BMW i
Forum for the BMW i3, i4 and i8
BMW i3 BMW i8
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

  BMW i Forums > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-30-2009, 03:38 PM   #1
EDK99
Captain
United_States
22
Rep
934
Posts

Drives: 07 E85 M
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: FL

iTrader: (0)

'Shoe Bomber' gets constitutional rights???

This is just crazy. From demanding that Gitmo close by the end of the year without a plan on where to put these terrorist and now letting the "Special Administrative Measures" expire on this terrorist the president has little interest in the security of this country. All he cares about is not upsetting the liberal interest groups like ACLU. Now the ACLU is attacking Supermax prisons saying that the conditions there are worse torture then Gitmo. WTF!

No one will ever convince me that closing Gitmo will have any bearings on what terrorist think of America. At the end of the day they still want to kill us. Can't wait till these Gitmo terrorist are put into general population in some prison somewhere.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...690242698.html
__________________
2007 e85
Imola Red | Black Leather | Carbon Leather Trim | Premium | Navigation | Heated Seats
Appreciate 0
      07-30-2009, 06:21 PM   #2
carve
Major
carve's Avatar
114
Rep
1,105
Posts

Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

So...you want to live in a totalitarian regime where we can lock anyone away indefinitely just because a government official thinks so?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Appreciate 0
      07-30-2009, 06:54 PM   #3
Septro
Banned
48
Rep
1,649
Posts

Drives: '08 e90 335xi
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: C-Bus, OH

iTrader: (1)

That Benjamin Franklin quote is as tired as the hairplugs on Biden's scalp.

If the functioning seat of the country can be blown to smithereens by one singular terrorist, there is neither liberty nor safety to preserve. Totalitarianism is not the answer, but whistling dixie past our own grave pretending the tombstone doesn't have your name on it isn't the answer either.
Appreciate 0
      07-30-2009, 09:15 PM   #4
TMNT
Captain
101
Rep
873
Posts

Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by EK_335i View Post
Can't wait till these Gitmo terrorist are put into general population in some prison somewhere.
What exactly are you scared of?
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 07:59 AM   #5
742
Major
11
Rep
1,191
Posts

Drives: E90 325i; F10 528i; 2002tii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PA

iTrader: (0)

The answer is waiting for you in history books. It occurs numerous times, but I suggest German history between 1933 and 1945.

What you will find is that Hitlter did not start shipping people off to concentration camps in mass the day that he became Chancellor. Instead it was a slow process with legal protections and traditions whittled away at over a period of years, starting with the most loathed and despised criminals and outcasts. But by 1939 anyone at all could find themselves with a one way ticket.

The ACLU understands this. Rethuglican talk radio does not want you too.
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 08:51 AM   #6
shpirate87
Captain
20
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
What exactly are you scared of?
Are you aware that Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik, who was responsible for planning the first bombing of the World Trade Center and attacks against other NYC landmarks was found to have continued running his organization from prison? Even while subjected to the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that the article talks about. His lawyer, Lynne Stewart was convicted along with 3 others of assisting him in maintaining control of his organization. Also, prisons are excellent recruiting areas for terrorists and allowing convicted terrorists to mingle with the general prison population only makes the recruiting easier.
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 07:31 PM   #7
doc1911
First Lieutenant
23
Rep
361
Posts

Drives: Sold my 335i and looking
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pinehurst, NC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
So...you want to live in a totalitarian regime where we can lock anyone away indefinitely just because a government official thinks so?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

You are an idiot. Gitmo is locking up WAR CRIMINALS. These are the people that SHOULD have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan but weren't. There is a big difference between the enemy combatants in Gitmo and the felons at San Quinton. The only thing they have in common is that they both get things too easy. And on top of it you have the audacity to quote Ben Franklin........how dare you.

742: You too must be a liberal idiot. The way I read your post is that you are some how insinuating a comparison between Gitmo and Nazi Concentration Camps. I've actually been to a few Concentration Camp and they are nothing like Gitmo. I could type until my fingers fell off blasting the ignorance of your post
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2009, 08:09 PM   #8
742
Major
11
Rep
1,191
Posts

Drives: E90 325i; F10 528i; 2002tii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc1911 View Post
You are an idiot. Gitmo is locking up WAR CRIMINALS. These are the people that SHOULD have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan but weren't. There is a big difference between the enemy combatants in Gitmo and the felons at San Quinton. The only thing they have in common is that they both get things too easy. And on top of it you have the audacity to quote Ben Franklin........how dare you.

742: You too must be a liberal idiot. The way I read your post is that you are some how insinuating a comparison between Gitmo and Nazi Concentration Camps. I've actually been to a few Concentration Camp and they are nothing like Gitmo. I could type until my fingers fell off blasting the ignorance of your post
You should think a bit before throwing the word “idiot” around.

