2008 4:27:48 PM

you're giving me opinions that I don't hold and using those lies to make followup arguments

your entire premise is flawed, and you continue to build off of it

6/13/2008 4:28:11 PM

Quote :

"theres another strawman"

Except this argument was specifically brought up in this thread, moron.

It's not a strawman if the argument is actually on the table.

6/13/2008 4:28:49 PM

Please clarify your position, TreeTwista10. That'd be sensible if you think it's being misrepresented...

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 4:30 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 4:29:17 PM

maybe you need to do a better job of remembering who said what to you

6/13/2008 4:29:29 PM

So now we're reduced to arguing semantics over whether Tree's original semantic argument was valid.

6/13/2008 4:29:42 PM

Quote :

"you're giving me opinions that I don't hold and using those lies to make followup arguments your entire premise is flawed, and you continue to build off of it"

Which lie is that? Surely a smart guy like you should easily be able to pick out the specific opinion I have falsely attributed to you and point out why the arguments don't follow from that point.

6/13/2008 4:30:37 PM

Quote :

"if your clairvoyance already tells you that everyone we've dragged in is guilty"

if you werent so egotistical and obsessed with self quoting yourself you wouldnt be in this mess

6/13/2008 4:33:45 PM

Let's try reading again, since I know it's so hard for some people. (Public schools these days!)

Quote :

"If we assume in our infinite clairvoyance that somehow, everyone in Gitmo is guilty, then the original statement goes, why bother putting them in Gitmo at all? But clearly since this statement is sarcasm, given that no sensible person believes that you or the original poster is clairvoyant, then this sarcasm must then be pointing out the flaw in the premise that everyone there is guilty. "But!" you protest, "I didn't say I believe they were all guilty!" Then, I reply, what the hell are you in such a huff about? Surely then, the rest of the statement follows - if you don't believe they're all guilty, not being a clairvoyant, why in the world would you be against innocent people petitioning their imprisonment before a judge? Unless you really like letting innocent people suffer, kicking puppies, and eating babies. That kind of thing."

Get back to me when you actually read that.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 4:35:09 PM

I just went back and read every one of TreeTwista10's posts, and I have yet to see an articulated position on this issue.

Anyone care to correct me on this?

6/13/2008 4:37:27 PM

^i know, yet somehow people already have my position pegged somehow

Quote :

"why in the world would you be against innocent people petitioning their imprisonment before a judge?"

thats a clever way to word it...as if they're all innocent...but as for the question, they'll have their time eventually

6/13/2008 4:39:03 PM

Quote :

"thats a clever way to word it...as if they're all innocent...but as for the question, they'll have their time eventually"

What if two of them are innocent? Are you against people knowing what they are being held for and the charges against them?

6/13/2008 4:42:49 PM

depends if it could compromise our security...there are a lot of unknowns

6/13/2008 4:44:11 PM

^^^Except it doesn't. It simply assumes some people are innocent.

To wit: Not all prisoners in Gitmo are guilty. Therefore, some prisoners are innocent. (In fact, the government itself has admitted this already, so it's not even up for debate).

However, some, such as Oeuvre, have already argued for denying Habeas Corpus rights - i.e., the right to challenge the legality of the detention - to all prisoners.

Therefore, since have already determined that some prisoners are innocent, denying HC means denying innocent people the right to challenge their detention.

So, why do you oppose innocent people having the right to challenge their detention? If they're guilty, one can assume the military and the courts competent enough to figure that one out - or else we have far bigger problems. So, what exactly is the problem here?

Meanwhile, as to your objections over security - we have procedures to deal with circumstances like these. We can get counsel with security clearance and handle the case in such a fashion - we already have procedures in place to do this now.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ^^^]

6/13/2008 4:45:41 PM

all this was pretty much talked about yesterday and today in the gitmo thread

\message_topic.aspx?topic=529558

i probably made the mistake of assuming you had read through that as well

one of my statements about the gray area of these people being held is that not only are they not US citizens, but they're not even officially part of a state's armed forces, they are essentially rogue guerillas...therefore they are technically not abiding by the laws of war and many would say they dont deserve the benefits of the laws of war

6/13/2008 4:49:05 PM

We don't know that. You are making the mistake of conflating the guy whose suicide vest didn't go off with some random guy who got fingered by random-ass bounty hunters looking to make a quick score.

This is why I make snarky remarks about clairvoyance - you make assumptions about the character of detainees that we don't know for certain. This would be why habeas hearings are a good thing. To weed out cases where we know these facts for certain and ones where it's clear we don't.

To summarize - a habeas hearing is not the same as a full trial. It's determining whether or not the person has been lawfully detained. That's it.

6/13/2008 4:51:30 PM

Habeas Corpus is not a law of war.

It's an overarching legal principle that extends well beyond war. And well beyond America, at that. This protection has existed for almost 800 years in the West.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 4:54 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 4:53:21 PM

But the people who were plucked from the battlefield...the ones who are guilty and who are rogue guerrillas that are committing acts of war without any national affiliation, the ones who are breaking the law of war...do they deserve the geneva convention

6/13/2008 4:54:31 PM

Quote :

"But the people who were plucked from the battlefield...the ones who are guilty and who are rogue guerrillas that are committing acts of war without any national affiliation, the ones who are breaking the law of war...do they deserve the geneva convention"

If we're talking about those specific cases where we find an un-uniformed solder firing upon uniformed, American troops, the Geneva convention already has a remedy for them: shoot them on sight. They're unlawful combatants. This assumes we pick them upon the battlefield, however, and then begs the question - why bother dragging them all the way back to Gitmo for a show trial?

Meanwhile, a habeas hearing should easily be able to vet out these cases. "Oh, Ahmed, you're guilty as hell. We're keeping you in detention. Next!"

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 4:56:50 PM

Damn good question.

I'll leave whether the Geneva Conventions apply to legal scholars, but will positively state that even those you describe are entitled to some legal protection. This is exactly what the Military Commissions were designed to address. The courts are presently cleaning up the ambiguous mess...

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 5:01 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 5:00:10 PM

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of these guys weren't taken on the battlefield, and if they were, then you have a quick trial, determine that they were shooting at soldiers, and find them guilty. You make it sound like giving them a trial is the same as handing them a rocket launcher and saying "here, go appease some Nazis for us."

6/13/2008 5:23:21 PM

I didn't start this thread, but it's pretty obvious this is not really about McCain's opinion of the case, or whether the USSC was right.

This thread is objective verification that Sen. John McCain has no business being in authority anywhere in this country, at any level.

I cringe at the idea that someone who can't define HC might vote, not to even mention running for office - and President at that.

6/13/2008 5:28:33 PM

Oh yeah here's a lil Ben Franklin quote

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" founding fathers w00t w00t

6/13/2008 5:31:12 PM

Abraham Lincoln should've done the same thing. He's a fascist bastard according to your standards.

6/13/2008 6:13:57 PM

Did Al Qaeda have an entire region of the United States on its side actively fighting to destroy the union?

I've NEVER posted one of these before, but that deserves a big, fat...



[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2008 6:23:17 PM

so you're ok with it as long as it infringes upon the rights of actual us citizens? Not foreign combatants?

Holy shit, there has to be something wrong with you if you agree with that logic.

this is what I mean by you people always siding with the wrong bunch. It's always fuck America, fuck Americans, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, you're an alright kind of guy.

I don't get it.

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 6:29:53 PM

Quote :

"so you're ok with it as long as it infringes upon the rights of actual us citizens?"

No. And historians still rightly, even heatedly question Lincoln's action. But the situations are incomparable.

Abraham Lincoln faced the very real and very near-term prospect of the United States ceasing to remain the United States. A domestic army of hundreds of thousands had been raised to achieve its end, and was marching to accomplish the same.

Bush faced no such threat.

At all.

6/13/2008 6:45:44 PM

Quote :

"this is what I mean by you people always siding with the wrong bunch. It's always fuck America, fuck Americans, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, you're an alright kind of guy."

You still don't know what the fuck you're talking about, windbag.

6/13/2008 9:31:05 PM

Quote :

"It's almost as if "liberals" are for civil liberties, even if they're unpopular. What a crazy notion. "

6/13/2008 11:31:57 PM

Quote :

"It's almost as if "liberals" are for civil liberties, even if they're unpopular. What a crazy notion."

Well, except for the 2nd amendment. or the 1st amendment when they don't like the speech or religion. Or the 9th and 10th amendments when they want to tell states what the hell to do when they don't have the authority to do so.

6/13/2008 11:53:28 PM

Now wait a minute...

Don't we fight the war first, and THEN prosecute the vanguished?

6/14/2008 1:08:30 AM

wtf is a vanguished?

6/14/2008 1:17:02 AM

Quote :

"well if the gitmo base is evil, then so is abraham lincoln."

Lincoln was just as wrong for suspending habeas corpus imo. Doesn't make him evil. I don't think Gitmo would be so bad if they played by the rules.

6/14/2008 8:16:58 AM

Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus was Constitutionally provided for.

But this tu quoque doesn't change anything.

6/14/2008 10:23:06 AM

Just because it was provided for doesn't necessarily make it right, which is of course what historians go back and forth on to this day.

6/14/2008 10:30:11 AM