And for those of you trying to find the right word for this guy, I have one:
"Traitor".
I think that's the right word for an American citizen that starts working for a power hostile to the American government and people, right?
quote:
Nobody really understood why Maradön² wrote:
Except I haven't posted an article clearly aimed at twisting the truth around into a form suitable for mud slinging.You're trying to prove your little propaganda leaflet is truth. I'm only trying to prove that it isn't.
No you're not. You're trying to discredit everything in it by dismissing it as utter nonsense and anti-GWB propaganda.
I'm not saying it's completely right, or objective. I just happen to agree with some things in it.
quote:
Maradön² had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Not as an enemy soldier, no. Go ahead, criticize the government for not letting terrorists hang us with our own system. Hey, as long as it makes GWB look bad it's ok, right?
And you're flaming me for stating something?
Ok Mara 
I didn't critisize anything, so back off.
I know why they're doing this. And I'm fine with it, why let people who wanna use terroistic actions agienst us use our freedoms and system for their favour?
Keep your lust to flame and piss off people in check.
quote:
Palador ChibiDragon stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
I suspect that there's more proof of this guy's wrongdoing than just "soandso said he did". It may be hard to get at, because the government will be looking into whatever links this guy had to find more like him. But, it doesn't help the writer of that article to research that, or even to mention that.And for those of you trying to find the right word for this guy, I have one:
"Traitor".
I think that's the right word for an American citizen that starts working for a power hostile to the American government and people, right?
Guilty before proven innocent. Just my point.
quote:
Zephyer had this to say about Tron:
I think the point that's trying to be made, 'Sage, is that you're treating him as a known enemy combatant, when there isn't any solid evidence that he is, indeed, a combatant, unlike the tank commander of your example.I'm not really decided on what I think of this, but I want to see both sides understand each other.
Why do you have a right to know the information that led to his classification as a combatant.
Remember: just because you don't know the reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.
That's why governments exist, after all--there is no requirement for a referendum before either declaring war or going to war. It's the government's job to make these decisions.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Enforcer Za'Yth had this to say about Punky Brewster:
No you're not. You're trying to discredit everything in it by dismissing it as utter nonsense and anti-GWB propaganda.
That would be correct. I mean, the article is titled "GEORGE W. KAFKA". It doesn't take a freakin rocket scientist.
quote:
I'm not saying it's completely right, or objective. I just happen to agree with some things in it.
And I'm not saying the converse is completely right. I just happen to vehemently disagree with everything in this article.
You're passing judgement on the government for holding this guy without any information as to WHY they're holding him. Likewise, neither do I have any information, but the difference is I'm not trying to pass judgement using incomplete, biased information. [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Maradön² ]
quote:
Enforcer Za'Yth had this to say about pies:
Guilty before proven innocent. Just my point.
Wrong framework again.
There is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty under the laws of war.
Your problem is that you're still thinking of the attacks, and the people who carried them out as criminals.
They are not.
They are, technically, unlawful combatants. The laws of war, not the laws of jurisprudence, apply.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Goodbye, Bloodsage enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Why do you have a right to know the information that led to his classification as a combatant.Remember: just because you don't know the reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.
That's why governments exist, after all--there is no requirement for a referendum before either declaring war or going to war. It's the government's job to make these decisions.
Because that's the very basis of this debate, that's why. I can't form an educated opinion without knowing that there's justification for the actions.
I'm just trying to see this thing from all angles. 
quote:
Goodbye, Bloodsage had this to say about Pirotess:
Wrong framework again.There is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty under the laws of war.
Your problem is that you're still thinking of the attacks, and the people who carried them out as criminals.
They are not.
They are, technically, unlawful combatants. The laws of war, not the laws of jurisprudence, apply.
But he hasn't been proven an enemy combatant any more than say, you have. So they could just wade in, claim they have evidence that you're an enemy combatant and lock you away for the rest of your life. I think that's the point Za is trying to make. 
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Enforcer Za'Yth said this:
Guilty before proven innocent. Just my point.
You missed MY point:
quote:
I suspect that there's more proof of this guy's wrongdoing than just "soandso said he did". It may be hard to get at, because the government will be looking into whatever links this guy had to find more like him. But, it doesn't help the writer of that article to research that, or even to mention that.
Look at it like this: The US govenment catches Spy X. Now, if they release all the information they have about Spy X, then country Y (which Spy X works for) will know just how much of their spy network is compromised. They can quickly move to cut their losses, and begin damage control.
However, if they DON'T release information from/about Spy X, then country Y has to go with guesswork, and is more likely to mess up. That's what's going on here.
(what's the code to put one of those line break thingys in here again?)
Consider this: You know the Government is checking this guy out 9 ways to Sunday. By now, if there's proof, they will have started to uncover it. If there is no proof, why would they hold him? It's not like he raped some general's dog or something. They have better things to do than to keep innocent people under arrest.
They wouldn't still be holding him if they didn't feel they have very good reason. If they thought they made a mistake, they would just let him go, and let the legal beagles of the armed forces get started on damage control.
quote:
"Traitor".I think that's the right word for an American citizen that starts working for a power hostile to the American government and people, right?
That was what I was aiming at, Palador.
quote:
Fear is a much stronger breeding ground for suffering than anything else. When you act out of fear, you don't think.
True enough. But based on what I have read, this man is not suffering. Inconvenienced, perhaps, but suffering? That would be going too far.
He is being held, not as a P.O.W., because he is not a soldier, and not as a civilian criminal, because he is not being accused of a crime. He is being held as a suspected subversive, and as a possible threat to the lives and well-being of the citizens of this county.
While we are not at war with another country, we are at 'war' with Terrorism. While this makes the lines shady and fuzzy, the intent of war is still clear. In a state of war, the military can take actions that during times of peace would seem irrational, and possible in contradiction of the rights of its citizens, as long as those actions will, in the end, secure the safety of the people they are defending.
It is a reaction based on fear and shock at the afore mentioned Events of Terrorism. We cannot win this situation using the 'accepted' methods of Justice. And lest we not forget, while the Miranda rights of those arrested are taken for granted here in the US, they are a relatively 'new' thing. They were not a part of the original 'vision' of the country, but an enhancement to it.
This man is being treated well, compared to what could have happened to him, prior to 1966.
While I will agree that under normal circumstances, he should be charged or released, this is hardly a case of "normal" circumstances.
I never said that.
Do you have complete confidence in everyone in the governement? Every individual? A system that isn't scrutinized and monitored breeds corruption.
I can't know of the inner processes of this system, or exactly how they determine "how to be sure", but neither can you.
It's a greyzone, yes. But if they can't be sure enough to actually charge him with it, how can they be sure enough to keep him?
They said themselves, that they were not interested in charging him, and the evidence wouldn't hold in court. Are the court processes wrong? Do you actually need less evidence, just because you're a governement branch?
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Enforcer Za'Yth said:
That was what I was aiming at, Palador.
Ah. But, I believe that the rules for dealing with treason and suspected treason are more along the military lines, as Bloodsage suggests. As I recall, they allways have been.
If anyone knows how that bit of law works, it would be interesting to hear.
quote:
Palador ChibiDragon was naked while typing this:
Ah. But, I believe that the rules for dealing with treason and suspected treason are more along the military lines, as Bloodsage suggests. As I recall, they allways have been.If anyone knows how that bit of law works, it would be interesting to hear.
To be precise: I was aiming at the fact that you decided to brand him a traitor, when it isn't even determined wheter he's guilty or not.
quote:
Enforcer Za'Yth had this to say about Robocop:
To be precise: I was aiming at the fact that you decided to brand him a traitor, when it isn't even determined wheter he's guilty or not.
No. I didn't brand him a traitor, I just stated it because I think that's the correct legal term for what they suspect he is.
Like everyone else here, I don't have all the facts on this guy. But, I do trust the government not to stab themselves in the foot without good reason.
They can't take this guy to court and prove anything, but that doesn't mean that they don't know the truth. It just means that what they have isn't usable in normal court.
I also point out this part of the article:
quote:
Their case, they admit, relies primarily on information from star canary Abu Zubaydah, an unsavory Al Qaeda operative
quote:See my post about "scapegoat".
Palador ChibiDragon wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Now, if the Al Qaeda know you by name, one must wonder why.
I am opposed to:
- Denying him contact with the outside world.
- Denying him a lawyer.
- Denying him the right to remain silent.
Detaining him, house arrest, whatever, can be considered acceptable. A nuclear charge is not a joking matter. But there's still the chance that they can be wrong, so IMO, as few infringes on freedom as possible should be made.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Giantt^2 said:
But he hasn't been proven an enemy combatant any more than say, you have. So they could just wade in, claim they have evidence that you're an enemy combatant and lock you away for the rest of your life. I think that's the point Za is trying to make.
Never use the "Flame" tag when talking to me in a serious discussion, unless you'd like your ass handed to you in a sling.
Clear?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Enforcer Za'Yth had this to say about dark elf butts:
I find it very probably that they're right on this guy, too. And I don't back the article 100%.I am opposed to:
- Denying him contact with the outside world.
- Denying him a lawyer.
- Denying him the right to remain silent.Detaining him, house arrest, whatever, can be considered acceptable. A nuclear charge is not a joking matter. But there's still the chance that they can be wrong, so IMO, as few infringes on freedom as possible should be made.
Enemy combantants, under the laws of war, haven't the right you assert (or they are extremely limited).
Again, you are applying the wrong framework, and assuming anyone not wearing a uniform must be given extra protections. Nice for the bad guys, huh, if we let them break the rules of war to their advantage like that?
Further, here is today's vocabulary lesson. You are applying deontological reasoning to the situation, and claiming the government is wrong because it is applying a teleological approach. Reality, however, especially in international relations, is a mixed-deontological thing.
I'm busy and don't have time to define the words--maybe I can later. But that's the situation in a nutshell.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
They aren't in my dictionary. 
quote:
D© had this to say about Pirotess:
Go to hell Bloodsage, I'm tired of you and YOUR BIG WORDS.They aren't in my dictionary.
Let me introduce you to my friend: www.dictionary.com
quote:This sounds useful, but it also sounds like you're using a "big word" to replace logical arguments. However, it's not really important, since nobody should be offended by "big words".
de·on·tol·o·gy Pronunciation Key (dn-tl-j)
n.
Ethical theory concerned with duties and rights.
quote:That doesn't seem to fit this discussion, other than saying, "the end justifies the means." And that's been abused throughout history.
tel·e·ol·o·gy Pronunciation Key (tl-l-j, tl-)
n. pl. tel·e·ol·o·gies
- The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
- The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
- Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.
quote:
That doesn't seem to fit this discussion, other than saying, "the end justifies the means." And that's been abused throughout history.
Yes, but only when the means didn't accomplish the ends... :\
Otherwise, it was acceptible.
History is written by the Victors. Fact of life. So, the ends will always justify the means, especially if you appreciate the ends...
Bloodsage explained pretty clearly what teleology and deontology have to do with this conversation.
To break it down so that the laymen can understand it:
quote:
It's like Bloodsage for Dummies! (TM):
You're focusing too much on the rights of the accused, and claiming that the government is wrong because it is applying the age old adage "The end justifies the means" to the current situation. Reality, however, especially in international relations, is (and this is where I get confused, because I are smat) a mixture of both teleological and deontological approaches.
That's just my attempt. Ask Bloodsage for the real clarification.
quote:
Goodbye, Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
Enemy combantants, under the laws of war, haven't the right you assert (or they are extremely limited).Again, you are applying the wrong framework, and assuming anyone not wearing a uniform must be given extra protections. Nice for the bad guys, huh, if we let them break the rules of war to their advantage like that?
Further, here is today's vocabulary lesson. You are applying deontological reasoning to the situation, and claiming the government is wrong because it is applying a teleological approach. Reality, however, especially in international relations, is a mixed-deontological thing.
I'm busy and don't have time to define the words--maybe I can later. But that's the situation in a nutshell.
So, basically, as long as it's done in the name of war, it goes. He could be summarily executed, and nothing could be done about it.
Sure, that's the traditional war laws. I never said I agree with them, and I certainly don't agree applying them in this case.
Especially since you're not officialy at war.
anyway, that was addressed at FP.
quote:
Enforcer Za'Yth obviously shouldn't have said:Especially since you're not officialy at war.
Actually yes we are...
It is a common misconception that Congress has to declare war. They don't. If the Prez Says we are at war then we are at war.
