Obama's abandonment of the loony left is...

[Yonivore]

...just about complete.

Continuing Bush's Iraq policy...

...and, tax cuts...

...and Guantanamo...

...and Afghanistan...

and now, this...

DOJ Files DOMA Defense in First Circuit Cases (http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/01/doj-files-doma-defense-in-firs.html)

[doobs]

lol

Go Spurs Go

[it's me]

...just about complete.

Continuing bush's iraq policy...

...and, tax cuts...

...and guantanamo...

...and afghanistan...

And now, this...

doj files doma defense in first circuit cases (http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/01/doj-files-doma-defense-in-firs.html)

lol

[it's me]

wrong forum BTW

[honestfool84]

the frightening thing about Obama abandoning the looney left is that come 2012, people will suddenly think he's closer to the middle, and not really liberal.


people will vote on his most recent acts, and he's playing it close to the middle, he just might get a lot of the votes from the right side.

:nope

[Mrlunt925]

In other news, the Spurs now have a Larry.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

He did it on purpose

obama is a metaphor for timvp
the loony left is a a metaphor for game thoughts

[Interrohater]

This is dumb. I hope this thread gets locked as politics only incite flaming and heated discussions that go nowhere. It's useless. Keep your views to yourself or in an appropriate forum.

[jaffies]

Holy shit!
Yonivore still posts here?!?



edit:

http://pregnancycomplications.webhealthandfitness.com/photo-image/uterus/1.1.GIF

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This is dumb. I hope this thread gets locked as politics only incite flaming and heated discussions that go nowhere. It's useless. Keep your views to yourself or in an appropriate forum.

+1

Yeah, Yonivore, ya JACKwagon~

[Russ]

ibtl

[TVI]

If I wanted to read stupid moronic b.s. I'd go over to Lakers Lounge.

[baseline bum]

Yonivore's been drinking or snorting crystal meth again.

[braeden0613]

Hilarious.

[Buddy Holly]

Yonivore's been drinking or snorting crystal meth again.

Or?

[spurs1990]

I don't understand. He wants ****** in the military, but not be allowed to marry each other?? Huh?

A little consistancy would be nice....same goes for Tony Parker's jump shots.

[DMC]

Otherwise you wouldn't be here right Nazi queer?

[Blackjack]

Fuckin' Palin . . .

[senorglory]

Obama needs to do something about these damn back-to-backs (although we won our last one).

[Proxy]

...just about complete.

Continuing Bush's Iraq policy...

...and, tax cuts...

...and Guantanamo...

...and Afghanistan...

and now, this...

DOJ Files DOMA Defense in First Circuit Cases (http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/01/doj-files-doma-defense-in-firs.html)

I think it's possible that you don't know squat about politics. To believe that this country has a party even relatively close to being considered left lets me know that you know nothing.

Secondly, your moronic downplay and mocking of the president of the country in which you reside in lets me know that your mental capacity has not improved since you were 12.

[DeadlyDynasty]

nice trolljob Yoni :tu

[howbouthemspurs]

I like Obama! I wish he played for the spurs!

[Yonivore]

the frightening thing about Obama abandoning the looney left is that come 2012, people will suddenly think he's closer to the middle, and not really liberal.


people will vote on his most recent acts, and he's playing it close to the middle, he just might get a lot of the votes from the right side.

:nope
For that, he'll sacrifice Congress -- probably both Houses. Makes him a political Eunuch. I can live with that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

uh

how did starting this thread in another forum work out for you? any converts?

[boutons_deux]

...just about complete.

Continuing Bush's Iraq policy...

...and, tax cuts...

...and Guantanamo...

...and Afghanistan...

and now, this...

DOJ Files DOMA Defense in First Circuit Cases (http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/01/doj-files-doma-defense-in-firs.html)

There's nothing looney about the anybody, even leftists, wanting ...

... out of Iraq

... return to progressive taxation (less wealth inequality)

... closing Gitmo

... out of Afghanistan

... honoring your oath of office and enforcing the law (even LOONEY "Christian" theocratic laws like DOMA).

[LnGrrrR]

...just about complete.

Continuing Bush's Iraq policy...

...and, tax cuts...

...and Guantanamo...

...and Afghanistan...

and now, this...

DOJ Files DOMA Defense in First Circuit Cases (http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/01/doj-files-doma-defense-in-firs.html)

I wasn't aware that our Sec of Defense was a loony leftie.

[boutons_deux]

Holy shit!
Yonivore still posts here?!?



edit:

http://pregnancycomplications.webhealthandfitness.com/photo-image/uterus/1.1.GIF

yeah, he gets his period and strafes the forum with a bunch of shit threads.

[Yonivore]

I wasn't aware that our Sec of Defense was a loony leftie.
The man knows how to follow orders and he serves at the pleasure of the President. If your bosses position is Guantanamo Bay will be closed, that's your position or, if it's an issue over which you wish to take a stand, you do and lose your job.

It's quite possibly Gates knew there'd be no way in Hell, Gitmo was going to be closed or, that if it were, everyone there would be moved to a similarly secure facility -- outside the U.S.

I'd say I was in favor of closing Gitmo if I knew there was no risk.

[LnGrrrR]

The man knows how to follow orders and he serves at the pleasure of the President. If your bosses position is Guantanamo Bay will be closed, that's your position or, if it's an issue over which you wish to take a stand, you do and lose your job.

It's quite possibly Gates knew there'd be no way in Hell, Gitmo was going to be closed or, that if it were, everyone there would be moved to a similarly secure facility -- outside the U.S.

I'd say I was in favor of closing Gitmo if I knew there was no risk.

Of course there's going to be risk. But it's unAmerican to just throw people away without any sort of legal recourse. Tyrannical, really. This isn't like a normal war, where a president could surrender and then we'd turn them back over to their country.

[Yonivore]

Of course there's going to be risk. But it's unAmerican to just throw people away without any sort of legal recourse.
I was stating my hypothesis on why Gates -- a conservative appointee -- might appear to support closing Gitmo.


Tyrannical, really. This isn't like a normal war, where a president could surrender and then we'd turn them back over to their country.
And they aren't normal enemy combatants where -- for the mos part -- they lose interest in the fight after they've been captured.

It's not our fault they decided to take up arms without the cover of uniform or a sovereign nation to surrender in order for them to be free. Maybe next time, they'll slap a flag on themselves.

[LnGrrrR]

It's not our fault they decided to take up arms without the cover of uniform or a sovereign nation to surrender in order for them to be free. Maybe next time, they'll slap a flag on themselves.

But you're declaring all enemy combatants captured to be guilty, ipso facto. However, the evidence tends to show that some of them, at least, were innocent of wrong-doing.

Do you think each person in GTMO is guilty? And if this is the case, why not try them in a court of law? If the evidence for their capture is overwhelming, then we have nothing to fear.

[ElNono]

Do you think each person in GTMO is guilty? And if this is the case, why not try them in a court of law? If the evidence for their capture is overwhelming, then we have nothing to fear.

Apparently sometimes the government is always right... and they don't even need to show they are.

[boutons_deux]

inalienable (human) rights apply only the American humans.

[Yonivore]

But you're declaring all enemy combatants captured to be guilty, ipso facto. However, the evidence tends to show that some of them, at least, were innocent of wrong-doing.

Do you think each person in GTMO is guilty? And if this is the case, why not try them in a court of law? If the evidence for their capture is overwhelming, then we have nothing to fear.
When have we ever tried enemy combatants in a U. S. court of law?

[LnGrrrR]

When have we ever tried enemy combatants in a U. S. court of law?

Have we ever had to deal with thousands of unlawful enemy combatants before?

If they are all guilty, then we should have the evidence to prove it, shouldn't we? And if we don't have the evidence, but are keeping them there on a hunch/gut feeling/etc, is that very American?

We're denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to thousands, of which we have no idea how many are actually guilty. That doesn't sound very American to me.

[LnGrrrR]

As well, in the former SCOTUS cases that dealt with unlawful enemy combatants, the defendants had the right to access info harmful to them, retain counsel, etc etc.

[Yonivore]

Have we ever had to deal with thousands of unlawful enemy combatants before?
Yes. In every major war. They were usually tried in the field and either executed or placed in P.O.W. camps.


If they are all guilty, then we should have the evidence to prove it, shouldn't we? And if we don't have the evidence, but are keeping them there on a hunch/gut feeling/etc, is that very American?
The delay in justice is as much a fault of Democrats as anything. The Bush administration was ready to move forward with the military tribunals, after all the whining about indefinite detention but, Democrats then changed the narrative and started demanding they be tried in U. S. Courts.


We're denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to thousands, of which we have no idea how many are actually guilty. That doesn't sound very American to me.
I'm placing my trust in the American soldiers and intelligence taking them in. If they say they were involved in enemy activity, I'm good with that.

Many of those released have gone right back to terrorism. I'm not good with that.

[Yonivore]

As well, in the former SCOTUS cases that dealt with unlawful enemy combatants, the defendants had the right to access info harmful to them, retain counsel, etc etc.
Never before the Bush adminstration.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes. In every major war. They were usually tried in the field and either executed or placed in P.O.W. camps.

Are you talking about lawful or unlawful enemy combatants?



The delay in justice is as much a fault of Democrats as anything. The Bush administration was ready to move forward with the military tribunals, after all the whining about indefinite detention but, Democrats then changed the narrative and started demanding they be tried in U. S. Courts.

And the Supreme Court agreed that the military tribunals weren't strong enough for due process.


I'm placing my trust in the American soldiers and intelligence taking them in. If they say they were involved in enemy activity, I'm good with that.

You don't think intel can be wrong?

You don't think that the people arrested should have their day in court?

You might as well say, "I'm placing my trust in the American police force arresting those citizens. If they say they were involved in breaking the law, I'm good with that."


Many of those released have gone right back to terrorism. I'm not good with that.

And many haven't. Do you have the numbers of those who have gone back to terrorism as opposed to those who haven't?

[LnGrrrR]

Never before the Bush adminstration.

From wikipedia.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirin




The validity of this case as a basis for use of military tribunals in the War on Terrorism (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/War_on_Terrorism) as permitted by the Geneva Conventions (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Geneva_Conventions) has been disputed.[8] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4898291#cite_note-7)[9] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4898291#cite_note-8)[10] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4898291#cite_note-9) A report by the American Bar Association (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/American_Bar_Association) commenting on this case, states:
The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, "The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States." Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin, that right could hardly be denied to U.S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[11] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4898291#cite_note-10)

[CosmicCowboy]

Interesting how this thread evolved. My dad was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII (Corsair) and although he wasn't a ground troop he was a marine officer who had other designated responsibilities besides flying on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and I've heard a lot of stories. In WWII they wouldn't have needed Guantanamo because none of them would have ever made it there.

[LnGrrrR]

Interesting how this thread evolved. My dad was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII (Corsair) and although he wasn't a ground troop he was a marine officer who had other designated responsibilities besides flying on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and I've heard a lot of stories. In WWII they wouldn't have needed Guantanamo because none of them would have ever made it there.

It's one thing to kill someone on a battlefield, another to hold them without legal recourse. I assume our soldiers aren't going out and killing people in a bloodthirsty rampage. I do think, however, that it's far more likely they arrest someone who turns out to be innocent.

[Yonivore]

Are you talking about lawful or unlawful enemy combatants?
I'm talking about enemy combatants. Unlawful ones deserve fewer considerations than lawful ones.


And the Supreme Court agreed that the military tribunals weren't strong enough for due process.
The whole process, which had worked just fine since 1789, was politicized. Dealing with our enemies had, until most recently, been the purview of the Executive Branch.


You don't think intel can be wrong?
Sure it can.


You don't think that the people arrested should have their day in court?
When they violate criminal laws in the United States, absolutely. When they're captured in a military environment or as a foreign agent (whether stateless or not) intending to do us harm, hell no.


You might as well say, "I'm placing my trust in the American police force arresting those citizens. If they say they were involved in breaking the law, I'm good with that."
No, Criminal Law and military justice have two separate aims and burdens.

It got silly when they started employing lawyers to make ROI decisions.


And many haven't. Do you have the numbers of those who have gone back to terrorism as opposed to those who haven't?
Nope.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm talking about enemy combatants. Unlawful ones deserve fewer considerations than lawful ones.

So, like I asked, have we ever had to deal with a great nmber of UNLAWFUL enemy combatants in our history before?



The whole process, which had worked just fine since 1789, was politicized. Dealing with our enemies had, until most recently, been the purview of the Executive Branch.

Until the scope recently expanded greatly, due to 9/11 mostly. There's a much greater chance of abuse/mistakes in the system when so greatly expanded. Wouldn't you say that of other gov't programs?


When they violate criminal laws in the United States, absolutely. When they're captured in a military environment or as a foreign agent (whether stateless or not) intending to do us harm, hell no.

Again, you're assuming that all those captured intended to do us harm. You're in effect saying, "We shouldn't bother to put a civilian trial on for those who are already guilty".


No, Criminal Law and military justice have two separate aims and burdens.

But the logic behind your quote is the same. You trust the soldiers, so you believe what they do must be correct.


Nope.

Then how do you know? For instance, if they released 1,000, and 20 of them went back to terrorism, does that justify the prolonged detention of all 1,000?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's one thing to kill someone on a battlefield, another to hold them without legal recourse. I assume our soldiers aren't going out and killing people in a bloodthirsty rampage. I do think, however, that it's far more likely they arrest someone who turns out to be innocent.

Just sayin the rules of engagement were a lot more fluid. Right or wrong in a lot of cases they just let God sort them out.

[Yonivore]

LnGrrrR, we've had this argument before without getting far.

My bottom line is, yeah, I don't believe those being held at Guantanamo deserve the privileges of our criminal court system. Certainly not that scrote Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Petition your President to do due diligence in making sure those he's holding are legitimate combatants but, I don't think giving them the constitutional protections of a U. S. citizen is the answer.

Besides, their circumstances already defy the constraints placed on a prosecutor in a criminal court of law.

Fortunately, I think our President now understands this. I think he understood it on January 21, 2009. He's doing the right thing.

[LnGrrrR]

LnGrrrR, we've had this argument before without getting far.

True true. :lol


My bottom line is, yeah, I don't believe those being held at Guantanamo deserve the privileges of our criminal court system. Certainly not that scrote Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

It's not about whether they deserve the rights, frankly, but whether we as Americans should be upholding our belief that all men should be held innocent until proven guilty. I would say that belief is a core value of America.

Do child rapists deserve the right to trial? What about mass murderers? How about that guy who just shot the Congresswoman? Does he deserve the privileges of our court system?


Petition your President to do due diligence in making sure those he's holding are legitimate combatants but, I don't think giving them the constitutional protections of a U. S. citizen is the answer.

That's a fair statement. I feel that the American system of justice is one of the best, if not the best, in the world. It is time-tested, and by putting such stringest requirements on guilty verdicts, we remain moral and committed to our values.


Fortunately, I think our President now understands this. I think he understood it on January 21, 2009. He's doing the right thing.

Agree to disagree. For a country that places such high value on liberty, lockign away people without the right to a trial even, for YEARS, is antithetical to the very nature of America.

Does it not say in the Declaration of Independence that ALL MEN have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And yet, we take that away from thousands, without even letting them look at the evidence against them. If you or I were dropped into GTMO, I think the least we could ask for is a chance to defend ourselves, fairly and competently.

[LnGrrrR]

Just sayin the rules of engagement were a lot more fluid. Right or wrong in a lot of cases they just let God sort them out.

Yes, but that was back before there was such a thing as the internet. :lol Fairly or not, America as the world's superpower has massive sway on the actions of other countries. Unless we hold ourselves to the highest standards, other countries will use us as an example of why they should be able to commit atrocities/wrongdoings. Some already have.

[Yonivore]

Besides, their circumstances already defy the constraints placed on a prosecutor in a criminal court of law.
You failed to address what I think is the linchpin of the argument.

You're right, we have a great criminal process, tried and true. Unfortunately, many of these combatants were captured before anyone imagined they'd be subject to the same rules of evidence. I'm sure not much thought was given to preserving chains of evidence or mirandizing combatants in the heat of battle.

How do you go back and fix problems that would get an American criminal case thrown out on day 1?

What if key witnesses were killed in battle?

Do you subpoena soldiers to testify? Bring them back from Afghanistan to sit on the stand?

I'm sure there are a hundred other problems with trying to criminalize acts of war but, I'm tired.

[LnGrrrR]

You failed to address what I think is the linchpin of the argument.

You're right, we have a great criminal process, tried and true. Unfortunately, many of these combatants were captured before anyone imagined they'd be subject to the same rules of evidence. I'm sure not much thought was given to preserving chains of evidence or mirandizing combatants in the heat of battle.

I agree. Definitely quite an oversight, wouldn't you say? :) Given its age, I don't think the Geneva conventions imagined a war in which thousands of people might be captured, that pled no loyalty or allegiance to any country.

We should probably get a new convention going. :lol


How do you go back and fix problems that would get an American criminal case thrown out on day 1?

Certainly, the issue is not black and white.


What if key witnesses were killed in battle?

A toughie. One would happen to think that, if witnesses were killed in battle, evidence might be able to be collected. That's no given in a warzone though. The soldiers arresting the person would likely have to be called in, and they might be away on another deployment.


Do you subpoena soldiers to testify? Bring them back from Afghanistan to sit on the stand?

A very thorny situation.



I'm sure there are a hundred other problems with trying to criminalize acts of war but, I'm tired.

I'm not saying it would be easy. But I think that what they've come up with, military tribunals where defendants can't choose their counsel and can't see the evidence against them, isn't up to the standards of what constitutes a fair trial. (And SCOTUS seems to agree.)

[LnGrrrR]

I'm sure there are a hundred other problems with trying to criminalize acts of war but, I'm tired.

One last thing... what makes their attacks acts of war? That they're committing violence against soldiers in uniform?

I'm beginning to think that a war should be against a specific enemy, a conflict which can ended by either of the parties officially.

Otherwise, you get the open-ended war of Afghanistan, where we wouldn't take anyone's surrender as official and it can last as long as we wish it to.

[Yonivore]

I'm not saying it would be easy.
It would be a cluster fuck. And, an unnecessary one at that.

Exhibit A:

Obama White House Press Sec Gibbs Says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Will be Executed after Tried & Convicted (http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/31/gibbs-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-likely-to-be-executed-why-even-have-a-trial/)


ca3nAU1XVsk

And, that's just the circus surrounding one detainee. What if the defense names foreign witnesses that must be found and transported? What if discovery compromises informants -- in other countries -- that do not enjoy the protections our criminal justice system gives endangered witnesses?

[Yonivore]

One last thing... what makes their attacks acts of war? That they're committing violence against soldiers in uniform?

I'm beginning to think that a war should be against a specific enemy, a conflict which can ended by either of the parties officially.

Otherwise, you get the open-ended war of Afghanistan, where we wouldn't take anyone's surrender as official and it can last as long as we wish it to.
Their motives are to undermine the State. That's an act of war.

[boutons_deux]

"Their motives are to undermine the State"

So America is now in the "international thought police" business?

Do they have the ability to "undermine the State"

America provoked its enemies by invading and occupying (indefinitely) Muslim countries for oil. That's "why they hate us".

And America is dumping $Bs into Pakistan which is protecting, supporting, financing, arming the Taleban to keep Afghanistan from being nothing but a disaster.

And now America is slaughtering 1000s of (Muslim) civilians, written off bureaucratically as collateral damage, provoking more enemies.

But let one nutcase kill one American, and America's "heart goes out", and a national (cable TV, ak, fake) catharsis.

America is fucking itself, and no one can stop America from fucking itself.

[ChumpDumper]

It would be a cluster fuck. And, an unnecessary one at that.

Exhibit A:

Obama White House Press Sec Gibbs Says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Will be Executed after Tried & Convicted (http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/31/gibbs-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-likely-to-be-executed-why-even-have-a-trial/)


ca3nAU1XVsk

And, that's just the circus surrounding one detainee. What if the defense names foreign witnesses that must be found and transported? What if discovery compromises informants -- in other countries -- that do not enjoy the protections our criminal justice system gives endangered witnesses?Why do you hate the American system of justice, yoni?

And why do you pretend we haven't already tried and convicted terrorist suspects in federal court?

[LnGrrrR]

Their motives are to undermine the State. That's an act of war.

How do you know this though? You're talking about a war-torn country. Do you think everyone that may fire on US soldiers is automatically a terrorist/trying to undermine the US?