Time for some Thomas Jefferson quotes...

[BSMKF]

This should make people angry at themselves for letting the government rule over us rather than the liberty. We need to restore our constitution! The Paul Revere's of our time are screaming!


And now Thomas Jefferson;

*All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

*Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

* The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

*I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

*I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

*I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

*The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

*Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

*A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

*It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

*It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.

*My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

*Never spend your money before you have earned it.

*One man with courage is a majority.

*The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.


Funny thing is......is that today Thomas Jefferson would be dismissed as a right wing racist and be on napolitano's list.

[akhhorus]

This should make people angry at themselves for letting the government rule over us rather than the liberty. We need to restore our constitution! The Paul Revere's of our time are screaming!

blah blah blah

Funny thing is......is that today Thomas Jefferson would be dismissed as a right wing racist and be on napolitano's list.

Which one: the right wing extremists or the left wing extremists? (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/obtained-dhs-memo-warning-of-left-wing-extremists/)

[Keino]

I tend to view slave owners as racists. I know, very silly of me.

[RedskinsDave]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk70/omartheoutmaker/thats_racist.gif

[CNYSkinFan]

I tend to view slave owners as racists. I know, very silly of me.
He wasn't racist....he was just a very very very VERY possessive boyfriend.

[CNYSkinFan]

Lets have some fun


*All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

You mean like when we decided to torture and break the geneva convention?

*Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

Like the warrantless wiretap program?

* The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Well there was alot of political blood spilt this last election...close enough for jazz


*I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.


The irony is that as a deist...Jefferson believed God to be dead.

*I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
I wonder what Jefferson would say about the teabaggers protesting that the highest tax bracket had an increase of 3%?

*I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Homeland Security Department Color Coded chart is on line 2 for you.

*The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.


Said when muskets were 6' long and took a few minutes to reload

*Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Gay Marriage advocates rejoice!!!!!!

*A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

I am glad you agree that the tax breaks targeted at the laboring classes in Obama's budget was a good thing.

*It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

Too bad Bush and the republican congress took us from surpluses to record deficits.

*It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.

And thus provoke a war with someone we have no quarrel with (Iraq) while ignoring those that attacked us (Afghanistan)

*My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

Yet Jefferson double the size of the United States in the louisianna purchase and double the size of federal government in office


*Never spend your money before you have earned it.


See my not about Bush and the republican congress and our debt

*One man with courage is a majority.

The birth of the filibuster

*The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Said the slave owner who did not work his own tobacco fields

[Ibleedburgundy]

The guy knew how to play both sides of the fence that's for sure.

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

[firehawk157]

You mean like when we decided to torture and break the geneva convention?

Insurgents and terrorists are NOT protected by the Geneva Conventions... Reference Article 4, Section A, Paragraph 2:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Insurgents and terrorists, by their very nature, do not follow B and C and these particular extremists don't follow D. Even (a) is pretty sketchy in 95% of these groups we're fighting.

Link (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

Like the warrantless wiretap program?

Agreed. We need to get Obama who has upheld this. Besides, isn't gaining a warrant from a judge just validating governmental authority using governmental authority?

I wonder what Jefferson would say about the teabaggers protesting that the highest tax bracket had an increase of 3%?

I wonder what Jefferson would say about a lot of things we do nowadays. Our social security, welfare and health care systems for starters.


Said when muskets were 6' long and took a few minutes to reload

Your point?



I am glad you agree that the tax breaks targeted at the laboring classes in Obama's budget was a good thing.

I'm not sure you understood what he said...



Too bad Bush and the republican congress took us from surpluses to record deficits.

Continued, in record spending, by Obama.



And thus provoke a war with someone we have no quarrel with (Iraq) while ignoring those that attacked us (Afghanistan)

We had no quarrel with Iraq? Well damn you Clinton for launching those Tomahawks at somebody we had no quarrel with! Damn you! But you're right, let's invade Pakistan too (and Saudi while we're at it).



Yet Jefferson double the size of the United States in the louisianna purchase and double the size of federal government in office

3rd president... Sort of comes with the territory, doesn't it?



See my not about Bush and the republican congress and our debt

How about the Democratic congress under whose watch TARP had created.


Said the slave owner who did not work his own tobacco fields

Very true (I really agree with you here, I'm not just being sarcastic). Let's disregard all knowledge by anyone who wasn't 100% correct and followed his own advice 100% of the time then. So who does that leave us with... Hmmm...

[akhhorus]

Agreed. We need to get Obama who has upheld this. Besides, isn't gaining a warrant from a judge just validating governmental authority using governmental authority?

Clarification: you're allowed to wiretap someone without a warrant, but you need to go back to a Federal judge(usually FISA) to get retroactive approval. Bush refused to do that. He also had the DOJ write stuff like: 'The military is allowed to raid inside the US without a warrant."

And judicial review is a formality now?

How about the Democratic congress under whose watch TARP had created.

Who asked for, proposed and signed TARP? And I think CNY is referring to Bush's non-conservative spending policies, not TARP(the debt was already very much in place before TARP).

[RedskinsDave]

I didn't realize liberals hated Jefferson too.

[CNYSkinFan]

Insurgents and terrorists are NOT protected by the Geneva Conventions... Reference Article 4, Section A, Paragraph 2:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Insurgents and terrorists, by their very nature, do not follow B and C and these particular extremists don't follow D. Even (a) is pretty sketchy in 95% of these groups we're fighting.

Link (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

So we should risk our reputation in the world and cede the moral highground because of a technicality in the geneva convention to use tactics that are less then accurate. Most reasonable people will agree that any foreign national being held by the US should have the same protections offered to all under the Geneva convention. Splitting hairs is what allowed the last regime to do what it did for so long. Torture is wrong...period, end of story.

Agreed. We need to get Obama who has upheld this. Besides, isn't gaining a warrant from a judge just validating governmental authority using governmental authority?

Except for warrants are given by the judiciary whioch is the check and balance on the executive branch to protect against abuse of power. Obama is wrong too, doesn't change the fact that this practice is wrong.

I wonder what Jefferson would say about a lot of things we do nowadays. Our social security, welfare and health care systems for starters.


Jefferson was the biggest hypocrite of our founding fathers. He would probably denounce it while later trumpeting it as the saving grace of America.


Your point?

nice retort



I'm not sure you understood what he said...


nice retort part deux


Continued, in record spending, by Obama.


Yet Obama has made no claims to be a fiscal conservative. And Obama's spending it can be argued is on social programs that will benefit most of society, not just the pentagon.


We had no quarrel with Iraq? Well damn you Clinton for launching those Tomahawks at somebody we had no quarrel with! Damn you! But you're right, let's invade Pakistan too (and Saudi while we're at it).


we used 9-11 to propel the myth that Iraq was an imminent threat. Sadam was contained and isolated but Bush had to spend our blood and treasure to try and advance the neo-con middle east agenda. It was a ridiclous war and only ridiculous people defend the actions taken.

3rd president... Sort of comes with the territory, doesn't it?

Yet he went around congress and strengthened the federal government in doing so. As I said, biggest hypocrite in American history.


How about the Democratic congress under whose watch TARP had created.


They deserve blame as well, mainly for not installign proper oversite for the money.

Very true (I really agree with you here, I'm not just being sarcastic). Let's disregard all knowledge by anyone who wasn't 100% correct and followed his own advice 100% of the time then. So who does that leave us with... Hmmm...

yes but the idolization of Jefferson above other truly heroic men of his time (like Adams and in some cases Washington) pisses me off. Jefferson was a briolliant mind, but you can pretty much find qutes of his on both sides of every argument. To hold him up as a right leaning icon is just as false to hold him up as a left leaning one.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Agreed. We need to get Obama who has upheld this. Besides, isn't gaining a warrant from a judge just validating governmental authority using governmental authority?