The OP was questioning the application of constitutional rights. My response stands. And anyone who knows me knows that I am no bleeding heart liberal, far from it in fact. And I am old enough to remember when people who called themselves "conservative" believed in the constitution. Some of them died for it.

As for Gitmo, I may or may not be an idiot, but you are ignorant if you think everyone there is a WAR CRIMINAL. The United States had a bounty system in place in Afghanistan, and at least some of those at Gimto are guilty of being nothing more than a stranger passing through a village whose leader wanted $5,000. Others were simply fighting in their own country. And some really are criminals.

The problem is how to figure out who is who. We used to call that "due process".
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 08:10 AM   #9
shpirate87
Captain
20
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 742 View Post
You should think a bit before throwing the word “idiot” around.

The OP was questioning the application of constitutional rights. My response stands. And anyone who knows me knows that I am no bleeding heart liberal, far from it in fact. And I am old enough to remember when people who called themselves "conservative" believed in the constitution. Some of them died for it.

As for Gitmo, I may or may not be an idiot, but you are ignorant if you think everyone there is a WAR CRIMINAL. The United States had a bounty system in place in Afghanistan, and at least some of those at Gimto are guilty of being nothing more than a stranger passing through a village whose leader wanted $5,000. Others were simply fighting in their own country. And some really are criminals.

The problem is how to figure out who is who. We used to call that "due process".
The inmates at GITMO were given due process through the military tribunal system then the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 10:00 AM   #10
742
Major
11
Rep
1,191
Posts

Drives: E90 325i; F10 528i; 2002tii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
The inmates at GITMO were given due process through the military tribunal system then the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.
Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham has been there and does not agree with your view that the tribunals are “due process”.

And -- http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...es_questioned/
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 10:35 AM   #11
shpirate87
Captain
20
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 742 View Post
Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham has been there and does not agree with your view that the tribunals are “due process”.

And -- http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...es_questioned/
That article doesn't mention a LTC Abraham and since when did one O-5 determine the extent of due process required?
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 10:55 AM   #12
742
Major
11
Rep
1,191
Posts

Drives: E90 325i; F10 528i; 2002tii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
That article doesn't mention a LTC Abraham and since when did one O-5 determine the extent of due process required?
My "and" was intended to break apart the two examples.

As for Lieutenant Colonel Abraham himself, his name is well known to those who follow this subject, which I assumed that you did. He is an officer who was part of the process. I will put more weight on his experience than on the opinions of the talk radio crowd, especially since he had nothing to gain by going public except a clear conscience.
Appreciate 0
      08-02-2009, 04:07 PM   #13
shpirate87
Captain
20
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 742 View Post
My "and" was intended to break apart the two examples.

As for Lieutenant Colonel Abraham himself, his name is well known to those who follow this subject, which I assumed that you did. He is an officer who was part of the process. I will put more weight on his experience than on the opinions of the talk radio crowd, especially since he had nothing to gain by going public except a clear conscience.
I believe there are 11 members of the tribunal & LTC Abraham was only one. As for his motivation, I would not go so far as to say he had nothing to gain. He is a reservist with a civilian law practice that has, as you have said has become fairly well known.

The fact remains that it is way above an O-5's pay grade to make the determination as to the level of due process that should be afforded those captured in military operations.
Appreciate 0
      08-03-2009, 02:44 PM   #14
carve
Major
carve's Avatar
114
Rep
1,105
Posts

Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

"Enemy Combatant" is a contrived name in this regard...a pathetic attempt to circumvent the Geneva Convention. It's supposed to mean, to paraphrase, someone who is under arms against you. Once they are captured, disarmed and taken captaive, they're prisoners of war. I've took Law of Armed Conflict Training for 7 years.

If you're so certain the prisoners did all this bad stuff, GREAT! We have a great legal system that's more than happy to prosecute them. It's worked fairly well for a very long time, and the fundamental basis is to not lock someone up unless their guilt can be proven. Now we can lock someone up without even charging them with anything. Don't think this'll always be someone who isn't you. If we create a gulag where people can be locked up indefinitely on the whim of a government official, we've created a very dangerous situation. Bush set it up to have the power to declare ANYONE a terrorist...even PETA freaks for comitting the terrifying act of letting bunnies out of their cages, or me for writing this. That, besides being illegal, is FAR too much power. That power has been implemented on a fairly small scale so far, but absolutely NOTHING prevents it from being implemented carte' blanche. He swore an oath to defend the constitution, and this basically uses it as toilet paper. You not only tolerating, but SUPPORTING this travesty makes you a fasciest. You are not a patriot, as you crap all over the foundations of freedom and liberty that millions have died to protect. You are not a tough guy. You're a coward, paralyzed with fear over someting that represents a miniscule threat to you, willing to sell out the core values of your nation on the off chance it may offer you slightly more protection from this miniscule threat, even though existing systems would provide about the same protection, a better reputation, and preserve our integrity.

