Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11

 

2006-07-07 07:55:47
joewardog
Member
+6|6893|Great Plains (USA)

Bubbalo wrote:

So the Constitution can be overridden?
Not overridden, reinterpreted

Bubbalo wrote:

But if you do not condemn their actions, then surely you must feel there is nothing wrong with them?
I believe I posted somewhere in the Impeach Bush thread that I did not personally agree with or condone Gitmo.  As usual, I just have a problem with the other people's reasoning.   


Bubbalo wrote:

I did.  You said that they only do it to be the cool kid, I took that to be a justification.
Thanks for reading it.  I was hoping to show two things, I do not agree that US is perfect all the time and that the US is never truly altruistic (however I believe many of its citizen are).  Not justification, more of an explanation.

Bubbalo wrote:

1)  The two are closely related
2)  My stance on this topic is that it's irrelevant
3)  The title refers to the article, which is intended to stimulate discussion.  It has, that discussion has progressed.
I will concur our discussion has progressed, but I was hoping to keep this on topic.

Personally I hate arguing morality as it is a very fickle mistress.  To jump to the end, everything will boil down to the individual.  From there taking a stronger Existentialist stance, I can never truly understand your Point of View or experiences or feelings, etc (and the same for you to me).  Now this of course leads to the conclusion that individuals are forlorn, but currently that is beside the point.  What it does create is a gap that can never truly be breached.  So in the end you will believe what you believe to be right and I'll believe what I believe to be right, and we will BOTH be right.  So why argue morality?

Legality is another issue as it has already been established somewhere beforehand and there is consensus somewhere in there. 

I do believe we can agree that, What is right is not always law, and what is law is not always right.
2006-07-07 08:04:20
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6764

joewardog wrote:

Not overridden, reinterpreted
And how do you reinterpret away the right to freedom?

joewardog wrote:

I believe I posted somewhere in the Impeach Bush thread that I did not personally agree with or condone Gitmo.  As usual, I just have a problem with the other people's reasoning.
Go team "The right thing for the wrong reasons is almost as bad as the wrong thing"!  High five!

joewardog wrote:

Thanks for reading it.  I was hoping to show two things, I do not agree that US is perfect all the time and that the US is never truly altruistic (however I believe many of its citizen are).  Not justification, more of an explanation.
Okay.  I apologise for the inference.

joewardog wrote:

I will concur our discussion has progressed, but I was hoping to keep this on topic.
Personally I find a discussion's evolution fascinating..............................

joewardog wrote:

Personally I hate arguing morality as it is a very fickle mistress.
In some cases, yes.  Here, I feel it is very clear cut.

joewardog wrote:

What it does create is a gap that can never truly be breached.  So in the end you will believe what you believe to be right and I'll believe what I believe to be right, and we will BOTH be right.
Not so!  You could show the other that your logic is more logical, thereby changing their POV.  Further, if you argue on societies stated/accepted morals (as we are), then you merely need to discuss whether they are being applied.

joewardog wrote:

So why argue morality?
Becuase nothing is more important.

joewardog wrote:

I do believe we can agree that, What is right is not always law, and what is law is not always right.
Indeed, although in essence the law is simply supposed to be societies morals in an enforceable form, it often fails.
2006-07-07 08:11:08
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6830

joewardog wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

If we are at "war"  then these folks deserve a military tribunal.  I agree they are not associated with any particular country and are not deserving of the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention.  If they are not combatants, then we are not at war and this exercise is illegal.
Just because I'm bored, on what grounds would these folks "deserve" a tribunal?  Geneva Convention doesn't hold ground so what are we left with?

What I find interesting is how everyone seems to be squabbling in the mud.  Instead of fighting over out-dated treaties written over 50 years ago, why doesn't someone try and update a few of them?  Bush is able to find a loophole so why isn't there a clamour to create a law to patch it up?

Ah well, I guess I'll keep fighting it out in the mud.
It's called basic human rights.  If we treat them as they treated the Iraq citizens,  we are no better than them.  How are we to distinguish ourselves as bringing a better society to Iraq if we are committing the same crimes Sadaam did?
2006-07-07 08:24:52
joewardog
Member
+6|6893|Great Plains (USA)
So much to pick, where to begin...

Bubbalo wrote:

And how do you reinterpret away the right to freedom?
By saying they never had legal standing in the first place.

joewardog wrote:

What it does create is a gap that can never truly be breached.  So in the end you will believe what you believe to be right and I'll believe what I believe to be right, and we will BOTH be right.

