gmcjetpilot on November 25, 2006 at 10:32 PM

Just 2 points. 1) We have to condemn What Action? Like Murtha, you seem to have found our Heroes guilty even before the investigation has ended! If you believe the MSM’s reporting on the matter then please explain to me why they were wrong over a month ago when they reported that the investigation was over. Could they are wrong again? BTW, in America everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

2) Why are you so willing to concede defeat? Our troops in Iraq don’t seem to be in any hurry to give up the good fight. Maybe you think they will be safer somewhere else, but history has shown us that the terrorists will attack us at home, and the troops in supposedly safe havens. Isn’t it better to go down fighting than to be sitting ducks?

MURTHA IS A DIRTBAG!

Why? Because he called the marines ‘cold blooded murderers’ without a shread of envidence and he did it while speaking as a US congressman. And he did it not for the Iraqi civilians. Not even for the victims! But for his own political ambitions. To deliberately cast blame on Bush and Company in order to further his own political ambitions.

That makes Murtha much, much, worse then a dirtbag in my book. For that statement alone he should have been sanctioned and expelled from congress IMHO.

I don’t think we should ‘cut-and-run’ I think we should decide to fight. Cut out this ‘Politically Correct’ bullshit and ‘wining their hearts and minds’ crap. Never, ever, has a war been won by ‘winning their hearts and minds’.

Fight the enemy on the battlefield. But also fight them in the media. Show the ‘lions of Islam’ hiding behind women and children on video during each and every press conference. Drop the ‘Islam is a religion of Peace’ mantra – its a lie. Stop giving the enemy guided tours of our Airport security systems. Treat organizations like CAIR what they are – enemy propaghanda(sp?) outlets – and of the NYT keeps revealing our national security secrets then treat them the same way – arrest their editors and close down their business. Being ‘press’ does not give them the right to endanger the rest of us in order to further their own agenda.

Vietnam was ‘lost’ because we won the battlefield – but lost the media war.

And as sad as it is to have soldiers dead is alot better than having Amerian civilians dead. And that is the price we will pay for electing the dems in 2006.

I dont wish it was going to happen in fact I hope it doesnt. But I am not optomistic already Al Queda says it won in Iraq and its on to America.

We are showing weakness and its making our enemies bolder. North Korea set off its bomb. Iran is building one. More people are dying in Iraq and the Middle East than ever before.

Veitnam was a regional defeat. Iraq is a world wide defeat if we leave now and its repercusions will be felt for a long time.

This whole Marine deal hurts America and of course the innocent lives of Iraq citizens. I can only imagine what the Arabic language news and propaganda machine will do with this. This has been one of the worse weeks ever in Iraq.

Is Murtha a dirt bag for condemning this from the get go? Some body had to say it. Do you think he take joy in this? Well to me the military folks are heroes. I would never criticize them, but as distasteful as it is, we have condemn the action for the sake of US. Soldiers are under fire and persecuted if they mess up. My only question is when will the leadership be accountable for their mistakes that put them in that position? I hear the GOP go OH the Dems are going to investigate. Well I hope they do some oversight. 6 years of executive cart blanch did not work.

BTW Mr. Rightwinged, “cut and runners”? That is so yesterday. Pres Bush even said he does not like that term and never used it but once or twice (actually about 30 times recorded on video but we digress). Even Kissinger says we can’t win and we can’t leave (face saving). Sounds like vietnam. Oh and you really care about the Shiite and Sunni. I bet you never heard the words (like most Americans) before 2003 or 2004, and I bet GW did not either. I am sure he was told of possible fall out as Chaney and Rumsfeld where, but I’m also sure Rumsfeld arrogantly ignored it and Chaney squawked like Batman’s arch enemy, The Penguin, quake quake, with a sneer, FEED Halliburton, must feed, need more money. Sorry I mean we went in for 9/11 or weapons of mass deception, I mean destruction. We (us the American people) made a BIG mistake. Lets change the course please. I’m not blaming we need to do something but a reality check is needed. Thought having the both sides of the House and Executive branch GOP might work out, but had doubts. I had hoped. Experiment did not work out. Glad the Dems have some power and wish them well. I hope the do well for the sake of America. If they screw up, they will be out, but I never want such a loop sided balance of power ever again. Recipe for corruption and stupidity with out debates and a rubber stamp mentality.

If there’s an aftermath of leaving than WE must accept responsibility, since we contributed to it. We should have learned the lesson in vietnam when Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, the top 5 of all time genocides. That would have happened if we did not go into SE Asia. We (the American people) have to accept the aftermath or PUT another 100,000 soldiers in Iraq. Please Mr. Rightwinged, its not too late to enlist in the Army. If I have to choose between my fellow American, or Iraq, I choose American’s. I am glad you have a big heart and really care. May be you can go to Iraq and volunteer helping Iraq.

Frankly I don’t want one more solder killed for their sectarian violence. Sorry, call it cut and run, don’t care, but you have to cut you loses at some point. I hate to seem biased to one side, but I am Pro America, what ever is best for her. I don’t give a damn about partisan BS. For all of our sakes and the sake of our families and kids hope the 110th House is a big successes and works with Bush to get us OUT of this mess.

HOW MANY WAYS CAN I SAY THIS? How dense are you? I’ve repeatedly asserted soldiers should have the same rights as anybody in a civil criminal trial. What don’t you understand? I don’t think Ms. England was treated unfairly because there was NO DOUBT it was her in the photos!

I was never specifically referring to Gitmo detainees, but rather all those worldwide. There’s no harm to be done by trying a Sheik Mohammed, because he should be relatively easy to convict.

But go ahead and keep trying to tell me what I think; it’s such a common conservative tactic these days. I suppose it must be fun. Here, I’ll give it a try: no matter what you say, you conservatives believe our troops should fight equipped with nothing but frilly summer dresses! No wonder you lost the election!

Yep. Fun.

But again I have to set up what your not understanding> Im not challenging you to say that military people should have the same rights as everyone else. Im saying that the same military justice system that tried and convicted England is good enough for the Gitmo detainees. You are the one trying to say that they are not fair.

What proof do you have of that ? I havent seen you find one fact to say that terrorists wouldnt get a fair shake in military tribunals (The same kind that tried England). If anything it is a far more fair shake than they deserve.

Again these are not US citisens and the do NOT have US Constitutional protections. Show me where it says they do in the US Constitution ?

So your arguing moonbeams here. I have repeatedly shown that Military tribunals have handled foreign enemies. There is no basis to say they should get US jury trials. Your wishes play no matter in the law. Military tribunals are legal and have been traditional the way we try foreigners captured in time of war.

So again I challenge you to back up your claim that these tribunals are unfair or even illegal.

Given the administration’s tendency to not release anybody suspected of terrorist connections, it’s reasonable to assume Mr. Arar was deported specifically for purposes of “aggressive interrogation.”

There seemed to be confusion (at least between agents) about whether he had terrorist connections and dubious whether “aggressive interrogation” would be warranted, so your reasoning might not be valid. Of course, you could be right and it could be a mistake which occurred. But more than Mr. Arar, I assume that you are implicitly making a larger point concerning extraordinary rendition?

There are so many detainees who have not had their day in court (that is, nearly all of them) I suppose one could speculate either way.

As I understand it, they’ve all had their “day in court” with Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) and with the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Is war merely a “civil” police action? As I understand it, historically, this has never been the case because war is so different from civil life.

I understand this hasn’t been the case historically, but it was suggested that I believe suspected terrorists should have more rights to due process than our soldiers, an idea I reject.

To be clear, I’m not among those who suggested that. My point was that your view diverges from the historical view, suggesting that greater evidence of efficacy should be required. The change in precedent also suggests that judicial activism might be an issue.

In any case, I do agree that there should be some form of habeas corpus, and I think there is.

That depends on which opinion you choose to believe.

Well, you can always read the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 itself. It provides for CSRT and appeal. Also, note that the article I linked was from 10-03-2006. My guess is that the article you linked was written on 08-02-2004. Significant changes have occurred since then.

Back on topic, a major contention in these threads seems to revolve around how we respond to our imprecise and lacking knowledge: to which side do we give the benefit of the doubt?

Timing isn’t important here, because for one, you chose not to include a link.

Here you go. I assume you’ll be providing your own source refuting the facts presented.

Your first paragraph talks about “assuming”, your second one talks about “speculating”

Please explain the difference between the two. Point being, I never claimed to know how many detainees were being held unjustly. Is there a contradiction here? Explain.

And you end with a link to a “human rights” group and discussion of opinion.

Yeah, don’t address the substance of the opinion; just dismiss it out of hand while disingenuously ignoring that the opposing opinion is from a right wing source. Classic.

Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 12:41 PM

Before I get to the Vanity Fair article posted on the extreme left (Rove to be indicted tomorrow) TruthOut.org, written by.. lol… Craig Unger…. The part about “assuming” and “speculating” wasn’t to show a difference you retard, it was to invalidate your entire post that didn’t rely on facts. This is a pattern with you… something can always “reasonably be assumed” or “speculate either way”, etc.

Now, please show what in that “article” contradicts FactCheck.org’s findings, and even if you’re able to do so, explain why I would believe it, over FactCheck.org which no one would argue is partisan. I repeat:

But say goodnight Constantine. Oh, and not only that, but Bush’s assertion that Saddam had sought significant quantities of uranium seems correct. He never claimed that Saddam bought it, which was the “liar” card Wilson tried to pull saying “Saddam didn’t buy it”. Liberals were to stupid to understand the important difference in “sought” and “bought”. Do you understand that Saddam not buying something, doesn’t mean he didn’t seek it? No, I don’t suppose a liberal would.

Now, please find me a non-opinion piece written for Vanity Fair (apparently) and then posted on one of the most dishonest whack job sites on the net, and explain to me how it proves Saddam didn’t SEEK yellowcake (which we know he did). Again, proving that Saddam didn’t buy it, has nothing to do with whether he sought it. Oh, and I think the former PM of Niger probably has a better idea of whether Saddam sought yellowcake from him than you do.

I pointed out that you are upset about military tribunals yet that is what these Marines are being tried under and you seem to have no problem with them not getting full constitutional rights.

HOW MANY WAYS CAN I SAY THIS? How dense are you? I’ve repeatedly asserted soldiers should have the same rights as anybody in a civil criminal trial. What don’t you understand? I don’t think Ms. England was treated unfairly because there was NO DOUBT it was her in the photos!

I was never specifically referring to Gitmo detainees, but rather all those worldwide. There’s no harm to be done by trying a Sheik Mohammed, because he should be relatively easy to convict.

But go ahead and keep trying to tell me what I think; it’s such a common conservative tactic these days. I suppose it must be fun. Here, I’ll give it a try: no matter what you say, you conservatives believe our troops should fight equipped with nothing but frilly summer dresses! No wonder you lost the election!

Yep. Fun.

Ape carp fit”? What does that even mean? You keep trying to pound that round peg into a square hole. First it was “you don’t want the troops to have fair trials” and now you claim I don’t demonstrate enough outrage to prove I really, really, really want soldiers to be tried fairly.

Sorry was a type meant ape CRAP fit. Didnt want to use the S word.I pointed out that you are upset about military tribunals yet that is what these Marines are being tried under and you seem to have no problem with them not getting full constitutional rights. Other than one small ” I want them to also get their day in court” type message that really was worthless in that you still havent said you would asked that these marines that Murtha is hyper aobut also get a jury trial rather than a military tribunal.

Considering there is photographic evidence of Ms. England happily participating in her crimes, I think you’re probably alone on that one.

You missed the point. You are the one decrying Military tribunals yet that is what convicted Ms England. Why no faux outrage that she didnt get a fair trial ? Is it because she isnt a terrorist non American ?

You’ll find the Nuremberg trials were held for prominent Nazi officers, not individual combatants whose participation was in question.

And your saying someone like Sheik Mohammed isnt a bigwig in Al Queda ? Just how many people do you think there are in Gitmo thousands ? Its barely hundreds. There isnt some massive prison camp there with vast armies of POWs. Its the hardcore of the hardcore there. So trying to say these Gitmo detainees are all “Common soldiers” is really laughible.

Constantine, no one here buys into that rhetoric.

You’re referring to…?

Baloney on both Count Constantine. I have yet to see any democrat of leftist throwing an ape carp fit over US soldiers being tried under military law. In fact this very article shows Mrthat BEGGING for it to happen ! So your faux “I want soldiers to also have miranda rights” is really disgusting.

“Ape carp fit”? What does that even mean? You keep trying to pound that round peg into a square hole. First it was “you don’t want the troops to have fair trials” and now you claim I don’t demonstrate enough outrage to prove I really, really, really want soldiers to be tried fairly.

IF you are so worried about the US soldiers being unfairly tried then where is your outrage and demands of a new trial for someone like Lydie England ? I want to see you argue that !

Considering there is photographic evidence of Ms. England happily participating in her crimes, I think you’re probably alone on that one.

Again i will point out that During WWII we tried Nazi and Japanese warcriminals under military tribunals.

You’ll find the Nuremberg trials were held for prominent Nazi officers, not individual combatants whose participation was in question.

Are you trying to say the reason that democrats won the congress was because the American people were so ready to give the Gitmo group full rights ?

Isn’t that, in effect, what has just happened?

Blaming Republicans for the efforts of the Democrat Party is much like blaming America for making the terrorists terrorise. I subscribe to neither notion.

As American voters just voted in the party that works to assist the terrorists, just what should Republicans have done to correct the situation? The liberal press has sucessfully run the trial of our Heroes that caused the people to find them guilty. I don’t see how Republicans could have done anything different than they already have.

Are you trying to say the reason that democrats won the congress was because the American people were so ready to give the Gitmo group full rights ?

Thats a laugh. The dems won on making Iraq an issue and whining about “Corruption” so much so that they have to keep the “Corruption” angle going in wholehearted massed planned investigations from now until doomsday to hide their lack of ability to govern.

And I weep that the republican party sat on its butt on this issue and let the dems slide. Now we will see Murtha and his ilk go on military witch hunts to persecute US Service personel while at the same time they will be moving a dancing Sheik Mohammed to a US Court where a jury of 12 people WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SHEIK MOHAMMED as to prejudice their veiws will have the final say if he lives or dies or even goes free.

This is the democratic form of “Justic” and it makes me puke.

William Amos on November 24, 2006 at 7:27 PM

As American voters just voted in the party that works to assist the terrorists, just what should Republicans have done to correct the situation? The liberal press has sucessfully run the trial of our Heroes that caused the people to find them guilty. I don’t see how Republicans could have done anything different than they already have.

Here’s the problem with that argument: If you detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without a trial you never determine who is a terrorist and who is not. I support the rights of terrorist suspects because I believe everyone has the right to due process. If they are tried and found to be guilty of terrorism, them the should be locked up for good. Until that point however they are not terrorists, but merely individuals charged with terrorism. I don’t think this makes me a terrorist supporter; I want to see terrorists convicted and locked up for life. But I want our government to use due process to deteremine who these terrorists are. Too much to ask?

Technically yes it is. They by all rights of international laws do not have rights. They are in voilation of the geneva convention and can be shoot on sight they dont even have to be taken prisoner.

Again show me where I said I dont want trials for Terrorists ? I want military tribunals for them. IF its good enough for our troops its good enough for terrorist scum. They dont deserve full Constitutional protections is what I am arguing. They are not US citisens and do not get the rights most of the rest of us get.

Notice not once has he risen to say that “US troops need Habeas Corpus protections” nor has he said “They are innoncent till proven guilty.”
“I believe soldiers especially should have the same rights as those in a civil criminal trial.”

“…it was suggested that I believe suspected terrorists should have more rights to due process than our soldiers, an idea I reject.”
Reading comprehension, Mr. Amos.

And again with the irony of “If we dont give them legal standings then we are no different than they are” I need to know the last time the Iraqi terrorists gave captured US GIs and Iraqi civilians “Rights” and protections ? Or do they simply execute them right away?
This is not an old argument, that we should become as bad as the terrorists in this regard, that we should stop being America. I believe it’s just morally wrong. Obviously you disagree.

Baloney on both Count Constantine. I have yet to see any democrat of leftist throwing an ape carp fit over US soldiers being tried under military law. In fact this very article shows Mrthat BEGGING for it to happen ! So your faux “I want soldiers to also have miranda rights” is really disgusting. Its an attempt tp backtrack and say you for something that you never intended to be fore simply because it undermines your whole argument about military tribunals. IF you are so worried about the US soldiers being unfairly tried then where is your outrage and demands of a new trial for someone like Lydie England ? I want to see you argue that !

And for your other hypocritical stance that “We will stop being America if we dont give Terrorists full rights” is really laughible. Again i will point out that During WWII we tried Nazi and Japanese warcriminals under military tribunals. And you know what ? America didnt desolve into a facist state when that happened. So the truth be know your fearmongering and anti US hatemongering have no basis in reality. Your playing a pathetically weak argument of “If we dont give them show trials where they can use every advantage they can have to get off scott free then it isnt a real trial” is really sad to try and understand. These are NOT criminals they are hardcore murders who are getting far more justice than they deserve. Even the Geneva convetion gives the right to shoot on sight anyone who takes up arms and doesnt wear a uniform. Its perfectly legal toi have lined these bastards up and shot them down in mass executions because they are involation of all know forms of civilized war. We are in FACT going out of our way to give them rights that they forfitted when they took up arms they way they did.

Be prepared for the phase “terrorist support” to be plaster all over Murtha and others who want to support giving the terrorists “rights’

Here’s the problem with that argument: If you detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without a trial you never determine who is a terrorist and who is not. I support the rights of terrorist suspects because I believe everyone has the right to due process. If they are tried and found to be guilty of terrorism, them the should be locked up for good. Until that point however they are not terrorists, but merely individuals charged with terrorism. I don’t think this makes me a terrorist supporter; I want to see terrorists convicted and locked up for life. But I want our government to use due process to deteremine who these terrorists are. Too much to ask?

Timing isn’t important here, because for one, you chose not to include a link.

Here you go. I assume you’ll be providing your own source refuting the facts presented.

Your first paragraph talks about “assuming”, your second one talks about “speculating”

Please explain the difference between the two. Point being, I never claimed to know how many detainees were being held unjustly. Is there a contradiction here? Explain.

And you end with a link to a “human rights” group and discussion of opinion.

Yeah, don’t address the substance of the opinion; just dismiss it out of hand while disingenuously ignoring that the opposing opinion is from a right wing source. Classic.

Notice not once has he risen to say that “US troops need Habeas Corpus protections” nor has he said “They are innoncent till proven guilty.”

“I believe soldiers especially should have the same rights as those in a civil criminal trial.”

“…it was suggested that I believe suspected terrorists should have more rights to due process than our soldiers, an idea I reject.”
Reading comprehension, Mr. Amos.

And again with the irony of “If we dont give them legal standings then we are no different than they are” I need to know the last time the Iraqi terrorists gave captured US GIs and Iraqi civilians “Rights” and protections ? Or do they simply execute them right away?

This is not an old argument, that we should become as bad as the terrorists in this regard, that we should stop being America. I believe it’s just morally wrong. Obviously you disagree.

I find it so ironic that American GIs that have been acused of wrongdoing have long had their trials and punishment with not one word of concern from the left about that YET the left runs SCREAMING UNFAIR UNFAIR ! whenever we try to punish a terrorist.

Double standard much ?