Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo prisoners and Padilla

[ThreeCircles]

I think your original hypothetical situation is far from being realistic. There are going to be innumerable situations where enemies are taken prisoner or captured.

It's not always going to be a situation of kill or be killed.

So, if five "enemies" surrender are you going to kill them so they don't get a chance to challenge their detention if they were transferred to Gitmo?

 

[AirForceRocks]

So, if five "enemies" surrender are you going to kill them so they don't get a chance to challenge their detention if they were transferred to Gitmo?

If they surrender, I would have no choice but to take them prisoner. But I would do all that I could to see that they never have the chance to surrender.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
If they surrender, I would have no choice but to take them prisoner. But I would do all that I could to see that they never have the chance to surrender.

Of course you would Brenda. You obviously have no value for life given your statement. You would rather kill than have someone surrender. But, yet, how aghast are you in speaking of the media coverage of people being beheaded.

You must agree that if you have the right to think, feel, and act the way that you do then so too do the enemies. Isn't that right?

These personality traits that seem so evident in many of your statements may very well indeed be the type that led to prisoner abuse, suspicious deaths of those in captivity, and ill-regard for human rights in general.

Immoral behavior does indeed breed immoral behavior.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Of course you would Brenda. You obviously have no value for life given your statement.

Just so I understand this - someone is trying to kill me, and I'm supposed to value their life? You've got to be kidding me...

You would rather kill than have someone surrender.

Yes, I would rather kill them than allow them to surrender, be released, and come back to try to kill me or another American again. Yep, that's my position. I take it your opinion is different?

But, yet, how aghast are you in speaking of the media coverage of people being beheaded.

First, there's been comparatively little media coverage of people being beheaded. Secondly, the beheading victims weren't trying to kill anyone, and they certainly weren't a threat to the animals that took them hostage and killed them. It's sad that you can't see the difference between killing an innocent person and killing someone that is trying to kill you.

You must agree that if you have the right to think, feel, and act the way that you do then so too do the enemies. Isn't that right?

If I'm in a gun battle with the enemy, of course I would expect them to kill me. You wouldn't?

These personality traits that seem so evident in many of your statements may very well indeed be the type that led to prisoner abuse, suspicious deaths of those in captivity, and ill-regard for human rights in general.

Yeah, that's it. Oh, and congrats on obtaining your psychology degree - when did you graduate?

Immoral behavior does indeed breed immoral behavior.

Please explain to me the immorality of trying to kill someone before they kill you.

 

[Van Helsing]

Kill the ******* so that you don't have to worry about him again.Option 2 sounds like the way to go.

Well, that's no surprise coming from Brenda.

Yeah the other day it i heard something about spitting on the International Criminal Court. Nothing surprises me


Start looking for a new job George !!!!!!!!!

 

[ThreeCircles]

Once again you miss the point.

You stated that you would rather kill someone rather than give him or her the chance to surrender.

That speaks volumes about who you are Brenda. Really, you shouldn't self-disclose to that level on the Internet.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I don't believe that the government ever claimed that Hamdi and Padilla had committed acts of terrorism, but rather that they had plotted to do so.

I'd never heard of Mohammed Atta until 9/11/01, but that certainly didn't make him innocent, did it?

As for you not being certain, I'm not surprised.

Obviously Atta was guilty.

Padilla and Hamdi -- well, plotting to commit a terrorist act is an offense, one that the government could easily indict them for -- if the government wanted to prove its case. apparently the government would rather deprive them of their liberties. that suggests to me that the government's case is weak. especially since toher terrorists were charged, indicted, convicted and senteneced for their plots.

 

[MHopkins2]

AFR, I couldn't agree more. Shoot them and be done with it.

 

[mrsv98]

The fact that people are being held in prison without counsel and due process sickens me. This country was built on ideals that include "inncoent until proven guilty, due process and right to a defense.

That the President can say anyone, is an "enemy combatant" is terrifying. At least, with this ruling, there is some chance that the process will be allowed to work as it was intended. And before anyone gets all heated up about the detainess in Gitmo, remember that it could be ANYONE who is detained. What if Pres Bush decided that all Muslems needed to be rounded up? Or all red-heads? Or all Jews? Hmmm.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by mrsv98
The fact that people are being held in prison without counsel and due process sickens me. This country was built on ideals that include "inncoent until proven guilty, due process and right to a defense.

That the President can say anyone, is an "enemy combatant" is terrifying. At least, with this ruling, there is some chance that the process will be allowed to work as it was intended. And before anyone gets all heated up about the detainess in Gitmo, remember that it could be ANYONE who is detained. What if Pres Bush decided that all Muslems needed to be rounded up? Or all red-heads? Or all Jews? Hmmm.

Oh, but he just wouldn't do that...



Better we should just "shoot them and get it over with"...

That kind of "thinking" sure makes me proud to be an American !

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Exactly.

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

 

[Van Helsing]

Well said Arabella Figg

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

It's a slippery slope.

I keep thinking of "Animal Farm" -- all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks


2) There's already another thread on this subject

oops, looks like the other thread got a little too intense...

 

[Paradise]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AirForceRocks
2) Kill the ******* so that you don't have to worry about him again.

Option 2 sounds like the way to go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Brenda, you are scary. Isn't this the same thing that the Nazis did in WWII with their prisoners?

Choosing a lifelong career in the military seems to have bred this type of behaviour.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Immoral behavior does indeed breed immoral behavior.

Interesting, I guess it depends on what your definition of immoral is.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Interesting, I guess it depends on what your definition of immoral is.

Perhaps the more pertinent point is Brenda's definition of what isn't immoral. Of course I’m sure you’ll agree with her that enemies shouldn’t be given the chance to surrender but should be killed instead. You’re a w supporter, non? Yeah, lots of morality there!

Now, off to drink some water we go! Yipee!!!

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

ok, call it professional curiosity, but I waded through the Hamdi decision on line -- or most of it, anyhow.

what struck me aout the case:


Hamdi is 20 years old, and according to the court papers filed by his father in relation to the habeas petition, he went to Afghanistan in July 2001 to do "relief work".

Hamdi was not captured by US troops, he was captured by the Northern Alliance and turned over to US authorities.

the government's sole opposition to the habeas petiition was an affirmation by a defense department official that contained NO supporting docuimentation. the government actively opposed the trial court's order that copies of interviews with Hamdi, etc. be turned over to the court for in camera inspection.

this is scary stuff...that some people in this country were willing to lock Hamdi away "forever" without a shred of evidence.

 

[Van Helsing]

Choosing a lifelong career in the military seems to have bred this type of behaviour.

Luckily thats coming to an End soon - just like someone else career

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

c'mon, guys, personal attacks is what got the other thread locked. can we stick to Hamdi and Padilla and Gitmo?