Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Apr 30, 2007.
Good work England.
Isn't it nice to see that allowing suspects to go through the normal process of law works
Good riddence to bad rubbish, that's for sure.
No. That's cowardice and appeasing the terrorists. We should have carpet bombed Britain, then invaded. After all, terrorists existed there. Tony Blair must have been in on it. We do know for a fact that Tony Blair is a war criminal who invaded another country based on lies. Saddam was a war criminal who invaded Kuwait, also based on lies. And there are rumors that terrorists may have existed somewhere in Iraq. Same as in Britain. I say, carpet bomb, then invade. Shock and awe. When hundreds of thousands of Britons die, there's a chance that there'll be some terrorists among the dead. Oh, and we'll be sure this time to capture some WMDs (unlike in Iraq). Then we can install our form of government, and the Britons will greet us with flowers. It'll be a cakewalk. They'll love us. You're either for us, or against us, and whoever argues against this great plan is a traitor. Sure, you could just identify the terrorists, give them a trial and throw away the key, but that's just liberal defeatism.
Then we turn around and do the exact same thing to ourselves - New Jersey, Florida and California seem to have some AQ members according to FBI and CIA spotless intelligence. Plus, Bush qualifies also as a war criminal who illegally invades countries and harbors WMDs. Only traitorous liberals could object.
Seriously though: I'm happy they were caught - and I hope they rot in jail for the rest of their lives. SO GOOD JOB BRITAIN! And now, you can go for the bigger terrorists - such as Tony Blair
Well, you must admit, it fits the bill. "Shock and awe" - the very design is to terrorize the country and population into collapse and defeat. Terror. Then massive bombing where there is concious acceptance of civilian victims ("collateral damage"), is another hallmark of terrorists.
A war kills many more people than do terrorists like AQ - so, since Tony enganges in terrorism (it was an illegal war of aggression, not a defensive wr either), and it costs more victims, then he's the bigger terrorist. Logical, no?
My god, what a concept - police work followed by a fair trial!
We do it that way too when they are citizens and not foreign enemy combatants.
Like Jose Padilla !
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
When they came for the Jews
I kept my mouth shut
Because I hated Jews.
Then they put me in a camp
with a bunch of other jews
and I learned they weren't so bad.
Go tell that to Jose Padilla.
Oh yeah, that saint, Jose Padilla..
This is what the right win nuts never get. They're always looking for ways to weasel out of treating others fairly. "Gee, they're foreign", "Gee, but it's not exactly our soil, it's Guantanamo only leased" etc. Looking for every way to deny rights to as many people as is humanly possible. Geneva Conventions? Loosen 'em up, those are too tight!
Of course, it never occurs to them that this exact thing has a way of turning on you. One day you wake up and it's YOU who doesn't have any rights. It always starts with "the other".
When you treat others less humanely, it is YOUR humanity that's impeached. Don't look for excuses to be a monster, to torture, to deny basic human and legal rights. Don't look for ways to deny others the basic humanit that you take for granted should be applied to you. Because inevitably, it'll end up costing you the same.
America is not strengthened by treating others as if they had no rights. America is strengthened, when the whole world can see, that without regard to religion, race, national origin or what passport you may hold, and which papers - you treat ALL with the same standard of justice and fairness.
Good law is based on justice and fairness. Follow the law in it's spirit. Always. Even with terrorists who themselves don't recognize it - after all, if we don't have standards higher than the terrorists, what makes us morally superior? To do anything else, will surely end up in our decline.
Yeah, shame about him. I really liked Adios Ayer too
Now, this is just stupid. I don't care who Padilla is. He's presumed innocent until proven guilty. If he's guilty - punish him. But give him a trial like any other human being. That's the whole point of this thread. Aren't we supposed to be a land of law?
Who said anything about Padilla being good? He may be the worst of the worst. He still must get a fair trial.
Yes, yes. You're right. A fair trial he should get.
btw here is a timeline of the events:
Bottom line: a full U.S. citizen, born in the U.S. is arrested on U.S. soil, and held without access to a lawyer for 2 years. That's denial of rights to a U.S. citizen, right there. The subsequent outrages and shell games the administration played are icing on the cake.
The poem I cited, merely illustrates how justifying breaking laws and excusing abuses ALWAYS leads to worse down the line. The right wing authoritarians said at the time "we only do that to foreigners" - oops, no, we do it to U.S. citizens, like Lind. So, they quickly amended it to "and if they are U.S. citizens, only if they're on foreign soil" - oops, a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil - Padilla. And so on.
And what happens when a mistake is made? Would you like YOUR rights to be taken away and you have no way to fight back, and it's all a mistake? What, we don't make mistakes? Where are those WMD's in Iraq? What about the lawyer in Oregon whose fingerprints the FBI found on bombing material - and they arrested him and upended his life - only it transpired the FBI made a mistake with the fingerprints (and they only realized that because the Spanish police pointed it out). Mistakes happen all the time. That's why we have trials. That's the WHOLE FREAKIN' POINT of trials. And even so, even with trials, how many times we read how DNA evidence exhonerated someone who spent 20, 30, 40, years in prison, or on death row - and how many innocent people died before there was DNA testing? And those are folks who got jury trials. Now you want us to take the word, without trial, of our excellent CIA-FBI services which did such a good job with fingerprints not to mention intelligence failures too numerous to mention? No trial?
That BS timeline full of allegations - I spit on those allegations. I don't trust the FBI/CIA/NSA "evidence" as far as I can throw it. Give the man a trial. Then he'll face the consequences. I'd love for the rightwingers who are so eager to deny others rights to have to rot in prison on account of somebody's mistake, a computer screwup or simple chance - with no rights, and no trial. And Bush and company have done all they can to deny appeal rights. Have you seen how often the DMV, Post Office, credit card companies make mistakes? And imagine now, that you are not allowed to appeal those mistakes - how's that a prescription for total disaster. That's what we had with the no-flying list for awhile. Thousands got on the list by mistakes and bungling, and there was no appeal, until recently Congress started looking into it. This administration has been a catastrophy for the freedom and rights of U.S. citizens, not to mention the world.
That's not funny.
Doesn't matter. Everyone gets rights. Everyone. Or else no one does. Who decides who deserves them and who doesn't? Who decides if they don't think you deserve right anymore, regardless of your guilt or innocence? Too easily open to abuse. And what's to stop them from doing it to us? Aren't we supposed to be the good guys? If they're really guilty, it shouldn't be too hard to prove it.
And that doesn't mean we just let them go. You guys act like there's no middle ground here. Evidence, arrest, trial, punishment. That's the way it works, or it doesn't work. This is not hard, built right into the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Geneva. The fact that they're foreigners has no bearing, and if they're prisoners of war, we still treat them as people, no matter what they did, because we're supposed to be the good guys here. We're supposed to do what's right, even if they don't. Otherwise, we have no right to complain if they do it to us and our soldiers.
Do rights only extend to saints? Would you deny Ann Coulter her right to free speech just because she's a ****?
Not supposed to be.
According to some of the people here i.e. skunk, no.
WTF are you talking about now? Rights only to saints? Ann Coulter?
Don't play dumb. The statement was made that "We do it that way [police actions followed by legitimate trials] too when they are citizens and not foreign enemy combatants."
To which I replied: "Go tell that to Jose Padilla."
At which point you chimed in with your devastating wit: "Oh yeah, that saint, Jose Padilla.."
Which of course was just a right-wing drive-by media smear with no merit or connection to the conversation - unless of course you were suggesting that people who are alleged to have done what Padilla has been accused of do not deserve rights because they are badnastyevildoers. Was that your intent? Or were you just crapping in the thread?
I'll leave that to you.
I'd vote Yes. Your own thread, too.
Then what was it supposed to be?
No, he thinks, like the rest of us, that we should be the good guys. And like most of us, he's angry we aren't. Don't you think we should be? Do you think we actually are after all we've done?
So then that's a yes.