Originally posted by Clovis
Look man, the purpose of a political discussion forum is to discuss and argue viewpoints. There are several different ones in this thread, and I think I've explained my positions and the reasons why I hold them pretty well and logically. You've expressed yours, and I've laid out the issues I have with them, issues you still have not been able to counter in ways that make sense that would lead me to re-evaluate my position.
I am capable of changing my opinion on something if someone makes a logical argument in that direction, that makes sense and is supported by examples and/or realistic information.
And that is not our fault.
But thats not true! Each time I've dismissed your opinion, I've provided reasons as to why, and you haven't countered them with anything concrete!
If your retort is something like:
Yeah, we're gonna call you on it! That is an incredibly vague, incredibly naive sentence that attempts to blur the real issue.
I think it just how much smarter I actually AM when I can explain WHY I think something and you can't.
Ugh... how do I come up with a final explanation? Ok...I've explained why I don't agree with the court's decision: because I believe people captured during battle on foreign soil, not from this country, not citizens of this country, and especially in regards to those captured who are real enemies of our people, should not be afforded the same rights and priveleges as American citizens who have these rights by virtue of being American. And, because I don't think the US judiciary should be imposing their own personal policy preferences rather than interpreting the law; that is not what judging is supposed to be about. I believe this because their decision overturned the precedent since our founding that placed the prosecution of war squarely within the executive branch. The Constitution does not countenance this kind of behavior on the part of judges. I believe all of this because I am all about keeping up with the traditions that made our country what it is. I'm not concerned with the welfare and "rights" of people who's sole mission in life is to kill Americans. For the ones who are truly locked up undeservedly, of course they should be let go. But for the others who are caught trying to kill us in the field of battle, sorry but 'em. They know what they signed up for, and there should be serious consequences.
All the other details you guys are railing on me about, like what constitutes a POW, where my values are on humanity, what my believe (or lack of) of 'justice' entails, and blah blah blah... that's all besides the point made in the above paragraph. You guys are making it more complicated than necessary, trying to get to some deeper root of where it's all coming from when in my mind it's as simple as what's stated in the above paragraph. But if it makes you feel great, Clovis, to believe you're smarter than me, go for it. Maybe you really are, and maybe you aren't.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
thankyou, that was precisely my point. 17sss' 2 masters degrees must be in painting, coz they sure as aint in politics or law.
GOOD ONE! :rolleyes:
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Ugh... how do I come up with a final explanation? Ok...I've explained why I don't agree with the court's decision: because I believe people captured during battle on foreign soil, not from this country, not citizens of this country, and especially in regards to those captured who are real enemies of our people, should not be afforded the same rights and priveleges as American citizens who have these rights by virtue of being American. And, because I don't think the US judiciary should be imposing their own personal policy preferences rather than interpreting the law; that is not what judging is supposed to be about. I believe this because their decision overturned the precedent since our founding that placed the prosecution of war squarely within the executive branch. The Constitution does not countenance this kind of behavior on the part of judges. I believe all of this because I am all about keeping up with the traditions that made our country what it is. I'm not concerned with the welfare and "rights" of people who's sole mission in life is to kill Americans. For the ones who are truly locked up undeservedly, of course they should be let go. But for the others who are caught trying to kill us in the field of battle, sorry but 'em. They know what they signed up for, and there should be serious consequences.
You already said that. And I already explained the problems with that.
quote:
All the other details you guys are railing on me about, like what constitutes a POW, where my values are on humanity, what my believe (or lack of) of 'justice' entails, and blah blah blah... that's all besides the point made in the above paragraph.
No, actually, it is the point, because the implications depend on all these variables.
quote:
You guys are making it more complicated than necessary, trying to get to some deeper root of where it's all coming from when in my mind it's as simple as what's stated in the above paragraph.
And thats why your opinion is wrong :) It isn't that simple!
The assumption that every single person detained at Guantanamo (or even MOST of them) are blood thirsty enemies of America, is flat out wrong. The fact is you don't know that, and given that 90% of these folks have not even been charged with anything, there is no way for us to know that. You come back with vague generalities to concrete arguments yet again...
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
...funnily enough,
I don't believe I've ever heard, 'funnily' before now...:p :clown:
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
And thats why you're opinion is wrong :) It isn't that simple!
The assumption that every single person detained at Guantanamo (or even MOST of them) are blood thirsty enemies of America, is flat out wrong. The fact is you don't know that, and given that 90% of these folks have not even been charged with anything, there is no way for us to know that. You come back with vague generalities to concrete arguments yet again...
An opinion is an opinion... not right or wrong .
To me and my opinion on the constitutional and judicial argument, it is that simple. It gets complicated when it's left open to interpretation by those wearing the robe who want to change traditional and social policy, which is happening now and causing so much chaos. I don't really need to get any more concrete than I have to explain my opinion or why I have it. By the way, I love the term "blood thirsty enemies" ...lol. :D
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
which is happening now and causing so much chaos.
:stongue: :stongue:
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
An opinion is an opinion... not right or wrong .
To me and my opinion on the constitutional and judicial argument, it is that simple. It gets complicated when it's left open to interpretation by those wearing the robe who want to change traditional and social policy, which is happening now and causing so much chaos. I don't really need to get any more concrete than I have to explain my opinion or why I have it. By the way, I love the term "blood thirsty enemies" ...lol. :D
It really is absolutely amazing how you can argue that those wearing the robes are causing the problems. The entire job of a judge is to interpret law and the constitution. If they're not the ones who do so, who do you suggest should? Bush?
Opinions that don't follow logic are wrong. That's the whole problem with a lot of what you've said. It's also why you have still dodged the long article that Lebezniatnikov posted.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
It really is absolutely amazing how you can argue that those wearing the robes are causing the problems. The entire job of a judge is to interpret law and the constitution. If they're not the ones who do so, who do you suggest should? Bush?
Opinions that don't follow logic are wrong. That's the whole problem with a lot of what you've said. It's also why you have still dodged the long article that Lebezniatnikov posted.
Let me post an article better articulating exactly how I feel and what I think, which is also the perfect retort to Lebezniatnikov's long article:
WALL STREET JOURNAL:
The Supreme Court Goes to War
By JOHN YOO
June 17, 2008; Page A23
Last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has been painted as a stinging rebuke of the administration's antiterrorism policies. From the celebrations on most U.S. editorial pages, one might think that the court had stopped a dictator from trampling civil liberties. Boumediene did anything but. The 5-4 ruling is judicial imperialism of the highest order.
Boumediene should finally put to rest the popular myth that right-wing conservatives dominate the Supreme Court. Academics used to complain about the Rehnquist Court's "activism" for striking down minor federal laws on issues such as whether states are immune from damage lawsuits, or if Congress could ban handguns in school. Justice Anthony Kennedy -- joined by the liberal bloc of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- saves his claims of judicial supremacy for the truly momentous: striking down a wartime statute, agreed upon by the president and large majorities of Congress, while hostilities are ongoing, no less.
First out the window went precedent. Under the writ of habeas corpus, Americans (and aliens on our territory) can challenge the legality of their detentions before a federal judge. Until Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U.S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.
In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U.S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, we in the Justice Department relied on the Supreme Court's word when we evaluated Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists.
The Boumediene five also ignored the Constitution's structure, which grants all war decisions to the president and Congress. In 2004 and 2006, the Court tried to extend its reach to al Qaeda terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. It was overruled twice by Congress, which has the power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress established its own procedures for the appeal of detentions.
Incredibly, these five Justices have now defied the considered judgment of the president and Congress for a third time, all to grant captured al Qaeda terrorists the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court.
Judicial modesty, respect for the executive and legislative branches, and pure common sense weren't concerns here either. The Court refused to wait and see how Congress's 2006 procedures for the review of enemy combatant cases work. Congress gave Guantanamo Bay prisoners more rights than any prisoners of war, in any war, ever. The justices violated the classic rule of self-restraint by deciding an issue not yet before them.
Judicial micromanagement will now intrude into the conduct of war. Federal courts will jury-rig a process whose every rule second-guesses our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. A judge's view on how much "proof" is needed to find that a "suspect" is a terrorist will become the standard applied on the battlefield. Soldiers will have to gather "evidence," which will have to be safeguarded until a court hearing, take statements from "witnesses," and probably provide some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture. No doubt lawyers will swarm to provide representation for new prisoners.
So our fighting men and women now must add C.S.I. duties to that of capturing or killing the enemy. Nor will this be the end of it. Under Boumediene's claim of judicial supremacy, it is only a hop, skip and a jump from judges second-guessing whether someone is an enemy to second-guessing whether a soldier should have aimed and fired at him.
President Bush has declared, rightly, that the government will abide by the decision. No American lives are yet imperiled, as the courts will have to wrestle with the cases for months, if not years. But the upshot of Boumediene is that courts will release detainees from Guantanamo Bay, or the Defense Department will do so voluntarily, in the near future.
Just as there is always the chance of a mistaken detention, there is also the probability that we will release the wrong man. As Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion notes, at least 30 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay -- with the military, not the courts, making the call -- have returned to Afghanistan and Iraq battlefields.
The Boumediene majority has two hopes for getting away with its brazen power grab. It assumes that we have accepted judicial control over virtually every important policy in our society, from abortion and affirmative action to religion. Boumediene simply adds war to the list. The justices act like we are no longer really at war. Our homeland has not suffered another 9/11 attack for seven years, and our military and intelligence agencies have killed or captured much of al Qaeda's original leadership. What's left is on the run, due to the very terrorism policies under judicial attack.
Justice Kennedy and his majority assume that terrorism is some long-term social problem, like crime, so the standard methods of law enforcement can be used to deal with al Qaeda. Boumediene reflects a judicial desire to return to the comfortable, business-as-usual attitude that characterized U.S. antiterrorism policy up to Sept. 10, 2001.
The only real hope of returning the Supreme Court to its normal wartime role rests in the November elections. Sometimes it is difficult to tell Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain apart on issues like campaign finance or global warming. But they have real differences on Supreme Court appointments. Mr. Obama had nothing but praise for Boumediene, while Mr. McCain attacked it and promised to choose judges like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both dissenters.
Because of the advancing age of several justices (Justice Stevens is 88, and several others are above 70), the next president will be in a position to appoint a new Court that can reverse the damage done to the nation's security."
Speaking of fair trials when are we going to have these in animals facing death penalties?
pkcRAISTLIN
i cant be bothered going through this yet again, but that article does absolutely nothing to refute lesbiankalashnikov's.
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i cant be bothered going through this yet again, but that article does absolutely nothing to refute lesbiankalashnikov's.
Not to mention
quote:
all to grant captured al Qaeda terrorists the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court.
Is still at odds with the core issue behind the decision which recalcitrants seem to want to continually bury under this baseless assumption.
Without having charged someone, how do we know they are criminals?
This is about not being able to rubber stamp pretty much anyone as an "Al Qaeda terrorist" with no type of process to ensure we're even attempting to detain and prosecute the right people.
That article contains a more eloquently stated version of the same rhetoric Lindsay Graham was spouting to all the major news outlets after the decision, which was, complete bull.
Clovis
Also it's funny how the guy invalidates his entire argument towards the end.
quote:
Just as there is always the chance of a mistaken detention, there is also the probability that we will release the wrong man. As Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion notes, at least 30 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay -- with the military, not the courts, making the call -- have returned to Afghanistan and Iraq battlefields.
