|
|
| Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 (787474) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
|
| (789903) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 27 07:49:13 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 26 23:22:00 2009. Well Said, and a great post backing up your opinions and position. |
|
|
| (789904) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 27 07:49:56 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 26 23:00:46 2009. Obama is smarter than I thought with this decision. |
|
|
| (789905) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 27 07:55:50 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 26 23:28:18 2009. The lady has made simple legal mistakes in many of her decisions already. She thinks that the Supreme Court is supposed to be a bastion of correcting wrongs.Terrible. The Place of the Supreme Court is to determine that the laws that were followed were constitutional in the first place. The Supreme Court is to concern itself with the Constitution and its protection, and not for tilting at social windmills. And she is supposed to be "impartial". It's quite clear she is not, as she even said "a hispanic woman can decide better......" What the hell is that for a judge to say??? And this takes the cake. She believes "policy" is made in the Judicial branch? I guess she forgot about the other two branches: |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (789926) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed May 27 09:34:51 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 26 23:37:03 2009. Think of the pics you'd get!your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (789927) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Wed May 27 09:44:33 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 26 23:22:00 2009. Outstanding post. |
|
|
| (789945) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed May 27 11:03:47 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 27 07:49:56 2009. Obama is a very smart man. There is no doubt about that. And after he spoke his rhetoric, required to placate his left flank, he looked at the picture, perhaps in full for the first time. He did try to find a solution involving allied countries, and found none. The reality set in that he did not want these people loose in this country either. So for the moment they will remain at Gtimo, yet sooner or later they will have to leave there, presumably before they require a box for transport.I am certain that Obama is working toward that end, but for the time being, with our troops in the field, and bullets and bombs still very much active, they will remain where they are. Even prisoners of war would so remain detained until they have a stable country to return to. The problem with these detainees is that they really have no parent country to return to. They are not regular soldiers under the command and control of a nation-state, and thus cannot be repatriated to such a nation-state. In North Dakota, and in many other places around the nation, risky sex offenders may be detained indefinitely in a psychiatric facility once their prison sentence is completed. No parole, no release, just extra judicial detention. These are American citizens, who have fulfilled their time in jail, and yet will not be released, with not judicial remedy open to them. Do I foresee the same for the Gitmo detainees? No, I really do not, yet it could happen that way. If they are a risk to release, then they are a risk to the entire world. Nobody else wants them. We will not release them into this country, nor can we put them ashore in any other country, except mayhap those places where we would rather they not be anyway. Obama will have his hands full with this crowd, for the moment letting the status quo is the only solution. The future of these terrorists will need to be decided later. LION suggests that it will end with a summary military tribunal, and execution as the situation may warrant. ROAR |
|
|
| (789951) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed May 27 12:01:05 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 26 23:00:46 2009. They are NOT innocent: They are combatants who *could* have been killed on the battlefield.Says who? Or would you have no problem with me declaring you a combatant and killing you? |
|
|
| (789983) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed May 27 14:54:21 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Nilet on Wed May 27 12:01:05 2009. I am not on a battlefield, and I am not engaged in combat with military troops.They were on a battlefield, and they were engaged in combat with our troops. ROAR |
|
|
| (789991) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed May 27 15:34:12 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by BarnYard on Tue May 26 17:52:01 2009. Yeah ok, I hear ya on the move in and change everything attitude.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (789993) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed May 27 15:40:19 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed May 27 14:54:21 2009.  I am not on a battlefield...Are you so sure? Bush, Cheney, and the collective right wing have declared that the US itself is, in fact, a battlefield. I am not engaged in combat with military troops. If you get abducted and taken to Guantanamo, how do you expect to prove this? Or would you thank your captors for not shooting you, as you claim they have a right to? They were on a battlefield, and they were engaged in combat with our troops. How do you know? Or do you consider every Iraqi civilian who just wishes the shooting would stop to be a "combatant?" Afghan civilians who are just trying to stay alive? Canadians on vacation? So, Canadian citizens are "engaged in combat with our troops" and JFK airport is a "battlefield." And you're absolutely certain that everyone who is being imprisoned without charges or oversight was "engaged in combat with our troops" on a "battlefield." Not one of them might possibly be falsely imprisoned due to mistaken identity or because he was fingered by a false confession produced through torture or just through ordinary mistakes and slip-ups. The reason that a fair trial is considered a fundamental right (and is spelled out in the constitution) is because mistakes happen. and everyone accused of wrongdoing should be entitled to a chance to prove the allegations false. Yet you, some guy living in North Dakota with no experience with any of them, are completely certain that every person imprisoned in Guantanamo and around the world is guilty of "engaging in combat with our troops;" so certain that you're willing to deny them any chance to prove that they weren't— so certain, in fact, that you believe, apparently, that anyone imprisoned by the US at any future point must necessarily be guilty. On the few occasions that anyone imprisoned at Guantanamo or elsewhere was allowed a hearing, they were acquitted. Offered the chance to prove their case only in kangaroo courts stacked against them, they were found not guilty. And yet, you still insist that anyone arrested/captured/abducted by US forces is guilty of "combat with our troops." I suppose we've abandoned the idea of "innocent until proven guilty;" our new principle is "guilty by definition." |
|
|
| (790037) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 27 19:04:45 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Nilet on Wed May 27 15:40:19 2009. Dude, you are really far gone. |
|
|
| (790043) | |
Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed May 27 19:42:59 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 27 19:04:45 2009. Did you actually read my post or are you just going to make snide remarks about it (without actually coming up with any substantial criticism)? |
|
|
| (790057) | |
OT Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed May 27 20:25:07 2009, in response to Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by Nilet on Wed May 27 15:40:19 2009. This is too interesting to resist jumping into.So, Canadian citizens are "engaged in combat with our troops" and JFK airport is a "battlefield." The seizure and (I believe unlawful) "extraordinary rendition" (read: outsourcing torture to Syria) wasn't based so much on the idea that JFK airport is a battlefield as it was on the notion that Mr. Arar and other foreign travelers in our nation are subject to the President's whim. Mind you, that still didn't explain how or why the Executive simply bypassed the immigration laws. But at all events, it's not a question of the battlefield at home, despite rhetoric on many sides to that effect. If you get abducted and taken to Guantanamo, how do you expect to prove this? Or would you thank your captors for not shooting you, as you claim they have a right to? This was indeed the case for some detainees which were literally bought from bounty hunters, or people who weren't terrorists but had good looking wives, and other such things. So to this extent you are correct that Mr. Lion shoots wide by assuming without ascertaining the actual status of detainees. But of course this still leaves the question of what process detainees ought to be accorded consistent with foreign policy objectives. And you're absolutely certain that everyone who is being imprisoned without charges or oversight was "engaged in combat with our troops" on a "battlefield." Not one of them might possibly be falsely imprisoned due to mistaken identity or because he was fingered by a false confession produced through torture or just through ordinary mistakes and slip-ups. Considering the broad net originally cast, of course there was overbreadth, and so too is justice delayed justice denied. But this doesn't speak to what to do about people who we are very certain - more than enough to convict them - committed great wrongdoing, but who one doesn't want to try in a US District Court. This isn't to suggest that the military commissions supported by the Obama and Bush administrations are the best, or even the only, alternative. But it does point out the difficulties in this area. At this point, I think that the government actually knows who the terrorists in custody are, and who they're just holding for a variety of other reasons (including, but not limited to, PR). The question becomes what to do with these two groups of people. In essence then, I think that both you and Mr. Lion talk past each other, neither really appreciating the concerns of the other, and seizing on rhetorical excess. |
|
|
| (790065) | |
Re: OT Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1 |
|
|
Posted by poobaa on Wed May 27 20:39:57 2009, in response to OT Re: Hunters Point vs LIRR Round 1, posted by trainsarefun on Wed May 27 20:25:07 2009. Are you saying that "first they come for the RFW then the fomers". |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