I know Obama upheld the state secrets defense so we don't have to give up the details of all the most secretive surveillance methods. But there is a distinction between that and Obama saying he is going to continue warrantless wiretapping. If he has said that, I haven't seen it. Although I have seen a lot of Republicans conflating the two so maybe I missed something.

[BurgundyNGold]

I know Obama upheld the state secrets defense so we don't have to give up the details of all the most secretive surveillance methods. But there is a distinction between that and Obama saying he is going to continue warrantless wiretapping. If he has said that, I haven't seen it. Although I have seen a lot of Republicans conflating the two so maybe I missed something.
He spoke to that last night. Said the processes has to be "refined" and that his team is determining that right now.

[akhhorus]

He spoke to that last night. Said the processes has to be "refined" and that his team is determining that right now.

I think they're going to try to "define" state secrets as only applying to evidence and not trials, then try to get this codified. There's no reason to have this, you can have a trial held in-camera(even exluding the defendant[s]) if you're going to use classified material.

[Keino]

I didn't realize liberals hated Jefferson too.

The guys had some serious defects of character. I don't hate him, but there are things about him I dislike...

[fent]

So we should risk our reputation in the world and cede the moral highground because of a technicality in the geneva convention to use tactics that are less then accurate. Most reasonable people will agree that any foreign national being held by the US should have the same protections offered to all under the Geneva convention. Splitting hairs is what allowed the last regime to do what it did for so long. Torture is wrong...period, end of story.

next time someone tells you the geneva convention doesn't apply to the folks we're holding, point them to article 3. the opening sentence pretty clearly states that a lack of national opponent doesn't matter as to how they're to be treated. it appears that it's geared toward minority groups inside an existing country, but it's not real hard to see how that legally would apply to Iraq or Afghanistan seeing as they were essentially American territories while most of these guys were captured. It's also not real hard to legally extrapolate that this article is intended to cover all detainees no matter the situation.

also note Article 3, section 1, subsection c to see what the geneva convention thinks about humiliating people - just a counterpoint to those that say "this isn't really torture to just strip them down"

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[BurgundyNGold]

next time someone tells you the geneva convention doesn't apply to the folks we're holding, point them to article 3. the opening sentence pretty clearly states that a lack of national opponent doesn't matter as to how they're to be treated. it appears that it's geared toward minority groups inside an existing country, but it's not real hard to see how that legally would apply to Iraq or Afghanistan seeing as they were essentially American territories while most of these guys were captured. It's also not real hard to legally extrapolate that this article is intended to cover all detainees no matter the situation.
This is what's open to interpretation. Foreign nationals in a territory in which you are the dominant party (though not the government of said territory) who themselves do not abide by *any* of the subtext of Article 3 is certainly open to interpretation.

IMO, the Geneva Accords need to be updated to define a) what torture is and is not, and b) to whom it applies.

also note Article 3, section 1, subsection c to see what the geneva convention thinks about humiliating people - just a counterpoint to those that say "this isn't really torture to just strip them down"
It isn't torture, it's humiliation. It isn't in adherence to the Geneva Convention standard and it is prohibited but it's not torture. Torture is specifically (albeit nebulously) addressed in 3(1)(a).

[firehawk157]

So we should risk our reputation in the world and cede the moral highground because of a technicality in the geneva convention to use tactics that are less then accurate. Most reasonable people will agree that any foreign national being held by the US should have the same protections offered to all under the Geneva convention. Splitting hairs is what allowed the last regime to do what it did for so long. Torture is wrong...period, end of story.

There's a reason we (the world) included those clauses. You have to remember the purpose behind the Geneva Conventions. They recognize that war happens and the previous declaration making war illegal is a pipedream. So what we attempted to do is eliminate as much brutality as possible. The problem we recognized is insurgents, terrorists and all of those who don't openly carry arms or support those who openly carry arms will never abide by an international agreement on the way warfare is conducted. That would negate their ability to conduct asymmeterical warfare which is the only advantage they have. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect a common soldier to protect these people and safeguard them knowing with a near certainity that he would never receive that same treatment. The whole golden rule thing.

Your failure to recognize the distinct difference between a combatant and an insurgent shows your ignorance of the subject. That ignorance continues on to understanding the TTPs in which insurgents and terrorists use to gain their ends. If you understood these things, you would know why these people were excluded and why it must be that way.

If you had a friend/son captured and being tortured and eventually led up in front of camera with a black bag over his head, about to get his head chopped off with a rusty saw, you’d understand that all information sources must be pressed (and no, I don’t believe that a lot of these were for that reason, I think the interrogators were just a-holes). The same just would not apply against a conventional enemy because you’d expect your son/friend to be treated in a dignified manner and to be protected. Again, I don’t think the 150+ times of waterboarding were necessary or right, but to think these guys should get the same protection is just ignorance of the way they fight.

There needs to be some system of regulation so as to avoid punishment or retribution against anybody (prior to trial by a competent court) but these guys definitely DO NOT justify protection under the same system that would determine how we treat uniformed enemy combatants.

Except for warrants are given by the judiciary whioch is the check and balance on the executive branch to protect against abuse of power. Obama is wrong too, doesn't change the fact that this practice is wrong.

I agree, but this whole Bush did everything wrong and Obama is the kind-hearted savior crap is annoying to say the least. If that wasn’t the intention of your responses, I’m sorry I mistook them. I just read it as another “Bush is evil, Obama is good” crap that seems to be spewing forth from MSM and people every day now. Bush was a bad president, that’s true. Obama hasn’t proven to be a good president yet.

Yet Obama has made no claims to be a fiscal conservative. And Obama's spending it can be argued is on social programs that will benefit most of society, not just the pentagon.

Obama’s spending affects everything. I hope he doesn’t just spend $3.5T on the pentagon! The point is that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did. He decried irresponsible government spending but a lot of this is extremely irresponsible. A lot of the agencies are getting money forced down their gullet and a deadline for spending it (deadlines that are far shorter than their typical contract proposal cycle). So a lot of contracts are going out without proper review simply because the money HAS to be spent. There are high points to Obama’s stimulus but there are also a lot of low points too. More importantly, we are stealing from our children to pay our bills. While deficit spending is necessary in a recession, I don’t believe Obama has any clear idea of how we will pay it back and that’s when, in my opinion, we start breaking our kid’s penny banks.



we used 9-11 to propel the myth that Iraq was an imminent threat. Sadam was contained and isolated but Bush had to spend our blood and treasure to try and advance the neo-con middle east agenda. It was a ridiclous war and only ridiculous people defend the actions taken.

You are right, Bush went about selling the war all wrong. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush was wrong in starting the war for the reasons he did. And frankly, we had other fish to fry. To say that we had no quarrel with Iraq was completely farcical though. To say that ousting a tyrant, even at a high cost, is wrong as well (that’s my opinion however). That’s the route he should have sold and I can’t say I would have disagreed with him. Saddam was a tyrant by all measures.



They deserve blame as well, mainly for not installign proper oversite for the money.

I agree. As a matter of fact, is there a single group of people who do not deserve some of the blame?

[firehawk157]

next time someone tells you the geneva convention doesn't apply to the folks we're holding, point them to article 3. the opening sentence pretty clearly states that a lack of national opponent doesn't matter as to how they're to be treated. it appears that it's geared toward minority groups inside an existing country, but it's not real hard to see how that legally would apply to Iraq or Afghanistan seeing as they were essentially American territories while most of these guys were captured. It's also not real hard to legally extrapolate that this article is intended to cover all detainees no matter the situation.

also note Article 3, section 1, subsection c to see what the geneva convention thinks about humiliating people - just a counterpoint to those that say "this isn't really torture to just strip them down"

You missed a very important part of that section. Persons taking no active part of hostilities... That section was created to avoid taking civilians and bystanders and interrogating them or otherwise torturing/humiliating them to gain an advantage (such as breaking the will of the people). Guys we capture, like insurgents in Iraq, are most decidedly taking part in hostilities.

[Keino]

You missed a very important part of that section. Persons taking no active part of hostilities... That section was created to avoid taking civilians and bystanders and interrogating them or otherwise torturing/humiliating them to gain an advantage (such as breaking the will of the people). Guys we capture, like insurgents in Iraq, are most decidedly taking part in hostilities.

It applies the minute they lay down their arms. Did you miss that part?

[firehawk157]

I think they're going to try to "define" state secrets as only applying to evidence and not trials, then try to get this codified. There's no reason to have this, you can have a trial held in-camera(even exluding the defendant[s]) if you're going to use classified material.
That's not realistic. To gain a TS/SCI clearance, the initial investigation runs an average of 2 years and costs a considerable amount (I've seen a lot of numbers). And there's no guarantee that it will come back approved. You could have a judge and jury that specializes in TS/SCI cases but there would be serious questions as to the impartiality of such a trial.

[firehawk157]

It applies the minute they lay down their arms. Did you miss that part?
Including MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES that have laid down their arms. Insurgents aren't a member of an armed force in the way the Geneva Conventions recognize them.

[Keino]

Including MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES that have laid down their arms. Insurgents aren't a member of an armed force in the way the Geneva Conventions recognize them.

Each party to the conflict dude. If Insurgents are a party to the conflict and then lay down their weapons in surrender, they are protected by the Geneva Convention Accords. An Armed force is a group of people acting in an organized way during an armed conflict. Yes it applies to captured insurgents.

[akhhorus]

If you had a friend/son captured and being tortured and eventually led up in front of camera with a black bag over his head, about to get his head chopped off with a rusty saw, you’d understand that all information sources must be pressed (and no, I don’t believe that a lot of these were for that reason, I think the interrogators were just a-holes). The same just would not apply against a conventional enemy because you’d expect your son/friend to be treated in a dignified manner and to be protected. Again, I don’t think the 150+ times of waterboarding were necessary or right, but to think these guys should get the same protection is just ignorance of the way they fight.

Rather than get into a continuing series of debates about what is justified or not, lets go back to the facts that torture doesn't work. The FBi interrogated AQ members without using any of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques, and they got a lot of great information. Then the CIA came in with a mandate to waterboard, and they got nothing useful. That alone short circuits the whole debate about torture.

That's not realistic. To gain a TS/SCI clearance, the initial investigation runs an average of 2 years and costs a considerable amount (I've seen a lot of numbers). And there's no guarantee that it will come back approved. You could have a judge and jury that specializes in TS/SCI cases but there would be serious questions as to the impartiality of such a trial.

You're wrong here. Thats been done before without getting clearances. My father was involved with a case held in-camera in the US courthouse downtown, and he was in the courtroom without a clearance(and the case involved top secret level intel). Or hold the cases with a FISA judge presiding(I seriously doubt that at alleged terrorist wants a jury trial btw).

[Ibleedburgundy]

Guys we capture, like insurgents in Iraq, are most decidedly taking part in hostilities.

The other points in your post were already addressed by so I'll just take on this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html

[fent]

Each party to the conflict dude. If Insurgents are a party to the conflict and then lay down their weapons in surrender, they are protected by the Geneva Convention Accords. An Armed force is a group of people acting in an organized way during an armed conflict. Yes it applies to captured insurgents.

about sums it up.

[fent]

Your failure to recognize the distinct difference between a combatant and an insurgent shows your ignorance of the subject. That ignorance continues on to understanding the TTPs in which insurgents and terrorists use to gain their ends. If you understood these things, you would know why these people were excluded and why it must be that way.

ignorance and disagreement over the interpretation of law are hardly the same thing.

If you had a friend/son captured and being tortured and eventually led up in front of camera with a black bag over his head, about to get his head chopped off with a rusty saw, you’d understand that all information sources must be pressed (and no, I don’t believe that a lot of these were for that reason, I think the interrogators were just a-holes). The same just would not apply against a conventional enemy because you’d expect your son/friend to be treated in a dignified manner and to be protected. Again, I don’t think the 150+ times of waterboarding were necessary or right, but to think these guys should get the same protection is just ignorance of the way they fight.

to paraphrase what you're saying, it's okay for the U.S. to lower our standards and darken our history - as well as the minds of the interrogators - through torturous acts that are known to provide shaky data solely on the grounds that the bad guys can't be trusted to be humane? didn't your momma teach you that 2 wrongs don't make a right? i mean seriously...this stuff is ingrained in a moral man's psyche from the time he's born.

[RedskinsDave]

That's not realistic. To gain a TS/SCI clearance, the initial investigation runs an average of 2 years and costs a considerable amount (I've seen a lot of numbers). And there's no guarantee that it will come back approved. You could have a judge and jury that specializes in TS/SCI cases but there would be serious questions as to the impartiality of such a trial.

Wrong.

But the point that classified material cannot be used in open court in correct.

[Keino]

Once again, Firehawk unites the forum. LOL

[firehawk157]

The other points in your post were already addressed by so I'll just take on this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html
The NY times as a source, are you effing kidding me???

[firehawk157]

Wrong.

But the point that classified material cannot be used in open court in correct.
I've never heard of it. I might be wrong though.

[firehawk157]

ignorance and disagreement over the interpretation of law are hardly the same thing.

It is when your ignorance negates your ability to interpret the law.



to paraphrase what you're saying, it's okay for the U.S. to lower our standards and darken our history - as well as the minds of the interrogators - through torturous acts that are known to provide shaky data solely on the grounds that the bad guys can't be trusted to be humane? didn't your momma teach you that 2 wrongs don't make a right? i mean seriously...this stuff is ingrained in a moral man's psyche from the time he's born.

I'm not for the methods we used merely for the fact they were excessive, shaky and do darken our history. But to pretend these guys deserve protection under the Geneva conventions is retarded. We need to clearly define torture and develop international law to cover insurgents and terrorists. Something along the lines of foreign nationals held under other countries jurisdiction.

[firehawk157]

Rather than get into a continuing series of debates about what is justified or not, lets go back to the facts that torture doesn't work. The FBi interrogated AQ members without using any of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques, and they got a lot of great information. Then the CIA came in with a mandate to waterboard, and they got nothing useful. That alone short circuits the whole debate about torture.

Your right. I'm not advocating torture (though torture is too subjective, I'm not advocating or trying to justify what was done because that was clearly excessive). What I'm saying is he was wrong in that these guys don't get Geneva conventions protection.



You're wrong here. Thats been done before without getting clearances. My father was involved with a case held in-camera in the US courthouse downtown, and he was in the courtroom without a clearance(and the case involved top secret level intel). Or hold the cases with a FISA judge presiding(I seriously doubt that at alleged terrorist wants a jury trial btw).

That might be true. It's outside of my experience however.

[akhhorus]

It is when your ignorance negates your ability to interpret the law.

So, you're admitting you were wrong about Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions then?

I'm not for the methods we used merely for the fact they were excessive, shaky and do darken our history. But to pretend these guys deserve protection under the Geneva conventions is retarded. We need to clearly define torture and develop international law to cover insurgents and terrorists. Something along the lines of foreign nationals held under other countries jurisdiction.

They are covered by Geneva: "every party of the conflict." Even if they weren't, we shouldn't torture because it goes against what America stands for and it doesn't work.

[akhhorus]

Your right. I'm not advocating torture (though torture is too subjective, I'm not advocating or trying to justify what was done because that was clearly excessive). What I'm saying is he was wrong in that these guys don't get Geneva conventions protection.


They do get protection. They're a party to the conflict. Even if you didn't recognize the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan, its hard to separate them from Al Queda by 2001(Al Queda provided military support, fought for the Taliban and provided guards to all the Taliban senior leadership), so any alleged AQ members caught in Afghanistan could fall into that category legally. Jose Padilla, caught in the US, should fall into the Federal law enforcement system since he was on US soil(so should any terrorists caught on US property or committed crimes on US territory).

[firehawk157]

So, you're admitting you were wrong about Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions then?

They are covered by Geneva: "every party of the conflict." Even if they weren't, we shouldn't torture because it goes against what America stands for and it doesn't work.

For the Taliban, yes, I agree. For JAM, AQI, ISI, JAI, AAS and AAH as well as AQ, that's a negative.

[akhhorus]

For the Taliban, yes, I agree. For JAM, AQI, ISI, JAI, AAS and AAH as well as AQ, that's a negative.

I disagree, but its academic: every detainee of the United States deserves protection from torture and humiliation. We're supposed to be better than some banana republic.

[BurgundyNGold]

I disagree, but its academic: every detainee of the United States deserves protection from torture and humiliation. We're supposed to be better than some banana republic.
I'm telling you, it would be better if we had an international means by which to detain and try these clowns. That's the big problem here. These terror suspects often cannot be tried in the US because the infractions did not occur on US soil and because the nature of the infractions are military, not civilian.

[akhhorus]

I'm telling you, it would be better if we had an international means by which to detain and try these clowns. That's the big problem here. These terror suspects often cannot be tried in the US because the infractions did not occur on US soil and because the nature of the infractions are military, not civilian.

If they were part of a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts inside the US, we could easily charge them here. We just pled out an AQ member on conspiracy yesterday. Being a member of Al Queda and/or providing them with material support anywhere in the world is a federal crime here I believe.

EDIT: it is.

Link (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002339---B000-.html)

We give ourselves specific jurisdiction over acts that happen overseas also.

[firehawk157]

I disagree, but its academic: every detainee of the United States deserves protection from torture and humiliation. We're supposed to be better than some banana republic.
I never disagreed with that base point (I can quote myself but it seems a bit unnecessary given you can just scroll up). I think we should hold ourselves more accountable because it is ineffective and degrading for every party involved. More importantly, we are adding fuel to the fire that is anti-western sentiment in the Islamic world.

[firehawk157]

I'm telling you, it would be better if we had an international means by which to detain and try these clowns. That's the big problem here. These terror suspects often cannot be tried in the US because the infractions did not occur on US soil and because the nature of the infractions are military, not civilian.
I don't think it would help if we tried these guys in a western court. However, how far can we trust a pan-Arabic multinational court?

[akhhorus]

I never disagreed with that base point (I can quote myself but it seems a bit unnecessary given you can just scroll up). I think we should hold ourselves more accountable because it is ineffective and degrading for every party involved. More importantly, we are adding fuel to the fire that is anti-western sentiment in the Islamic world.

After Abu Gharib and the stories from released Gitmo detainees, they already think we torture every detainee. Admitting to what we did and punishing guys like Yoo, Addington and Bybee won't change anything except that we're showing we'll hold people accountable. Which helps restore our moral high ground.

[akhhorus]

I don't think it would help if we tried these guys in a western court. However, how far can we trust a pan-Arabic multinational court?

We should let the Saudis try them. Trial in the morning, beheading in the evening *thumbs up* lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

If they were part of a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts inside the US, we could easily charge them here. We just pled out an AQ member on conspiracy yesterday. Being a member of Al Queda and/or providing them with material support anywhere in the world is a federal crime here I believe.

EDIT: it is.

Link (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002339---B000-.html)

We give ourselves specific jurisdiction over acts that happen overseas also.
If they happened on American property (embassy bombings) or on Americans (USS York). What if all you have is a plan to blow up 10 planes crossing the Pacific?

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't think it would help if we tried these guys in a western court. However, how far can we trust a pan-Arabic multinational court?
Personally, I'm for using the Hague. Most of the time, those people get paid to sit on their hands, lol.

[akhhorus]

If they happened on American property (embassy bombings) or on Americans (USS York). What if all you have is a plan to blow up 10 planes crossing the Pacific?

Covered:
There is jurisdiction over an offense under subsection (a) if— the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce

and

There is jurisdiction over an offense under subsection (a) if---after the conduct required for the offense occurs an offender is brought into or found in the United States, even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside the United States

[BurgundyNGold]

Covered:

and
Policemen of the world, eh? It's a good think that everyone overseas is too busy screaming over Obama like the British Invasion of 1964 in reverse to notice that we just took responsibility for any illegal act in or over international waters, lol.

[akhhorus]

Policemen of the world, eh? It's a good think that everyone overseas is too busy screaming over Obama like the British Invasion of 1964 in reverse to notice that we just took responsibility for any illegal act in or over international waters, lol.

You're overstating. We're asserting authority to charge/try anyone who provides material support to Al Queda(or any terrorist group) whether or not they're in the US. And this has been law of the lands for years(if not decades).

[BurgundyNGold]

You're overstating. We're asserting authority to charge/try anyone who provides material support to Al Queda(or any terrorist group) whether or not they're in the US. And this has been law of the lands for years(if not decades).
I'm not overstating. To read the text, it states that the US can try anyone for any crime on any US commercial interest anywhere -- and not just AQ. Things like these and the fact that the US flouts World Court rulings, won't let it's soldiers be prosecuted for crimes, etc is at the heart of the perceived American arrogance that piss off people of other countries.

We would do well to seize this opportunity to let an international body handle these terror suspects. Sure, it shows international good will but, more importantly, we've demonstrated that we're not equipped to deal with any part of whatever due process relates to these people.

[akhhorus]

I'm not overstating. To read the text, it states that the US can try anyone for any crime on any US commercial interest anywhere -- and not just AQ. Things like these and the fact that the US flouts World Court rulings, won't let it's soldiers be prosecuted for crimes, etc is at the heart of the perceived American arrogance that piss off people of other countries.

Well, no. Read the preamble:
Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

So, they have to be part of a group considered a terrorist organization by the US government and they have to provide material support to said terrorist organization.

We would do well to seize this opportunity to let an international body handle these terror suspects. Sure, it shows international good will but, more importantly, we've demonstrated that we're not equipped to deal with any part of whatever due process relates to these people.

I'd rather try them here and put up with the usual countries whining about our justice system than have them be executed by old age at the Hague. You would have to define a world code of laws first, then define what's a terrorist and what's an insurgent, then determine an agreed-to rules of evidence(classified intel and such) and then hope they haven't died from boredom lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, no. Read the preamble:

So, they have to be part of a group considered a terrorist organization by the US government and they have to provide material support to said terrorist organization.
It's a smaller point, but you are correct. My contention was more about the Donald Trump like "anywhere in the world" tone and scope, lol.

I'd rather try them here and put up with the usual countries whining about our justice system than have them be executed by old age at the Hague. You would have to define a world code of laws first, then define what's a terrorist and what's an insurgent, then determine an agreed-to rules of evidence(classified intel and such) and then hope they haven't died from boredom lol.
WTF else are they doing over there? Watching reruns of Are You Being Served and season 4 of Big Brother Holland for like the 25th time, lol?

[akhhorus]

It's a smaller point, but you are correct. My contention was more about the Donald Trump like "anywhere in the world" tone and scope, lol.


That law clearly has Dewey Clarridge's fingerprints all over it. He was CIA(later indicted for his role in Iran-Contra) who ran counter-terrorism at CIA. He advocated luring terror suspects into international waters and shanghai-ing them back to the US for trial(they actually did get some that way). I have no problem with that. If you have proof that someone is helping Al Queda(or any terrorist group) with a safehouse, money, weapons(there is a separate law for that though), or anything there should be a specific conspiracy charge for that. I think they should charge everyone at Gitmo that we have proof that they're AQ with that.

WTF else are they doing over there? Watching reruns of Are You Being Served and season 4 of Big Brother Holland for like the 25th time, lol?

Lots and lots of weed lol.

[BSMKF]

Ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."


President, Thomas Jefferson

[akhhorus]

Ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."


President, Thomas Jefferson

Good thing that private banks don't issue their own currency in the US then.

[firehawk157]

Good thing that private banks don't issue their own currency in the US then.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one wondering how this applied to today.