Bubbalo wrote:

Not so!  You could show the other that your logic is more logical, thereby changing their POV.  Further, if you argue on societies stated/accepted morals (as we are), then you merely need to discuss whether they are being applied.
Yet human logic is not infallible.  Hence something that may appear quite logical is not necessarily true.  For example, if Dogs bark and trees have bark, therefore dogs are trees (alright bad example but I like it anyway). 

Yet in the end you are not changing someone's POV.  If someone is close-minded, you will just be preaching to the wind.  If someone is open-minded, that just means they have not formulated a definite enough stance on the issue (so you are really just providing information that could go either way). 

When it comes to society and morals, society has been wrong so many times in the past (US or world) that it truly is shaky ground to stand.  Hence I would argue that SOCIETY's Morals don't matter.  It will once again come down to the individual (you or me).

This leads me to my response to, "Becuase nothing is more important."

Action is more important.  The old adage that actions speak louder than words fits quite nicely.  Discuss or argue morals produces what?  However, acting on those morals produces results.  Actions forces us from the real of the philosophical into reality. 

Action is the hammer that we test the metal of our beliefs on the anvil of reality (wow I can't believe I came up with something so trite).

Now I'm not trying to start some mass-movement here, but instead of muddling around in the muck, try and pose solutions with feasible results (such as if we want Gitmo shut down get US Congress to pass a law to close it up).

Btw
Where ya from Bub?
2006-07-07 08:26:12
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6764
Arg!  Long post, must go!

I'm from Aus, and I'll respond in the morning.  Cya!
2006-07-07 08:52:54
joewardog
Member
+6|6893|Great Plains (USA)
Take it easy, USA on my end.

*Inserts "Waltzing Matilda" into his playlist
2006-07-07 09:10:59
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6830
The new flip flopper:


G. BUSH: They finally ruled and I have been saying to people that we want to resolve the Guantanamo issue, but the court has got to give us a road map forward. They did. It basically said it's OK to have Guantanamo but you have got to work with Congress to devise a military tribunal, military commission in such a way that conforms to our laws and ...
2006-07-08 11:36:23
joewardog
Member
+6|6893|Great Plains (USA)

GATOR591957 wrote:

It's called basic human rights.  If we treat them as they treated the Iraq citizens,  we are no better than them.  How are we to distinguish ourselves as bringing a better society to Iraq if we are committing the same crimes Sadaam did?
First off, who said we were better than anyone?  Just look at US history before you start preaching about the US being/wanting to better. 

What are the "same crimes" we are doing?  I don't see us gasing Kurds...
2006-07-09 09:09:03
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6830

joewardog wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

It's called basic human rights.  If we treat them as they treated the Iraq citizens,  we are no better than them.  How are we to distinguish ourselves as bringing a better society to Iraq if we are committing the same crimes Sadaam did?
First off, who said we were better than anyone?  Just look at US history before you start preaching about the US being/wanting to better. 

What are the "same crimes" we are doing?  I don't see us gasing Kurds...
I do see us torturing prisoners.  I do see us killing innocent civilians, I do see us holding prisoners without due process.  All done under Sadaams reign.

Perhaps a poor choice of words on your second comment.  If we commit the same crimes as Sadaam we are not showing we are there for their freedom, just changing dictators.
2006-07-09 09:33:40
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7040
Its seems like If they want to be soldiers, they could be shot as spies for not wearing a uniform. If they are civilians they can be tried for murder. George Washington would have faced the same dilemma and he knew it.

Either way they made the decision when they put up both hands in a fire fight.
2006-07-09 20:06:35
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6764
But Horseman, the point is that whether or not they were involved ina firefight has yet to be proven
2006-07-10 08:14:55
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7040
Most ( 96% ) were taken in battle in the Very first weeks of combat.

When you are in a Small town that is being fought over.
Your are captured and, not one of the locals can or will Identify you or even say they ever saw you before. You better produce a press card and a camera.
Even that wont get the smell of cordite off you if you had been recently firing a weapon.
Fighting men can easily recognize their own kind.

As for the other 4%...

If I came down to Australia do you think I could pass myself off as a local ?

It was the Locals who gave these guys up for what they really were to the Coalition and Free Iraqi Forces.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-10 08:16:49)

2006-07-10 10:55:11
-F8-Scotch
Member
+43|6772

Horseman 77 wrote:

Most ( 96% ) were taken in battle in the Very first weeks of combat.

When you are in a Small town that is being fought over.
Your are captured and, not one of the locals can or will Identify you or even say they ever saw you before. You better produce a press card and a camera.
Even that wont get the smell of cordite off you if you had been recently firing a weapon.
Fighting men can easily recognize their own kind.

As for the other 4%...

If I came down to Australia do you think I could pass myself off as a local ?

It was the Locals who gave these guys up for what they really were to the Coalition and Free Iraqi Forces.
Ah...yes, the local "assistance" for capturing "terrorists". Hell if there was an occupying nation handing out cash for "terror" suspects I'm sure I could come up with a few names I wouldn't mind missing. Can you honestly say that if someone said they'll give you $25,000 for a name or person, you wouldn't take it?

I agree that the captured on the battlefield are clearly not our pals. Where did you get your numbers for the 96% taken directly from the battlefield? I somehow doubt it's as easy as sniffing some dude to find out if he's been firing a weapon. If I'm not mistaken most folks own assault rifles or some other kind of firearm, at least those who live outside of the modernized areas.

It's got to be a little bit harder for you to go to Australia and pass yourself off as a local than Al-Qaeda operatives who've been living in country for several years. Or were you suggesting that Al-Qaeda came into Afghanistan after the invasion? Most of the fighters we took off the battlefield would almost certainly have been Taliban, many were indigenous, with some foreign fighters who were directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda. I'm still not convinced that most of the terrorists in Guantanamo are Al-Qaeda.

Scotch
2006-07-10 12:28:00
joewardog
Member
+6|6893|Great Plains (USA)

GATOR591957 wrote:

I do see us torturing prisoners.  I do see us killing innocent civilians, I do see us holding prisoners without due process.  All done under Sadaams reign.

Perhaps a poor choice of words on your second comment.  If we commit the same crimes as Sadaam we are not showing we are there for their freedom, just changing dictators.
Killing innocent civilians is a fact of war.  Please point out to me a modern war where no innocent civilians were killed?  In Saddam's case, did he ever declare war on his own populace?  Or was it pure tyranny?  If it was tyranny, then the standards of war do not apply but something along the lines of crimes against Iraq, and hence hat point falls short.

On the topic of torturing prisoners, I'm quite sure the US form of torture does not even compare to what Saddam has done. Yet, if you want to argue the principle of torture, that no one should be tortured (perhaps you have better grounds there).

On the topic of due process, READ THE ARTICLE.  Bush is trying to create some form of "due process" by establishing a military tribunal because the Geneva Conventions does not give these prisoners any said rights.

Finally, anyone educated will noticed that the losses in war and the crimes of Saddam are not on the same level.  More importantly, I do not believe the insurgency is fighting against the US because they are just another "Saddam." 

My 2 cents.
2006-07-10 15:03:39
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6830

joewardog wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

I do see us torturing prisoners.  I do see us killing innocent civilians, I do see us holding prisoners without due process.  All done under Sadaams reign.

Perhaps a poor choice of words on your second comment.  If we commit the same crimes as Sadaam we are not showing we are there for their freedom, just changing dictators.
Killing innocent civilians is a fact of war.  Please point out to me a modern war where no innocent civilians were killed?  In Saddam's case, did he ever declare war on his own populace?  Or was it pure tyranny?  If it was tyranny, then the standards of war do not apply but something along the lines of crimes against Iraq, and hence hat point falls short.

On the topic of torturing prisoners, I'm quite sure the US form of torture does not even compare to what Saddam has done. Yet, if you want to argue the principle of torture, that no one should be tortured (perhaps you have better grounds there).

On the topic of due process, READ THE ARTICLE.  Bush is trying to create some form of "due process" by establishing a military tribunal because the Geneva Conventions does not give these prisoners any said rights.

Finally, anyone educated will noticed that the losses in war and the crimes of Saddam are not on the same level.  More importantly, I do not believe the insurgency is fighting against the US because they are just another "Saddam." 

My 2 cents.
I believe if you'll read the entire recount of what Bush said you'll see he's flipped flopped his position since the Supreme Count has clamped down on his ability to do whatever he wants in Guantanamo.  He says all along he's been asking the court for a guideline.  GB has been up and running over 3 years.  Give me a break...

Loses in war: Never said there were wars waged without civilian losses.  My point to put it back in context was that if we continue to commit the same crimes as Sadaam (not to the extreme) we are not showing the Iraqi people we are there to free them, we are just changing dictators.
2006-07-10 15:34:39
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6764
Horseman: You do know that many of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan not Iraq?
2006-07-10 15:52:15
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7040

Bubbalo wrote:

Horseman: You do know that many of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan not Iraq?
That buttresses my point, the Afghan villages are more isolated than Iraqi villages. It tough to pass your self of as a local to some one who lived there all their life and never traveled more that 12 miles from home. these people aren't stupid.
2006-07-10 17:24:15
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6764
OK, sure.  Let's assume that that's how they were all captured.  That still doesn't prove them terrorists.

Besides which, if you didn't even know the location of their capture, how can you know how they were captured?  IIRC, you were telling people they couldn't judge the Haditha soldiers yet becuase they didn't have all the info.  Is that correct?  Does that not apply here?
2006-07-10 19:38:16
Dagger37A
Member
+18|6967|USA
It was  pretty easy to tell if a person was Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan;

Afghanistan is not one of the tourist "hot Spots" in the world so if you have an Arab or Afghan that is not from the area you are in then they get "profiled" by the villagers, by the Afghan National Army (ANA), hell even I could tell the difference after a while. Not to mention the language barriers of each major area (Pashtu, Dari etc..)

Afghanistan's level of hygiene isn't up to the standards that most of us take for granted. So if a guy had fired a weapon he probably won't wash his hands after wards. And that my friends, on the field of battle is enough evidence to get you a Chinook ticket back to the biggest base, then possibly Cuba. Most are released after a mild questioning. Unless the evidence is better or they are on the most wanted list...

The rest is up to the professional question askers lol.

Me and ANA Soldier
https://f5.putfile.com/6/16922482710.jpg

Last edited by Dagger37A (2006-07-10 19:42:04)

2006-07-10 19:56:57
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6846
you guys see a lot of private contractors over there big sarge?
2006-07-11 02:29:40
Dagger37A
Member
+18|6967|USA
Do you mean "real" contractors or the super secret highspeed dudes? lol

Tons of contractors at the bigger bases, not so many at the FOBs.
2006-07-11 07:52:30
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|6995

joewardog wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

If we are at "war"  then these folks deserve a military tribunal.  I agree they are not associated with any particular country and are not deserving of the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention.  If they are not combatants, then we are not at war and this exercise is illegal.
Just because I'm bored, on what grounds would these folks "deserve" a tribunal?  Geneva Convention doesn't hold ground so what are we left with?

What I find interesting is how everyone seems to be squabbling in the mud.  Instead of fighting over out-dated treaties written over 50 years ago, why doesn't someone try and update a few of them?  Bush is able to find a loophole so why isn't there a clamour to create a law to patch it up?

Ah well, I guess I'll keep fighting it out in the mud.
Actually, the Geneva Convention does hold ground, now.  Your esteemed leader has decided that it applies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5169600.stm
2006-07-11 12:06:01
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6830

aardfrith wrote:

joewardog wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

If we are at "war"  then these folks deserve a military tribunal.  I agree they are not associated with any particular country and are not deserving of the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention.  If they are not combatants, then we are not at war and this exercise is illegal.
Just because I'm bored, on what grounds would these folks "deserve" a tribunal?  Geneva Convention doesn't hold ground so what are we left with?

What I find interesting is how everyone seems to be squabbling in the mud.  Instead of fighting over out-dated treaties written over 50 years ago, why doesn't someone try and update a few of them?  Bush is able to find a loophole so why isn't there a clamour to create a law to patch it up?

Ah well, I guess I'll keep fighting it out in the mud.
Actually, the Geneva Convention does hold ground, now.  Your esteemed leader has decided that it applies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5169600.stm
No, he didn't decide.  The Supreme Court decided for him.
2006-07-15 07:14:21
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7040

-F8-Scotch wrote:

For those of you who cry that we are pampering terrorists I'd like to known how you would enjoy being treated should the government ever have cause to arrest or detain you. Including the notion that guilt is assessed only after a fair trial.
Like if I belonged to church in Waco, Texas. ?
2006-07-15 07:16:59
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7040

Dagger37A wrote:

It was  pretty easy to tell if a person was Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan;

Afghanistan is not one of the tourist "hot Spots" in the world so if you have an Arab or Afghan that is not from the area you are in then they get "profiled" by the villagers, by the Afghan National Army (ANA), hell even I could tell the difference after a while. Not to mention the language barriers of each major area (Pashtu, Dari etc..)

Afghanistan's level of hygiene isn't up to the standards that most of us take for granted. So if a guy had fired a weapon he probably won't wash his hands after wards. And that my friends, on the field of battle is enough evidence to get you a Chinook ticket back to the biggest base, then possibly Cuba. Most are released after a mild questioning. Unless the evidence is better or they are on the most wanted list...

The rest is up to the professional question askers lol.

Me and ANA Soldier
http://f5.putfile.com/6/16922482710.jpg
Thanks ! nice post. He was Owend again. Case 78.

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard