Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:38 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Quote:
Why should that have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves? Must we stoop to their level?



That's a joke right?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Quote:
Why should that have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves? Must we stoop to their level?



That's a joke right?

No, it's not. I'm not talking about our conduct on the battlefield; I'm talking about how we conduct our justice system. How Al Qaeda or the Taliban conduct their systems of justice, whatever they may be, should have no bearing on how we conduct ours unless you think they are models worth emulating in all cases. I'm going to assume that you think the way said organizations conduct their business is deplorable, so I don't see why the way they do things should have any bearing on how we do things.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
Quote:
Why should that have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves? Must we stoop to their level?



That's a joke right?

No, it's not. I'm not talking about our conduct on the battlefield; I'm talking about how we conduct our justice system. How Al Qaeda or the Taliban conduct their systems of justice, whatever they may be, should have no bearing on how we conduct ours unless you think they are models worth emulating in all cases. I'm going to assume that you think the way said organizations conduct their business is deplorable, so I don't see why the way they do things should have any bearing on how we do things.



What makes the law relevant Wilton?

What makes the law relevant is that fact that people believe it will deliver justice. But people like you aren't interested in justice. You merely want to cross the t's and dot the i's. It's ok that the child killer goes free as long as the law was followed to the letter.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, it's not. I'm not talking about our conduct on the battlefield; I'm talking about how we conduct our justice system. How Al Qaeda or the Taliban conduct their systems of justice, whatever they may be, should have no bearing on how we conduct ours unless you think they are models worth emulating in all cases. I'm going to assume that you think the way said organizations conduct their business is deplorable, so I don't see why the way they do things should have any bearing on how we do things.



What makes the law relevant Wilton?

What makes the law relevant is that fact that people believe it will deliver justice. But people like you aren't interested in justice. You merely want to cross the t's and dot the i's. It's ok that the child killer goes free as long as the law was followed to the letter.

You just love to make straw men, don't you? What you just said has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. You're making nonsense points that are totally unresponsive to the topic at hand.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, it's not. I'm not talking about our conduct on the battlefield; I'm talking about how we conduct our justice system. How Al Qaeda or the Taliban conduct their systems of justice, whatever they may be, should have no bearing on how we conduct ours unless you think they are models worth emulating in all cases. I'm going to assume that you think the way said organizations conduct their business is deplorable, so I don't see why the way they do things should have any bearing on how we do things.



What makes the law relevant Wilton?

What makes the law relevant is that fact that people believe it will deliver justice. But people like you aren't interested in justice. You merely want to cross the t's and dot the i's. It's ok that the child killer goes free as long as the law was followed to the letter.

You just love to make straw men, don't you? What you just said has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. You're making nonsense points that are totally unresponsive to the topic at hand.



God save me from public school educations.

A straw man argument assumes facts not in evidence. Through your interactions with various people on this board, you've revealved quite a bit about yourself that you're probably not even aware of.

You sit there on your computer and quote law at people like me and ZM without understanding the underlying principles of law. Law only remains relevant in a society as long as everyone agrees to the fundementals of it. In other words, law can't exist in a vaccum. It's a living and breathing thing that requires people's continued belief in it to remain relevant. When you extrapolate law to warfare, you assume that all participants are going to abide by the basics of the law. When one side ignores the rules, or laws, of warfare they render the law irrelevant.

As a lawyer, I don't expect you to understand any of this. You live in a world dominated by theory. As someone who's never worn the uniform of your country, I really don't expect you to understand this. You're contributing to the downfall of your own society by your slavish devotion to an abstarct theory.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Very well said Jeremy, as a fellow serviceman, I couldn't agree more. Many people in this country don't understand that its a priviledge to serve in the military. Lawmakers at home spend countless hours figuring out how to take more and more weapons out of the hands of soldiers, further causing them danger. And all-the-while vilifying the conservatives and Bush for the dead soldiers that is the cost of this war.

You seem like a highly intelligent guy Wilton, far more intelligent than me, but what I see from you is what appears to be a partyline thought process. There must be some Liberal "playbook" that everyone follows, you know, take some fantasy moral highroad(unless it pertains to your success), blame the Republicans, Blame Bush, and strive for world peace that hasn't been achieved at any time throughout the entire life of this planet.

You did get upset that I questioned your concern for those that perished in 9/11, so with that, I have hopes for you. We need things like torture and tossing a KNOWN terrorist in a dark dank cell for a year or so to help ward off future attacks. I'm sorry my friend, your courts, and misplaced ethics are not concerning them whatsoever. Fear is the name of this game, now without GITMO, without waterboarding, and with Obama in office, and with defense lawyers with your skill, what stops them from doing 9/11 all over again?

Sure Ben Franklin said that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." But he never met Osama Bin Laden. He had never met such an adversary.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Maybe both the lawyers and the military here can explain why we simply cannot provide for trial under the military code of justice.

Get 'em a couple of JAGS for defense. They would have a robust defense and fair trial, but not under a civil code that simply is not equipped to handle enemy combatants.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Maybe both the lawyers and the military here can explain why we simply cannot provide for trial under the military code of justice.

ZM

There is no reason why enemy combatants cannot be tried by a proceeding that is in conformity with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court has said as much in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Why the last administration insisted that they could not be given such trials is beyond me.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
God save me from public school educations.

A straw man argument assumes facts not in evidence. Through your interactions with various people on this board, you've revealved quite a bit about yourself that you're probably not even aware of.

No, that's petitio principii, or assuming a major premise. A straw man argument is attacking a misrepresentation of an opponent's position that is easier to refute then the opponent's actual position. Look it up.

Jeremy wrote:
You sit there on your computer and quote law at people like me and ZM without understanding the underlying principles of law. Law only remains relevant in a society as long as everyone agrees to the fundementals of it. In other words, law can't exist in a vaccum. It's a living and breathing thing that requires people's continued belief in it to remain relevant. When you extrapolate law to warfare, you assume that all participants are going to abide by the basics of the law. When one side ignores the rules, or laws, of warfare they render the law irrelevant.

When a person is captured and in your custody, there is no more warfare going on. The detainee has essentially laid down his arms and surrendered to the custody of the other side. He has therefore submitted to your rule of law, thereby still giving the law substance.

If your position were true, then the law would have no effect even in our country. You would be sanctioning the abandonment of law when anyone breaks it, including domestic criminals like thieves and murderers: if you suspect someone of murdering another, your solution is to do away with the trial and do what you please with them. No trial, no procedure; no ability to determine the truth or a fair punishment. If your view was the prevailing view, then there'd be no use for criminal law or procedure and no point in prosecuting people for war crimes. Such a position is untenable, both domestically and internationally.

Jeremy wrote:
As a lawyer, I don't expect you to understand any of this. You live in a world dominated by theory. As someone who's never worn the uniform of your country, I really don't expect you to understand this. You're contributing to the downfall of your own society by your slavish devotion to an abstarct theory.

Hiding behind your military uniform does not make your position any more credible. While I commend you for your service, your service does not make you an authority on what to do off the battlefield. By holding the position that we should abandon the law when the other side breaks it would promote anarchy across the world.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
You do realize Wilton, that the practical outcome of the implemenation of these policies will be seen by the military in the field as an abandonment of their efforts. Especially when known terrorist are set free.

I fear the practical result will be a substantial reduction in prisoners delivered to prison for trial

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
ZelieMike wrote:
You do realize Wilton, that the practical outcome of the implemenation of these policies will be seen by the military in the field as an abandonment of their efforts. Especially when known terrorist are set free.

I fear the practical result will be a substantial reduction in prisoners delivered to prison for trial

ZM


Very valid point. Until the lawyers start prosecuting soldiers for "killing" enemies. So what's next? Complete kaos throughout the defense system. But that's ok, because after Obama "talks" to everyone, we shouldn't need a military. We'll all be buddies.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
You seem like a highly intelligent guy Wilton, far more intelligent than me, but what I see from you is what appears to be a partyline thought process. There must be some Liberal "playbook" that everyone follows, you know, take some fantasy moral highroad(unless it pertains to your success), blame the Republicans, Blame Bush, and strive for world peace that hasn't been achieved at any time throughout the entire life of this planet.

Your sophomoric attempt to describe my thought process shows that you only see things through the looking glass of party politics. I focus on the issues, not the identity of the political party that holds a certain position. I don't blame Bush because he's a Republican; I blame Bush because he and his cabinet have terrible judgment, and many of the problems that this country is facing are the fruits of his bad judgment.

Quote:
You did get upset that I questioned your concern for those that perished in 9/11, so with that, I have hopes for you. We need things like torture and tossing a KNOWN terrorist in a dark dank cell for a year or so to help ward off future attacks. I'm sorry my friend, your courts, and misplaced ethics are not concerning them whatsoever. Fear is the name of this game, now without GITMO, without waterboarding, and with Obama in office, and with defense lawyers with your skill, what stops them from doing 9/11 all over again?

Fear is often a byproduct of lack of understanding. Your fear of the American justice system appears to manifest from a lack of understanding it. Fear also causes people to do things that they later regret in life.

Step away from the slippery slope, PF13. The John Yoo interrogation policy has been largely discredited by both legal analysists and military analysts. The fact of the matter is that our introduction of torture into our interrogation techniques have turned neutral parties against us and endangered the lives of our soldiers. Just ask Major Matthew Alexander.
Quote:
The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The majority of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters who volunteered and came to Iraq with this motivation. Consequently it is clear that at least hundreds but more likely thousands of American lives (not to count Iraqi civilian deaths) are linked directly to the policy decision to introduce the torture and abuse of prisoners as accepted tactics. Americans have died from terrorist attacks since 9/11; those Americans just happen to be American soldiers. This is not simply my view–it is widely held among senior officers in the U.S. military today. Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” We owe it to our troops to protect them from terrorist attacks by not conducting torture and we owe it to our forefathers to uphold the American principles that they passed down to us.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004036

Piratefan13 wrote:
Sure Ben Franklin said that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." But he never met Osama Bin Laden. He had never met such an adversary.

No, but he did know the British Empire. You apparently underestimate how powerful the British Empire was in 1776.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Last edited by Willton on Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
You do realize Wilton, that the practical outcome of the implemenation of these policies will be seen by the military in the field as an abandonment of their efforts. Especially when known terrorist are set free.

I fear the practical result will be a substantial reduction in prisoners delivered to prison for trial

ZM

You are assuming that any known terrorists will be set free. I would think that if someone in U.S. custody was a "known terrorist," the U.S. Government would have enough evidence to prove as much. If your fear is that the Government will not be able to put these people behind bars because of lack of evidence, then perhaps they aren't really "known terrorists" after all. If the U.S. Government is going to label someone a "known terrorist," they should be able to prove it.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
13 already have been.

And, while the guy from the Cole seems to be under "house arrest", it looks like all evidence will be waived in any type of civilian trial.

The perception will only grow from that type of release.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
13 already have been.

Who?

Quote:
And, while the guy from the Cole seems to be under "house arrest", it looks like all evidence will be waived in any type of civilian trial.

Why?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
I hide behind the uniform the same way you hide behind the law.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
13 already have been.

Who?


I don't have names. We had a CNN report a couple weeks ago that a released prisoner is the No.2 Al-Queda man in Saudi Arabia.

Last week, Yemen released another 12, after their rehab stint that have gone back to Yemen Al Queda. This however, might be a ploy by the Yemeni gov. to track down other elements. However, they are reported heading straight back to the field.

Quote:
And, while the guy from the Cole seems to be under "house arrest", it looks like all evidence will be waived in any type of civilian trial.

Why?[/quote]

Gathered under water boarding. Which is why the judge let him go in the first place. She is quoted as saying she knows he is guiltly, but can't do anything about it.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
[quote "wilton"]Fear is often a byproduct of lack of understanding. Your fear of the American justice system appears to manifest from a lack of understanding thereof. Fear also causes people to do things that they later regret in life.

Step away from the slippery slope, PF13. The John Yoo interrogation policy has been largely discredited by both legal analysists and military analysts. The fact of the matter is that our introduction of torture into our interrogation techniques have turned neutral parties against us and endangered the lives of our soldiers. Just ask Major Matthew Alexander.[/quote]

So we gain understanding of the radical Muslims, what next? Nothing changes, they hate us and always will. Your missing my point Wilton, we may never have to interrogate, but terrorists never have to know that. Now with the President publicly outlawing it, we lose a pawn in the overall chess game.

I don't see this through any partyline Wilton, I am frankly thoroughly dismayed at the way the Republicans went into this election, like it was going to be handed to them. I think that McCain was off-base on some of the core Conservative values. And I believe that the Republicans did us a disservice for promoting McCain. Love the guy, what he did for this country, but his politics are skewed.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The majority of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters who volunteered and came to Iraq with this motivation. Consequently it is clear that at least hundreds but more likely thousands of American lives (not to count Iraqi civilian deaths) are linked directly to the policy decision to introduce the torture and abuse of prisoners as accepted tactics. Americans have died from terrorist attacks since 9/11; those Americans just happen to be American soldiers. This is not simply my view–it is widely held among senior officers in the U.S. military today. Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” We owe it to our troops to protect them from terrorist attacks by not conducting torture and we owe it to our forefathers to uphold the American principles that they passed down to us.


There is no possible way to qualify this information as valid. How do you ask the suicide bomber why he did it? Additionally, where is the proof that these thousands of soldiers are linked directly to the US torturing prisoners. C'mon Wilton, if I would have quoted something like this, you would have eaten me up. This is heresay at best. I believe that the terrorists are coming for our guys not matter what they do. They will continue to come, over and over and over again until America loses the taste for the war, and that is when they have won. I am afraid that we are beginning to see that come to pass.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
You're forgetting the #1 rule of liberals in 2009.

It's fact because we say it's fact.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits