Well - one good thing about the first Executive Order -- RTInfinityPoli

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> How do you know they've devoted their lives to destroying our country if they never go to trial? -- HF, 10:52:23 01/23/09 Fri [1]

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> You missed my point. -- niki, 11:57:12 01/23/09 Fri [1]

I asked why you thought it was mistake, and to please explain acknowloging that not everyone there is guilty and many have not had trials. Appearently you can't?

I am not concerned that "they will be benefiting from the constitution of a country that they have devoted their lives to destroying." Even IF they were trying to destroy this country, I do not want our country torturing them or force feeding them, not because of THEIR rights, but because it is abhorrent to me to have OUR countrymen participate in such behavior.

"The consequences of the Gitmo closure are solely on the shoulders of President Obama. I welcome that."
So do I!

"In my opinion, for the next four years, everything good that happens will be credited to Obama, and anything negative will be blamed on the former administration. "
Certainly not by FoxNews, or Bush's supporters.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Well, Niki - I thought I answered your question in my post -- Jeannine, 12:42:47 01/23/09 Fri [1]

I even managed not to use any of your "forbidden words". I do not think that enemy combatants should be granted US Constitutional rights. I do not think that civil trials, excluded evidence and high paid lawyers paid for by special interests are something they deserve. I am very well aware that some have not had trials. I think it is highly unlikely that there are innocent people there. I think that military tribunals are the answer. I am aware that is likely that we disagree.

We are both happy that Obama shoulders all responsibility. Ok.

If you don't like Fox news, don't watch it. That seems simple enough. I would suggest that MSNBC might be more to your liking.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> "I think it is highly unlikely that there are innocent people there." -- HF, 14:21:48 01/23/09 Fri [1]

I just don't understand this. How and why are you qualified to judge these people? Judge and sentence, no less.

And I think all that Niki was trying to say (pardon me, Niki, if you were not trying to say this) is:
You stated that everything good in the next four years will be credited to Obama, and that everything bad blamed on Bush. This will certainly not be the case if your major news sources are traditionally conservative (e.g., Fox News).

I did not interpret Niki's response to mean that she objected to the existence of such news sources, simply that not *everyone* will credit Obama with the parting of the seas. As I feel like I keep repeating, not everyone who disagrees with someone else is a villain.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> "not everyone who disagrees with someone else is a villain" -- Jeannine, 16:09:18 01/23/09 Fri [1]

does that include me?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Certainly! -- niki, 17:17:01 01/23/09 Fri [1]

I like to hear your opinions and I try very hard to understand the opposing views on topics. I don't always manage but I do try!

Terry is right, I do not have anything against FoxNews, I was just saying that everyone who thinks Obama is great will probably continue to think so and those who believe Bush is great will probably continue to think so.

I guess I just do not have enough faith in the system to believe that we do not incarcerate innocent people some of the time, both in US prisons and at Gitmo. I think the checks and balances are there for a reason and should not be overridden with an us or them mentality. And I do not think torture benefits US regardless of what it does to them. We will never see this the same, but I am glad to have a little more understanding where you are coming from.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, of course. -- HF, 19:30:16 01/23/09 Fri [1]

I just get tired of all this "Republicans think this," and "Dems think that" rhetoric. For the most part, I don't care what a group of people thinks; I care what individuals think. And I am so alienated by posts (that go either way) that accuse members of any particular party of all sharing common (good/bad/otherwise) beliefs. It's really making me crazy.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Innocents at Gitmo... -- scooter, 07:06:55 01/24/09 Sat [1]

I believe most experts believe there ARE innocent people in Guantanamo, and I think the Bush administration has already released over 500 people (whom I assume were innocent or why were they released). As I said before, this all needs to be sorted out VERY carefully.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> If we hold people in Gitmo, torture them and never bring them to trial -- Terry, 11:23:15 01/23/09 Fri [1]

Then how are we better than the countries who send terrorists here to attack us?

We are the United States of America. We don't engage in terrorism, we don't torture people and we should not be holding prisoners for years and years without a fair trial.

And if we do any of that then we are no better than our enemies.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> This is a complicated legal and moral question... -- scooter, 12:22:28 01/23/09 Fri [1]

I don't believe they will get all the rights of a citizen if they are brought to the U.S. I'm not sure where you got that information. Why don't we just wait to see how all this cases are handled; they are all complex and unique, but I'm sure we're smart enough to figure it out. Nobody, even us namby pamby liberals, want terrorists running around the U.S. (or the world for that matter), so please withhold your judgment. Barack Obama made a campaign promise that he would close Gitmo, and he's following through. I believe this is one of the reasons he won the election. Gitmo has been one huge black eye for the reputation of the U.S. and a recruiting tool for terrorists. Time for it to go.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> You are right, Scooter -- Jeannine, 13:14:08 01/23/09 Fri [1]

this situation is unique. We will have to see what happens. Just for the record, I don't think you guys want terrorists running around like maniacs. That wasn't my point.... oh well.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: You are right, Scooter -- Terry, 09:39:25 01/24/09 Sat [1]

You're right, I certainly don't want terrorists running free to attack us and our country.

But I don't understand how someone who is willing to fight to defend our constitution would want us to violate it with cruel and unusual punishment of suspected terrorists, arresting them without due process and presuming their guilt without a fair trial.

Somehow we have to find a way to control the situation while behaving like the great country we are and not stooping to the level of our enemies.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Military do swear to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- Jeannine, 12:49:31 01/24/09 Sat [1]

and I have been to many, many trials, from Captain's Masts (not unlike a low level court appearance) to Courts Martials (the big daddy) - due to the position I held. All were fair, all were above board. I have never been to a military tribunal based on war crimes, however.

Terry, to answer your question from above, I do believe in fighting to uphold the Constitution. I do not think that these war criminals are worthy of its' protection.

Military tribunals are fine with me, but honestly still too good for them.

The day we behead an innocent man, video tape it and release it to the world.... THAT is the day we stoop to their level.

Many of my feelings and beliefs are based on personal experience from Desert Shield and Storm. I also lived in the middle east for two years. I know that does not make me an expert. It is my opinion only. I am entitled to one. Peace.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: Military do swear to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- Terry, 13:40:15 01/24/09 Sat [1]

I always value your opinion and I do understand that your comments come from personal experience. I thoroughly enjoy your posts and you always make me think.

We will have to disagree about who are worthy of constitutional protection. We can add it to the list of things you and I disagree about. :-)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> I think military trials sound like the best way to go...and a question for Jeannine -- scooter, 13:01:54 01/25/09 Sun [1]

I think military trials have been put on temporary hold while the new administration reviews the cases. Jeannine, where would someone go if convicted in one of these trials? Are there military prisons?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Answer - to the best of my knowledge -- Jeannine, 13:28:38 01/25/09 Sun [1]

I do understand that Obama has put trials on hold for the Gitmo people - all other trials for the military will go on as usual.

Yes, there are military prisons. Leavenworth (sp?) is the best known. There are also military jails, brigs, etc for lesser offenses. (Remember in From Here to Eternity, Frank Sinatra was in a military jail in Hawaii and Ernest Borgnine was the evil guard? That was Scoffield Barracks, which does exist.) I know that that shoe bomber guy is in a "Supermax" prison in Colorado - but I think he had a civil trial.

Interesting fact (that kinda used to piss me off, but I am a good little sailor). Double jeopardy does not apply to military people. You can be tried more than once for the same crime if new evidence comes up. Also, when an active duty person is accused of a crime, in addition to the civil trial he gets a military trial. The most common thing is a DUI. The penalty for a DUI can be worse from the military judges - up to and including imprisonment and a less than honorable discharge, on top of the civil trial punishment.

Interesting side story - I remember one guy that was put in a civilian jail for beating up his wife. Even though we knew where he was, he was listed as a deserter. When he finished his time, he came back and the wife no longer wanted to testify. She had divorced him and moved away. He was found innocent of assault due to lack of evidence, but guilty of deserting, went to jail until the end of his enlistment then given a bad conduct discharge (BCD - commonly known as a Big Chicken Dinner!) Fair? I don't know, but somehow it seems like justice to me!