so in other words, you're full of crap. you made a statement that you would rather accomplish something. so, lets leave gwb out, what has Guantanamobay accomplished oh non partisan one?
Too busy to rehash this **** again. Especially with someone incapable of realizing the absurdity of "defending american values by trampling them when convenient."
funny, you got and missed the point at the same time. I know you wouldn't bomb a clinic, that's the point.
Thank you! To people like giddy and donkey the terrorists have already won because they are willing to give up what it means to be an American in order for some illusion of security. As you said, I pity them.
i dont know. maybe, maybe not. Its not like they publish information they get from prisoners there. Its not like they would write a news article saying that they just got a hot tip about something going on in a dusty town of iraq, of afgan or wherever.
I dunno. I pity, but it makes me mad. Why should I pity someone for screwing up my country because they're too much of a wuss to have a conviction? Why should I pity someone for being willfully blind? I pity, but I am repulsed too.
only a minute...wow. he's slipping. but the swarm has really picked up now. Of people dedicated to peace and talking and tolerance...they sure arent very peaceful, free to have a open talk, and certainly arent very tolerant. And people wonder why the left gets a bad wrap?
i dont know that it hasnt accomplished anything, either. Im not going to pretend like i do or dont know...just like you should not pretend that you know its not working. realism here, remember. Surely, its more likely than not, that 'good' information (at some point) has been gathered from detainees. I dont think thats an unreasonable statement. But i get the feeling you will disagree
because right wing talk like rush and anne coulter is so peaceful. so is michael savage, that guy sounds like a priest.
Call it trickery if you will but I'm going by what you wrote again I can't see into your mind so I'm going by your own words. Anyway I don't see how I'm insinuating something. I've been fairly clear in stating that I think Gonzales and the Guantanamo detainees deserve due process and that I find it interesting, odd, that you immediately jumped to asking for the presumptious of innoncence for Gonzales as for Guantanamo detainees. Except that being in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't qualify as proof that someone is an enemy combatant nor does being at a lunch counter in James Coney Island. Just claiming surveillance was used isn't proof either. I would agree that its too early to label Gonzales guilty or treasonous but saying he should be charged isn't the same thing as being guilty or treasonous. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions, but you aren't alone in doing so. Actually citizenship isn't a requirement for due process. If that was the case then non-citizens wouldn't have trials in the US which isn't true. The granting of due process Constitutionally is a stricture upon the government and not of the people and no where in the Fifth Ammendment granting due process does it say that it only applies to citizens. In fact no where in the Bill of Rights does it say those rights are limited to citizens. If you go on to claim though that they are committing acts of war then they are entitled to Geneva Convention protections. Enemy combatants isn't a term that removes them from Geneva Convention protections as that would cover soldiers. What I think you are thinking of is unlawful combatants which would mean they aren't engaged in war but sabotage or some criminal activity. The problem is that you premised by your own admission your argument in what you consider unfair treatment yet your argument is all about unfair treatment. Speaking for myself I would say that both deserve fair treatment in regard to due process. Gonzales may be guilty of a crime but without due process we don't know, detainees at Guantanamo may be guilty of terrorism but due process we don't know either. You're arguing that some posters are being highly subjective and political in regard to Gonzales, and IMO there is a lot of truth to that. OTOH though your argument is just as equally subjective and political.
Actually your friend is legally wrong. As noted in my previous post citizenship isn't a requirement for due process and most definately not a requirement for the Geneva Conventions. As for them being protected under the Geneva Conventions people captured in battle not in uniform or part of a recognized military aren't protected under the Third Convention pertaining to soldiers but are under the Fourth Convention. I can cite you the relevant passages if you wish and this point was affirmed by the USSC in the Hamdi Case.
I'm sorry to badger you giddyup but I am really curious where you got the idea that non-citizens didn't have rights in our justice system. As a hypothetical do you believe that a German tourist caught committing a a felony in the US is not entitled to a trial in US courts?
Except that the idea of defeating an ideology through the military is about as idealistic as one can get.
Airports are considered military targets, why do you think one of the first targets the Israelis hit in the war with Hezbollah last year was the Beirut airport. Hotels and markets under certain circumstances are considered military targets and the US military has targeted both in Iraq. Sorry to badger you though because I think I know what you are getting at but your language isn't precise.