One other nasty little detail that merrits mentioning:
The State of Emergency declared durring WW2 was never recinded. And in all reality we are still bound by the rules in place from that State of Emergency. Now I am not saying that it is going to be envoked but it is something to keep in mind.
quote:
Especially since you're not officialy at war.
So... because we are at war with an idea rather than a Governmental Agency, its ok to allegedly perpetrate the death and well-being of millions of people?
Ok. as long as we are clear on where you stand.
quote:
Grimguard Dirtnappin had this to say about Duck Tales:
So... because we are at war with an idea rather than a Governmental Agency, its ok to allegedly perpetrate the death and well-being of millions of people?Ok. as long as we are clear on where you stand.
I said Especially. Don't put words in my mouth.
quote:
Goodbye, Bloodsage thought about the meaning of life:
Never use the "Flame" tag when talking to me in a serious discussion, unless you'd like your ass handed to you in a sling.Clear?
Yes sir!
At once, sir!
Would you like me to clean the floor with my tongue, sir!
The man in question is an American Citizen, and was arrested on American soil. He was not found in a prison camp fighting for the enemy, unlike another American Citizen is who is being afforded his full Constitutional Rights, yet is still being denied his most basic Constitutional rights.
To put it bluntly I think the government screwed up here. This man probably by all accounts deserves to be behind bars, and it is in the best interest of the people for him to be there. The problem is because he is an American Citizen and has already been denied his civil rights involving lawful detainment and trail, any case brought against him in a non military court is most likely going to be thrown out.
It will be ironic to see a man who wants to violently overthrow the US government set free to help insure and protect the rights of the 280 million Citizens of the country he despises.
quote:
Mortious had this to say about Captain Planet:
Yes sir!At once, sir!
Would you like me to clean the floor with my tongue, sir!
Just clearing up an apparent misconception. I will not--nor am I required--to tolerate being flame just because someone puts a smiley at the end.
The "Flame" tag has meaning, and if anyone wants to go there, I'm more than willing. I'd have thought, though, that the wisdom of such a decision would have become obvious by now.
Do what you want, but don't whine that the consequences weren't made abundantly clear.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Goodbye, Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
Never use the "Flame" tag when talking to me in a serious discussion, unless you'd like your ass handed to you in a sling.Clear?
I always use the 
tag. Look in any of my recent posts.
Now reply instead of just going apeshit over something so minor as my choice of tag.
Especially since you're not officialy at war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not exactly how the single word "Especially" changes what it seems you are saying. Either we are at war, or we are not.
Our leaders have said we are, albeit with an idea or policy, rather than a nation.
So to say "Especially since you're not officialy at war" seems to be denying the existence of the war.
And whether or not you agree with "standard" war law, it still exists. And for a good reason.
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to." - Col. Nathan Jessup A Few Good Men
While this quote from the movie is shown to "validate" extremes in the story, it really should hold true in real life. Don't you think?
quote:
Grimguard Dirtnappin had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcer Za'Yth obviously shouldn't have said:Especially since you're not officialy at war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm not exactly how the single word "Especially" changes what it seems you are saying. Either we are at war, or we are not.
Our leaders have said we are, albeit with an idea or policy, rather than a nation.
So to say "Especially since you're not officialy at war" seems to be denying the existence of the war.
And whether or not you agree with "standard" war law, it still exists. And for a good reason."I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to." - Col. Nathan Jessup A Few Good Men
While this quote from the movie is shown to "validate" extremes in the story, it really should hold true in real life. Don't you think?
You *are* not officially at war. Your military leaders themselves stated so during the entire fuss with the Taliban POW's, AFAIK.
You decided to imply what I was saying and put words in my mouth. I can try that too.
So, according to you, it's okay to imprison, detain, torture or execute anyone, as long as whatever reasons for it comes from military intelligence?
Just making clear where you stand.
quote:
Goodbye, Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Never use the "Flame" tag when talking to me in a serious discussion, unless you'd like your ass handed to you in a sling.Clear?
YOUR PITS STINK! YOUR DOG SHEADS TO MUCH!! YOUR MOTHER WERES ARMY BOOTS!! (mine wore Marine's!) um.. YOU CAN'T .. ok I'm not good fake flaming =(