If we don't have enough evidence to prosecute someone, and refuse to show them the evidence or even the CHARGE against them, we should let them go. If we can charge and convict them, GREAT! Let 'em loose in the general prison population Beyond the whole prison rape issue, the bad conditions there don't bother me in the least. It's SUPPOSED TO BE bad!

If civil liberties are "liberal", I must assume you mean that in the classical sense- "liberty"?

P.S.- I'm neither a socialist democrat, nor a fasciest republican
Appreciate 0
      08-03-2009, 02:59 PM   #15
jibaholic101
Brigadier General
115
Rep
3,503
Posts

Drives: women wild
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC

iTrader: (0)

the only right he deserves is the right to a bullet in the back of his head, not millions of dollars in legal fees and publicity
__________________
some italian, german, and japanese ones; and on order more of the same
Appreciate 0
      08-03-2009, 03:04 PM   #16
carve
Major
carve's Avatar
114
Rep
1,105
Posts

Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibaholic101 View Post
the only right he deserves is the right to a bullet in the back of his head, not millions of dollars in legal fees and publicity
Who decides if he's guilty? The person who was in the seat next to him, or in that row? Do you think eyewitness accusations are enough to kill someone?

BTW- I think they should "lock him up and throw away the key". That's worse than the death penalty, has been shown to cost about the same, is easier, and is able to be reconsidered if new evidence is presented. The death penalty puts too much power in the hands of government, and is unecessary.
Appreciate 0
      08-03-2009, 03:13 PM   #17
shpirate87
Captain
20
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
"Enemy Combatant" is a contrived name in this regard...a pathetic attempt to circumvent the Geneva Convention. It's supposed to mean, to paraphrase, someone who is under arms against you. Once they are captured, disarmed and taken captaive, they're prisoners of war. I've took Law of Armed Conflict Training for 7 years.
I have only taken Law of Land Warfare for three years but even I know that the Geneva Conventions make an distinction between a lawful combatant, who is to be afforded the protections of Prisoner of War status when captured & unlawful combatants to whom no such protections are offered.

The point of confining combatants is not to punish but to keep them from returning to the battlefield.

Your grasp of history is also a bit lacking. Never before have combatants, lawful or not, been given recourse to our civilian court system to dispute their confinement. Military commissions have a history in this country that goes back to Washington. There is nothing immoral or unconstitutional about them.

Bush exercised a fraction of the wartime powers that past presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, & FDR used. The slippery slope argument has never been borne out in the past so there is no reason to fear it will this time.
Appreciate 0
      08-03-2009, 03:55 PM   #18
carve
Major
carve's Avatar
114
Rep
1,105
Posts

Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

You're spliting hairs. The point to take home is, after they're captured, they are no longer a combatant of any kind. They're prisoners. The reason POW's haven't gone through trials, etc. in the past is because they were all released when the war was over. Who exactly are we at war with? If we are at war, why don't these people have POW status? How do we know when the war is over & they can be released? If we don't intend to release them EVER, they aren't POWs. They criminals and need to be tried. There always has been, and always will be, people who mean us harm.

Re: wartime powers. War was never declared.
Appreciate 0
      08-03-2009, 04:30 PM   #19
shpirate87
Captain
20
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
You're spliting hairs. The point to take home is, after they're captured, they are no longer a combatant of any kind. They're prisoners. The reason POW's haven't gone through trials, etc. in the past is because they were all released when the war was over. Who exactly are we at war with? If we are at war, why don't these people have POW status? How do we know when the war is over & they can be released? If we don't intend to release them EVER, they aren't POWs. They criminals and need to be tried. There always has been, and always will be, people who mean us harm.

Re: wartime powers. War was never declared.
These people do not have POW status because of the manner in which THEY have chosen to fight this war. When this war is over, and that could be whenever the Congress decides to stop funding it, the President decides to stop fighting it, or al Qaeda and its affiliates surrender, or the military deems them no longer a threat these people will be released. Dozens, if not hundreds have been released already.

RE: Wartime Powers. Now who is splitting hairs? War was authorized by a joint resolution of Congress. It is a de facto declaration of war. Tell me does the Constitution specify the format of a declaration of war? Does an authorization to use armed force not satisfy the requirement? If not, why not?
Appreciate 0
      08-03-2009, 05:05 PM   #20
Nixon
Banned
35
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc1911 View Post
You are an idiot. Gitmo is locking up WAR CRIMINALS. These are the people that SHOULD have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan but weren't.
Really? ALL of the Gitmo prisoners?

Then how do you explain President Bush releasing Gitmo detainee after Gitmo detainee, with absolutely NO charges?

Dozens upon dozens of Gitmo'ed folks have been completely freed and cleared of ANY charges at all.

And you would kill them for being "War Criminals".

Do you not even see any contradiction or problem with this at all?
Appreciate 0
      08-04-2009, 10:26 AM   #21
carve
Major
carve's Avatar
114
Rep
1,105
Posts

Drives: 335i
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
These people do not have POW status because of the manner in which THEY have chosen to fight this war. When this war is over, and that could be whenever the Congress decides to stop funding it, the President decides to stop fighting it, or al Qaeda and its affiliates surrender, or the military deems them no longer a threat these people will be released. Dozens, if not hundreds have been released already.

RE: Wartime Powers. Now who is splitting hairs? War was authorized by a joint resolution of Congress. It is a de facto declaration of war. Tell me does the Constitution specify the format of a declaration of war? Does an authorization to use armed force not satisfy the requirement? If not, why not?
You're changing the subject again. The fact of the matter is these are prisoners- not combatants. Many are the scum of the earth, and many were framed by their local adversaries as a convenient way of having the US eliminate a rival. Some were at the wrong place at the wrong time. NOTHING limits the people being detained to being foreigners- they could just as easily apprehend American citizens...and have a couple of times. This is pandoras box.

IF they were taken in combat, fighting as something other than a government soldier, while they were in combat they were "unlawful combatants" according to international law. This is a war crime. However, after taken prisoner they are no longer combatants, lawful or unlawful- they're POWs. A "competent tribunal" is then held, and if the prisoner is determined to have been taken as an "unlawful combatant", then their status changes to that of a CIVILIAN. This is GOOD! A POW who was witnessed to have killed an American in combat was just doing his job. An unlawful combatant can be tried for MURDER and WAR CRIMES...by a civilian court! However, we can't just take people arbitrarily and call them "unlawful combatants" right off the bat. They're POWs, and IF determined to be taken as unlawful combatants, they're turned over to the civilian system where they'll have the book thrown at them. Many of the prisoners were not taken in any kind of combat at all, but just on hearsay. They're then held for YEARS without any charges and often, when we get around to it, released. Do you not see how this is ruins our integrity, and turns people against us?

So, if we pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan, we should release them all? I disagree with that, which is why we need to treat this as a criminal matter and not a war matter.

"Al Queda & it's affiliates" are far too decentralized to ever officially surrender. There simply CAN NOT be a peace treaty due to practical limitations & the fact they're simply not a government. We should not let our government pick a completely arbitrary time of when they think it's over- otherwise the power will never be relinquished. This HAS happened in the past many times before. A "surrender" is as likely as all the drug lords surrendering- impossible, and ongoing forever. This is not a war against a nation we're fighting- these are criminals. The war-against-a-nation part ended when the Taliban were ousted many years ago.

There is a debate on what constitutes a declaration of war. One would think it involved some sort of unambigious declaration though. Also, the final decision was delegated to the president- a power congress is not supposed to delegate.

The fact that Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR did something does not make it right.
Appreciate 0
      08-04-2009, 12:27 PM   #22
shpirate87
Captain
20
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: 335ix
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carve View Post
You're changing the subject again. The fact of the matter is these are prisoners- not combatants. Many are the scum of the earth, and many were framed by their local adversaries as a convenient way of having the US eliminate a rival. Some were at the wrong place at the wrong time. NOTHING limits the people being detained to being foreigners- they could just as easily apprehend American citizens...and have a couple of times. This is pandoras box.
I am not changing the subject at all. These men are not Prisoners of War because that term has a specific meaning under the Geneva Conventions and is confined to those who were engaged in lawful combat as defined in the Conventions. Their status was determined by their actions. We are free to hold them for the duration of the hostilities just as we can POWs or we are free to charge them with war crimes & execute them or hold them beyond the conflict if their sentence requires. It is left to our discretion. You seem to be advocating that these prisoners be granted protections greater than those of POWs even though they were engaged in unlawful combat. Citizenship is not an impediment to holding prisoners during a war. American citizens who fought with the Germans were subject to confinement just as if he were a German.

You are right that the end of hostilities is ultimately our decision to make but that is always the case. When one party sues for peace, that offer has to be accepted or hostilities continue.

Also, the President in his role as commander in chief always has the final decision whether or not to order US forces into combat. A declaration of war does not compel the President to order troops to do anything.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST