Congress Grants Unconditional Power to Bush

Originally posted by sithsaber408
The mental giant clarifies:

The people at war with the U.S. in this case deserve no "freedoms".

This is not a typical war, fought with rules of engagement by soldiers in tanks, copters, jets, or on the ground.

It's an idealogical war, fought against America as a society, in which enemy combatants deliberately kill thousands of innocent civilians, and make it plain that they are planning to do so again.

When our soldiers are captured by our enemies, they aren't treated to anything as nice as Guantanamo. They aren't protected under the Geneva convention.

The are F*CKING BEHEADED with saw blades, slowly through the neck.

In my book, the don't deserve "consideration" or "fair treatment" that we would allow other enemy combatants in a time of war.

Even still, I said in this very thread that any "cutting, slicing, stabbing, burning, or maiming" would be completely wrong and that it is unacceptable.

Again you miss the point, and say that Bush has "Unconditional power".

He doesn't, and if he did, then all the democrats and republicans in the congress are to blame, as they VOTED that he could have it.

Most Americans have no problem with this.

You just keep squawking like the crow that you are: "Strawman! caw, caw! GOP! caw, caw! knob polishers! caw, caw!"

If you support giving those bastards the same rights as enemy soldiers that fight properly against ours, than take you fagget ass to France or some place, we don't want you here.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If you support giving those bastards the same rights as enemy soldiers that fight properly against ours, than take you fagget ass to France or some place, we don't want you here.

😆 Not that I support what you said, but the way you worded it was funny, ey.

Sounds like something a gung-ho recruiter during WW2 would say to impressionable high school kids.

yeah, hate speech rocks, right?

reported

(and in the future, if you're going to carry on and attempt to bully others with bigot rants, spell "fagg0t" correctly at least)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
This is not a typical war, fought with rules of engagement by soldiers in tanks, copters, jets, or on the ground.

If this is the case, what are all those american, canadian, british, australian and other nations soldiers doing in Iraq, the philipines and afghanistan?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's an idealogical war, fought against America as a society, in which enemy combatants deliberately kill thousands of innocent civilians, and make it plain that they are planning to do so again.

Actually, it against more than america, I know that America might be your only concern, but that is half of the problem right there. As for the rest of your comment, if you are concerned about the people who killed thousands of innocent civilians, then why are you in Iraq at all, they had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
When our soldiers are captured by our enemies, they aren't treated to anything as nice as Guantanamo. They aren't protected under the Geneva convention.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the soldiers at GITMO are also not protected by the geneva convention. It is also a matter of dispute if all the prisoners there should be prisoners at all. What is your position on detaining and torturing people who have no reason to be tortured or detained?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If you support giving those bastards the same rights as enemy soldiers that fight properly against ours, than take you fagget ass to France or some place, we don't want you here.

This comment is so stupid that it pretty much anything intelligent that you may have said intentionally or unintentionally in the past, and in the immediate future.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
It is also a matter of dispute if all the prisoners there should be prisoners at all. What is your position on detaining and torturing people who have no reason to be tortured or detained?

Ok, let's turn this one into a math problem -

Their are basically 2 possibilities for each detainee.

- They can be a terrorist who will try to kill as many westerners as possible if released.

- They can be innocent. Just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

(We'll ignore the third possibility that they started out innocent but because of anger over their incarceration decided they want to kill people)

Let's say that 95% of the people that were caught are actual threats.

Now, the govt has 2 choices:

- Keep them locked up/interrogate them

- Let them go

Under the "let them go" option there are 2 possibilities:

- If they were innocent, They will go back to their old life not putting anyone in danger.

- If they are legitimate threats, They will go back to their old life and try to kill more people.

Obviously it is better from a risk management perspective to keep them locked up. And considering the types of plots they would be likely to try if they are threats I like that paradigm.

quite optimistic

and lets say that 95% of them are innocent, and 5% are actually guilty. by locking them all up an attack may be prevented. does this make it justified?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
This comment is so stupid that it pretty much anything intelligent that you may have said intentionally or unintentionally in the past, and in the immediate future.

I am going to correct this post more for PVS' sake than any one else's.😉

This comment is so stupid that it pretty much negates anything intelligent that you may have said intentionally or unintentionally in the past, and in the immediate future.

Originally posted by docb77
Ok, let's turn this one into a math problem -

Their are basically 2 possibilities for each detainee.

- They can be a terrorist who will try to kill as many westerners as possible if released.

- They can be innocent. Just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

(We'll ignore the third possibility that they started out innocent but because of anger over their incarceration decided they want to kill people)

Ignoring the third possibility would be a grievous mistake.

Originally posted by docb77
Let's say that 95% of the people that were caught are actual threats.

I don't think 95% is even remotely close. I reckon that figure is grossly over estimated.

What percentage of innocent people do feel that it is wrong to imprison? I'm just curious.

You don't believe that 95% of the people caught on various battlefields would be enemies? I find that rather naive.

The reason I ignored the 3rd possibility is because those people would be threats, they would be in with the 95%. Once they'd spent any time at all in incarceration, they would be as dangerous to us as the rest of the people who were guilty.

As far as PVS question. No, 5% guilty would be unacceptable. There has to be adequate reason to believe that someone would be guilty prior to incarceration. 5% isn't reasonable. 50% might be.

As to that, people know that governments make mistakes. Ask the Japanese Americans who fought in WWII while their families were in interment camps what they thing we should do. I doubt they appreciated their situation very much, but I bet that they understood it.

So let's say some Terrorists got hold of a Nuclear Bomb(God Forbid) and we had 50 suspects, 49 were Innocent, but that 1 would lead to the stopping of a Nuke going off, would you Torture them? I would in a heartbeat

Originally posted by docb77

As far as PVS question. No, 5% guilty would be unacceptable. There has to be adequate reason to believe that someone would be guilty prior to incarceration. 5% isn't reasonable. 50% might be.

i strongly disagree, but appreciate the straight answer, which is about as uncommon as a perfect white diamond here at kmc

Originally posted by docb77
As to that, people know that governments make mistakes. Ask the Japanese Americans who fought in WWII while their families were in interment camps what they thing we should do. I doubt they appreciated their situation very much, but I bet that they understood it.

i bet they didnt understand and were very bitter. but either way, the evils of our past does not dress down the potential evils of our present.

Originally posted by PVS
i strongly disagree, but appreciate the straight answer, which is about as uncommon as a perfect white diamond here at kmc

i bet they didnt understand and were very bitter. but either way, the evils of our past does not dress down the potential evils of our present.

I don't know. I kind of doubt that they would have gotten more medals of honor than the rest of the armed services if they were bitter at the govt. Either way, I'm sure we can both agree that they were relieved when it was finally over.

now...what if their families were tortured? just to make this parallel a bit more appropriate

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
So let's say some Terrorists got hold of a Nuclear Bomb(God Forbid) and we had 50 suspects, 49 were Innocent, but that 1 would lead to the stopping of a Nuke going off, would you Torture them? I would in a heartbeat

:edit: ok, your mother is one of the suspects. must have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. so you willingly allow her to be tortured as well? since we are blowing smoke up eachothers asses with fiction, lets give it a point

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Anyone at war with the U.S. doesn't deserve "freedoms".

Originally posted by PVS
quite optimistic

and lets say that 95% of them are innocent, and 5% are actually guilty. by locking them all up an attack may be prevented. does this make it justified?

Simply put, yes. Only because you are playing devils advocate and I sincerely doubt that 95% are innocent.

Sounds like good news to me.jm😏

Originally posted by Soleran
Simply put, yes. Only because you are playing devils advocate and I sincerely doubt that 95% are innocent.

i ask for an honest opinion and you feed me that?
please, either give an honest answer completely devoid of any bias for or against myself, or please just dont answer it. really, that was pointless

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Sounds like good news to me.jm😏

hey jm, here is a better forum for you to frequent:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
you'll meet lots of new friends there and you'll probably forget all about this place full of doodooheads

Originally posted by PVS
i ask for an honest opinion and you feed me that?
please, either give an honest answer completely devoid of any bias for or against myself, or please just dont answer it. really, that was pointless

I gave you an honest answer as it related to your response.

In as far as detaining folks who are possible "terrorists" or folks fighting against us in the field I am all for it. It's how we interrogate them and what Bush has now allowed that disturbs me.

thats right, i forgot to add "...and tortured".

Originally posted by PVS
thats right, i forgot to add "...and tortured".

Yes that disturbs me, folks who rant on otherwise have a screw loose.

It's the fact that Bush went to war, then felt the need to infringe on folks freedoms to "protect" them at home then furthered that by allowing certain acts to be allowed in the field of combat.

I'm all for homeland defense and taking care of business abroad however folks that turn a blind eye to certain policies in this administration are fools ie allowing anything to happen in "acts of interrogation" in other words torture.