| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
IVNORD 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: January 23 2009 at 08:02 |
 Slartibartfast wrote:
Sir, if by playing dirty you actually mean I run rings around you logically, I accept your insult as a badge or honor.  |
Those "logical rings" are pretty much imaginary. I had no intent to insult you in any way, sorry you view it this way. It would pass as an innocent remark in a casual conversation.
Slartibartfast wrote:
The Clinton administration did their best to pass on the ball regarding the terrorism that was happening. The Bush administration did their best to ignore it and focus on attacking Iraq. The 9/11 attack just made them have to postpone their plans for a while, but they still managed to get around to it using the 9/11attacks and false reports of WMD's to justify it. And you might recall that the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were apprehended and prosecuted during the Clinton administration.
|
That's not what you said before
Slartibartfast wrote:
The important thing to remember is that the Bush administration kept us safe as long as you don't consider the 9/11 attacks or the anthrax thingy. |
If it's not blaming Bush fof those attacks, what is? Wasn't it Clinton's fault? How he handled the first WTC? The two embassies in Africa? The Cole? Refusing taking Osama into US custody? As a believer in the majority rule, would you agree that the mid-term elections of 2002 were a clear vote of non-confidence for the Democrats largely because of 9/11? (with all the damage brought upon us by the unrestrained Bush administration as a result). God forbid, if something happens in the next 4 years, the Democrats would be barred from office for the next 10-15 years, and Bush abuses would look like a picnic in comparison with the unopposed reaction that might ensue.
You are pretty biased, just look at the cartoons you post. And if I remember correctly, you're "predominantly democratic" by your own admission. But no matter what your convictions are, you have to be fair.
|
 |
Chicapah
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8238
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:48 |
|
I pray Obama does well but keep in mind that my generation thought Jimmy Carter, who shared much of Barack's ideology, was the answer to the world's ills. He wasn't.
|
|
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:18 |
BroSpence wrote:
So I guess people with green cards should be allowed to speak freely or have a right to a lawyer or knowledge of their crime either? And those with dual citizenship only get half the rights?
Just a thought. |
Why branch out unnecessarily? You understand perfectly that he spoke about the terrorists.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:17 |
IVNORD wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration. |
Slartibartfast plays dirty too often to respond to it every time. Get used to it |
Sir, if by playing dirty you actually mean I run rings around you logically, I accept your insult as a badge or honor. The Clinton administration did their best to pass on the ball regarding the terrorism that was happening. The Bush administration did their best to ignore it and focus on attacking Iraq. The 9/11 attack just made them have to postpone their plans for a while, but they still managed to get around to it using the 9/11attacks and false reports of WMD's to justify it. And you might recall that the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were apprehended and prosecuted during the Clinton administration.
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 07:18
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:11 |
I guess i could not escape a Clinton debate after all...
manofmystery wrote:
Allowing the terrorists and Taliban members stored at Gitmo the rights afforded to US citizens not only offensive its simplistic. |
Not only that. I think the Geneva convention does not address the terrorist issue at all, but it states that combatants in the adversary's uniform or civilian clothes should be treated as spies, tried by military courts and executed.
manofmystery wrote:
What's the point of this anyway? It doesn't show compassion it shows weakness. The reason that the world supports Obama is because he is a light weight, they see him as a push over, someone who will cave in rather than take a stand and he just gave them their first evidence. Seems that a lot of you want the court of world opinion to decide every move America makes.
A lot of good it will do us to join dying Europe in showing the world that we play nice. I know Putin, for one, looks forward to batting Obama around like a rag doll for the next 4 years and I don't doubt he'll be able to. |
I've refrained from such harsh words only not to offend our liberal friends. Coincidently, I said the same thing about Putin to a Russian friend while discussing the elections back in October, 2008.
manofmystery wrote:
That being said he cannot be blaimed for the financial system collapse, that lands squarely at the feet of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who were in deep with Fanny and Freddy and supported the whole sub prime morgage idea. |
Enter Clinton. The whole business had been started during his reign. The most disgusting thing is the fact that he did that mostly to boost his popularity to win the second term.
manofmystery wrote:
And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration. |
Slartibartfast plays dirty too often to respond to it every time. Get used to it
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:58 |
IVNORD wrote:
I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality. |
Here's the thing that bugs me, if they had stuff on these guys, why haven't they prosecuted them already? If you don't by now you never will. Innocent people who are locked up tend to resent that. Doubly so if they are tortured. These people may go to the "battlefield" if they are now released, but it won't be "back to the battlefield", it will be out of desire for revenge. Wouldn't you? By not following the rule of law, even if there really aren't rules for these kind of prisoners, then you must go to the next best thing, the Geneva Convention. As I recall, treating our enemies humanely worked out pretty well with WW II. The last administration has set us up with something for which there are no good solutions. Worse still, our policies have become recruitment tools for Al-Quieda. If we continue to go down this road, Gitmo won't be big enough to house all the enemy combatants that will be coming our way. Sure you have to be strong against those who would seek to attack you, but making new enemies is inherently stupid.
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 07:08
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:50 |
And now for a moment of humor, sorry I can't resisit: 
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 07:11
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:47 |
Jim Garten, not that it appears to have been noted  wrote:
People:
manofmystery wrote:
Check your emotional attachments at the door this thread is for discussion of Obama's policies, work with congress, and how it is presented in the media |
Many thanks. |
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:45 |
Logan wrote:
I was distracted and edited my post too late to clarify. What I meant was an American suspected of murder, or involved with a murderer, who they feel that if they don't extract a confession may strike again. It also relates to ones who are set free, or must release, because they could not prove guilt/ convict. The key word, though, is suspected. Has not been proven guilty in a fair legal process. The right to a fair trial is a tenet of law. |
Do you mean Kahlid Mohamed is just suspected? And please note - he wasn't tortured to extract a confession but to extract information.
I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:39 |
Logan wrote:
^ You're right, Bush is off-topic, but I did try to respond to your query, and so I think at least it would be nice of you to acknowledge the time I spent rather than brushing most of my post with "I don't want to go there." Nor did I, but you asked, and I took the time to try to respond. |
I didn't mean to be disrespectful. All I meant was I don't want to talk about Bush as i will go back to Clinton and firther on to Reagan and it will turn into a brawl. As for the first two paragraphs, I think the last part of my post did address it.
Logan wrote:
Hypothetically, how would feel about torturing a "suspected" terrorist to death in the hopes that it might save an innocent life? Or what about torturing to death an American suspected of murder (or involved with plotting a murder/ murders) in the hope that it may save an innocent life? Where do you draw the line? When it's been proven in a fair manner? |
Oh please! It's below the belt! Don't compare a common criminal with a terrorist. At the very least they have different ideology for crime, not to mention different means to perpetrate it.
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:06 |
|
Post deleted.
Edited by Raff - January 23 2009 at 07:04
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: January 23 2009 at 02:46 |
People:
manofmystery wrote:
Check your emotional attachments at the door this thread is for discussion of Obama's policies, work with congress, and how it is presented in the media. |
Many thanks.
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 23:24 |
Damn I had a big reply all set and then it got messed up and didn't get posted!
So basically what I said is (paraphrased and made brief):
Closing Gitmo is good, hopefully there is a good follow up in reference to the detained.
People of USA > accused terrorists.
O-man should have done something for us first, instead (Patriot Act, Economic stuggle, Real ID, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc). Waited on closing Gitmo.
ACLU has been more focused on Gitmo than other domestic issues. They should switch emphasis.
Originally posted by birdwithteeth11
I agree. If these people aren't Americans, they don't have the same rights in our Constitution as we do. |
|
So I guess people with green cards should be allowed to speak freely or have a right to a lawyer or knowledge of their crime either? And those with dual citizenship only get half the rights?
Just a thought.
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:29 |
manofmystery wrote:
Only a short time left for Gitmo Island Retreat for Wayward Terrorists, hope they have more fun right back out on the battlefield. Allowing the terrorists and Taliban members stored at Gitmo the rights afforded to US citizens not only offensive its simplistic. What's the point of this anyway? It doesn't show compassion it shows weakness. The reason that the world supports Obama is because he is a light weight, they see him as a push over, someone who will cave in rather than take a stand and he just gave them their first evidence. Seems that a lot of you want the court of world opinion to decide every move America makes.
A lot of good it will do us to join dying Europe in showing the world that we play nice. I know Putin, for one, looks forward to batting Obama around like a rag doll for the next 4 years and I don't doubt he'll be able to.
As for the "right wing" supposedly never being critical of Bush, come on. Who kept Harriet Miers out of the Supreme Court and killed the amnesty bill? I'm not the only one who has been consistently disappointed in Bush's second term weakness, from the pork spending and not standing up for free market principals to his support of amnesty. That being said he cannot be blaimed for the financial system collapse, that lands squarely at the feet of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who were in deep with Fanny and Freddy and supported the whole sub prime morgage idea. And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration. |
I agree. If these people aren't Americans, they don't have the same rights in our Constitution as we do. And quite honestly, sometimes Putin scares me more than what some of these terrorists do. I mean, the man has himself set up as dictator-for-life right now, and unlike these terrorists in the Middle East, he would have access to nukes... Quite a frightening thought indeed.
|
|
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:24 |
Only a short time left for Gitmo Island Retreat for Wayward Terrorists, hope they have more fun right back out on the battlefield. Allowing the terrorists and Taliban members stored at Gitmo the rights afforded to US citizens not only offensive its simplistic. What's the point of this anyway? It doesn't show compassion it shows weakness. The reason that the world supports Obama is because he is a light weight, they see him as a push over, someone who will cave in rather than take a stand and he just gave them their first evidence. Seems that a lot of you want the court of world opinion to decide every move America makes.
A lot of good it will do us to join dying Europe in showing the world that we play nice. I know Putin, for one, looks forward to batting Obama around like a rag doll for the next 4 years and I don't doubt he'll be able to.
As for the "right wing" supposedly never being critical of Bush, come on. Who kept Harriet Miers out of the Supreme Court and killed the amnesty bill? I'm not the only one who has been consistently disappointed in Bush's second term weakness, from the pork spending and not standing up for free market principals to his support of amnesty. That being said he cannot be blaimed for the financial system collapse, that lands squarely at the feet of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who were in deep with Fanny and Freddy and supported the whole sub prime morgage idea. And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration.
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36940
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:21 |
|
I was distracted and edited my post too late to clarify. What I meant was an American suspected of murder, or involved with a murderer, who they feel that if they don't extract a confession may strike again. It also relates to ones who are set free, or must release, because they could not prove guilt/ convict. The key word, though, is suspected. Has not been proven guilty in a fair legal process. The right to a fair trial is a tenet of law.
Edited by Logan - January 22 2009 at 22:22
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:09 |
Logan wrote:
^ You're right, Bush is off-topic, but I did try to respond to your query, and so I think at least it would be nice of you to acknowledge the time I spent rather than brushing most of my post with "I don't want to go there." Nor did I, but you asked, and I took the time to try to respond.
Hypothetically, how would feel about torturing a "suspected" terrorist to death in the hopes that it might save an innocent life? Or what about torturing to death an American suspected of murder?
|
There's a huge difference there in my opinion. An American who commits murder has no need to be tortured. If on the other hand, said American was planning terrorist activities then I would have no problem with it. You did say that protecting the people is the main role of government. In some cases you really can't afford to play it on the safe side. This is going to sound really ultra-nationalistic (probably because it is ), but to me, saving one innocent American life is more important than saving the life of someone who either is a terrorist or involved with terrorists. These people want to commit jihad and go to heaven to be with their seventy-two virgins? I don't mind helping them along the way, so long as it means less Americans die.
|
|
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36940
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:04 |
|
^ You're right, Bush is off-topic, but I did try to respond to your query, and so I think at least it would be nice of you to acknowledge the time I spent rather than brushing most of my post with "I don't want to go there." Nor did I, but you asked, and I took the time to try to respond.
Hypothetically, how would feel about torturing a "suspected" terrorist to death in the hopes that it might save an innocent life? Or what about torturing to death an American suspected of murder (or involved with plotting a murder/ murders) in the hope that it may save an innocent life? Where do you draw the line? When it's been proven in a fair manner?
Edited by Logan - January 22 2009 at 22:16
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:01 |
IVNORD wrote:
Logan wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
We'll see as much of transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity as any government can afford to show. On the other hand, "more" may mean anything. Even a tad more is already more. So you're probably right. |
There are obvious limits, and Obama is bound by an official secrets act. |
I didn't mean that. With all the dealing behind the closed doors endemic to any power group I don't expect transparency, etc. to improve significantly. The pure nature of power.
Logan wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up? |
Closing and investigating Guantanamo Bay is to demonstrate to the world the US respects international conventions. It was a platform and promise that Obama made. I also would like to think that it's because Obama genuinely believes in justice and the rule of law (and that he respects due and fair process). It was important for him to start investigations into the welfare of the prisoners and any allegations of abuse as they are under the US' care. I don't think it helps the US' case to be seen as a rogue state that is above the law and international conventions, and of course I would expect of my government too to not be in violation of human rights. Of course one would not expect Al Qaeda to stick to international conventions, nor has the Al Qaeda organisation signed on to them, but I think it's important to send the message to the world's peoples and nation-states that the US upholds certain standards. I don't believe, as a matter of principle, in having double-standards/ being hypocritical. In terms of future expectations, I was thinking more of the dealings with states (expectations of what is appropriate and rightful behaviour). Torture and coercion was not only used against him. I wonder when Bush linked its old ally Iraq to Al Qaeda in his struggle for the minds of Americans if he worried desperately about how many innocent Iraqis could be hurt? Let's face it, there's a lot of hostility towards the US because of its aggressive foreign policies throughout the years -- that has included supporting groups that have engaged in terrorism over the years, and of course the first strike policy has not sat well. There has been a feeling of hubris coming from the US, that they would support their interests no matter what, and to hell with you if you don't agree. "You're either with us or against us." One could be against the policies without being against the people. I think that Bush was too inclined towards thinking and expressing himself in black and white: good vs. evil, with or against..... Perhaps this "black and white" president will look to the grey areas more. At least he comes across as smarter and less dogmatic. I'm sure he'll be a more stately and respected statesman -- course he lacks that rather endearing swagger. |
I don't wanna go there. And Bush is off topic.
Logan wrote:
Of course the primary responsibility of the head of government should be to protect its citizens, but I don't believe that the ends justify the means. And when one starts flaunting or discarding conventions, even if it is expedient and effective in the short-term, that can cause long-term problems. It's a slippery slope.
|
Disagree. Anything it takes to be safe. I don't care if they strip me completely naked at the airport if it ensures my safe flight. I don't care if they torture a terrorist to death if it saves an innocent life. You can't play by the rules with people who don't play by the rules; rather, if you want to win, play the way they play. |
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 22 2009 at 21:50 |
Logan wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
We'll see as much of transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity as any government can afford to show. On the other hand, "more" may mean anything. Even a tad more is already more. So you're probably right. |
There are obvious limits, and Obama is bound by an official secrets act. |
I didn't mean that. With all the dealing behind the closed doors endemic to any power group I don't expect transparency, etc. to improve significantly. The pure nature of power.
Logan wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up? |
Closing and investigating Guantanamo Bay is to demonstrate to the world the US respects international conventions. It was a platform and promise that Obama made. I also would like to think that it's because Obama genuinely believes in justice and the rule of law (and that he respects due and fair process). It was important for him to start investigations into the welfare of the prisoners and any allegations of abuse as they are under the US' care. I don't think it helps the US' case to be seen as a rogue state that is above the law and international conventions, and of course I would expect of my government too to not be in violation of human rights. Of course one would not expect Al Qaeda to stick to international conventions, nor has the Al Qaeda organisation signed on to them, but I think it's important to send the message to the world's peoples and nation-states that the US upholds certain standards. I don't believe, as a matter of principle, in having double-standards/ being hypocritical. In terms of future expectations, I was thinking more of the dealings with states (expectations of what is appropriate and rightful behaviour). Torture and coercion was not only used against him. I wonder when Bush linked its old ally Iraq to Al Qaeda in his struggle for the minds of Americans if he worried desperately about how many innocent Iraqis could be hurt? Let's face it, there's a lot of hostility towards the US because of its aggressive foreign policies throughout the years -- that has included supporting groups that have engaged in terrorism over the years, and of course the first strike policy has not sat well. There has been a feeling of hubris coming from the US, that they would support their interests no matter what, and to hell with you if you don't agree. "You're either with us or against us." One could be against the policies without being against the people. I think that Bush was too inclined towards thinking and expressing himself in black and white: good vs. evil, with or against..... Perhaps this "black and white" president will look to the grey areas more. At least he comes across as smarter and less dogmatic. I'm sure he'll be a more stately and respected statesman -- course he lacks that rather endearing swagger. |
I don't wanna go there. And Bush is off topic.
Logan wrote:
Of course the primary responsibility of the head of government should be to protect its citizens, but I don't believe that the ends justify the means. And when one starts flaunting or discarding conventions, even if it is expedient and effective in the short-term, that can cause long-term problems. It's a slippery slope.
|
Disagree. Anything it takes to be safe. I don't care if they strip me completely naked at the airport if it ensures my safe flight. I don't care if they torture a terrorist to death if it saves an innocent life. You can't play by the rules with people who don't play by the rules; rather, if you want to win, play the way they play.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Obama Presidency
