Bryn Mawr;1071663 wrote: You'd better believe it - Accountable has already stated that he believes that the US constitution is divinely ordained.
Really frightening, thats all the world needs right now, another branch of nutters united
Obama to close Guantanamo
Obama to close Guantanamo
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama to close Guantanamo
Bryn Mawr;1071663 wrote: You'd better believe it - Accountable has already stated that he believes that the US constitution is divinely ordained.
:-2 Got a link for that?
:-2 Got a link for that?
Obama to close Guantanamo
Accountable;1071789 wrote: :-2 Got a link for that?
I'll search - I remember it well because I was so surprised, it was about a year ago.
I'll search - I remember it well because I was so surprised, it was about a year ago.
Obama to close Guantanamo
Bryn Mawr;1071814 wrote: I'll search - I remember it well because I was so surprised, it was about a year ago.
Not immediately visible - it was one of the many discussions on the Right to Bear Arms and the need or otherwise to amend the constitution.
I'll look again later.
Not immediately visible - it was one of the many discussions on the Right to Bear Arms and the need or otherwise to amend the constitution.
I'll look again later.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama to close Guantanamo
Jester;1071961 wrote: Now, if he said that, and in the same context as you have construde it I'll eat my hat.
The US Consititution is a man made document based on mostly biblical principles. It is not devinely ordained. I would say that some of the men who wrote parts of it were men of God, but thats about as far as I'll go.
And another thing...
Accountable and , on occasion are somehow seen as the same on this board, and while I am flattered at that, I am sure he must cringe at times from what I say here. So I think you just insulted the man by lumping us together.
Worse comparisons can be made, that's for sure!
The US Consititution is a man made document based on mostly biblical principles. It is not devinely ordained. I would say that some of the men who wrote parts of it were men of God, but thats about as far as I'll go.
And another thing...
Accountable and , on occasion are somehow seen as the same on this board, and while I am flattered at that, I am sure he must cringe at times from what I say here. So I think you just insulted the man by lumping us together.
Worse comparisons can be made, that's for sure!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama to close Guantanamo
Bryn Mawr;1071878 wrote: Not immediately visible - it was one of the many discussions on the Right to Bear Arms and the need or otherwise to amend the constitution.
I'll look again later.
I believe it's here
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ntrol.html
Your mistake was equating our rights and the Constitution itself. Our rights come from the Creator, not the constitution.
(hey, that can be read two ways and they're both right.
)
I'll look again later.
I believe it's here
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ntrol.html
Your mistake was equating our rights and the Constitution itself. Our rights come from the Creator, not the constitution.
(hey, that can be read two ways and they're both right.
)Obama to close Guantanamo
Jester;1071961 wrote: Now, if he said that, and in the same context as you have construde it I'll eat my hat.
The US Consititution is a man made document based on mostly biblical principles. It is not devinely ordained. I would say that some of the men who wrote parts of it were men of God, but thats about as far as I'll go.
And another thing...
Accountable and , on occasion are somehow seen as the same on this board, and while I am flattered at that, I am sure he must cringe at times from what I say here. So I think you just insulted the man by lumping us together.
I would never knowingly and deliberately insult either you or Accountable so if I have then I unreservedly appologise. As it is, I've not mixed the two of you up as I'm sure it was Acc that said it.
As and when I've more time I'll dig the quote out and surpise the pair of you.
The US Consititution is a man made document based on mostly biblical principles. It is not devinely ordained. I would say that some of the men who wrote parts of it were men of God, but thats about as far as I'll go.
And another thing...
Accountable and , on occasion are somehow seen as the same on this board, and while I am flattered at that, I am sure he must cringe at times from what I say here. So I think you just insulted the man by lumping us together.
I would never knowingly and deliberately insult either you or Accountable so if I have then I unreservedly appologise. As it is, I've not mixed the two of you up as I'm sure it was Acc that said it.
As and when I've more time I'll dig the quote out and surpise the pair of you.
Obama to close Guantanamo
Accountable;1071979 wrote: I believe it's here
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ntrol.html
Your mistake was equating our rights and the Constitution itself. Our rights come from the Creator, not the constitution.
(hey, that can be read two ways and they're both right.)
I presumed that you were referring to the Bill of Rights, part of the Constitution, as the right to bear arms is not one of the inalienable rights mentioned in the declaration of independence.
If that were not so then I withdraw my original statement and apologise for misleading people and for mis-quoting you.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ntrol.html
Your mistake was equating our rights and the Constitution itself. Our rights come from the Creator, not the constitution.
(hey, that can be read two ways and they're both right.
)I presumed that you were referring to the Bill of Rights, part of the Constitution, as the right to bear arms is not one of the inalienable rights mentioned in the declaration of independence.
If that were not so then I withdraw my original statement and apologise for misleading people and for mis-quoting you.
Obama to close Guantanamo
Jester;1072038 wrote: Can you narrow that down, Its pretty long! Post number maybe?
#103
#103
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama to close Guantanamo
Bryn Mawr;1072131 wrote: I would never knowingly and deliberately insult either you or Accountable so if I have then I unreservedly appologise.
No insult here. I consider you a good friend, and any comparison between Jester and me would naturally be a positive one ... unless you say we look alike, of course.
No insult here. I consider you a good friend, and any comparison between Jester and me would naturally be a positive one ... unless you say we look alike, of course.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
Obama to close Guantanamo
Bryn Mawr;1070357 wrote: Not even a single one?
After five years they have not processed a single prisoner to the point where they can try him - pull the other one, I'm sure you can do better than that.
Here is the numbers and a bit of info from the first part of the page that came up when I googled Guantánamo Bay.
775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge
As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain
More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them,
Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.
After five years they have not processed a single prisoner to the point where they can try him - pull the other one, I'm sure you can do better than that.
Here is the numbers and a bit of info from the first part of the page that came up when I googled Guantánamo Bay.
775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge
As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain
More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them,
Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
Obama to close Guantanamo
scholle-kid;1072581 wrote: Here is the numbers and a bit of info from the first part of the page that came up when I googled Guantánamo Bay.
775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge
As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain
More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them,
Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.
Thank you for the data - it make interesting reading.
I was apparently wrong in believing that detainees were not being released in any numbers and I'm surprised that the US government are not making this more widely known - maybe don't like to admit that they imprisoned the wrong people as they certainly have not publicly declared them innocent.
So, two hundred innocent men still held and up to eighty believed guilty but still held without trial after five years - do you still want to hang the lot of them Jester?
775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge
As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain
More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them,
Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.
Thank you for the data - it make interesting reading.
I was apparently wrong in believing that detainees were not being released in any numbers and I'm surprised that the US government are not making this more widely known - maybe don't like to admit that they imprisoned the wrong people as they certainly have not publicly declared them innocent.
So, two hundred innocent men still held and up to eighty believed guilty but still held without trial after five years - do you still want to hang the lot of them Jester?
Obama to close Guantanamo
posted by jester
They aren't allowed the law/rights a US citizen, they do not qualifiy under our laws. They were taken with weapons in fighting agaisnt the US military, they either surrendered or were forcefully captured.
They were not US citizens, they were taken allegedly fighting against americans In THEIR own countries, not in america.
The US decided that it had the right to imprison foreign nationals and hold them without trial deliberately ignoring all international treaties that would have prevented you doing do and telling your allies that objected to it to basically go forth and multiply.
Basically you seem to be saying that the american state can arrest whoever they like in what ever country without regard to international law. You allow your government to do something which if they tried it on american citizens i.e. arresting them and holding them without trial, would have you on the street protesting at a government behaving like a dictatorship. How do you feel about your government sanctioning the use of torture. If the iranians did the ame to a captured american would you think it was OK because they needed to extract the information?
It's the sheer hypocrisy of american policy and actions that anger many people. You cannot claim to be the international upholder of law and order and freedom when you don't practice what you preach and claim the right to ignore international law when it suits but criticise others-like china and russia, when they do exactly the same.
Do as I say not as I do cuts no ice with anyone. For all the high ideals you claim to defend and represent unless you actually put them in to practice no one is going to take you seriously. As the attack in india shows international terrorism is not just about america. At least you've stopped supporting a military dictatorship in Pakistan. Maybe you should think about giving the now democratically elected pakistani government a chance and stop attacking across it's borders thereby gaining more support for the islamic extremists. You may find it hard to believe but even if you don't support terrorists seeing your nation attacked by a foreign power and innocent civilians killed as they go after them does not make you disposed to like the one dropping the bombs. If not careful Pakistan might just go the extremist route.
Obama getting in means he might be able to rebuild the international relationships you need to defeat terrorism. Closing Guantanamo goes a long way to start restoring American credibility. You need to get away from this hysterical idea that muslims are somehow going to take over america and turn you in to islamic fundamentalists.
You live in a democracy. I could understand why you wouldn't support a president and administration that arrested people without trial and held them where they could be mistreated with impunity, why do you have a problem with a president elect that considers arbitrary arrest and detention wrong? i just don't understand it.
They aren't allowed the law/rights a US citizen, they do not qualifiy under our laws. They were taken with weapons in fighting agaisnt the US military, they either surrendered or were forcefully captured.
They were not US citizens, they were taken allegedly fighting against americans In THEIR own countries, not in america.
The US decided that it had the right to imprison foreign nationals and hold them without trial deliberately ignoring all international treaties that would have prevented you doing do and telling your allies that objected to it to basically go forth and multiply.
Basically you seem to be saying that the american state can arrest whoever they like in what ever country without regard to international law. You allow your government to do something which if they tried it on american citizens i.e. arresting them and holding them without trial, would have you on the street protesting at a government behaving like a dictatorship. How do you feel about your government sanctioning the use of torture. If the iranians did the ame to a captured american would you think it was OK because they needed to extract the information?
It's the sheer hypocrisy of american policy and actions that anger many people. You cannot claim to be the international upholder of law and order and freedom when you don't practice what you preach and claim the right to ignore international law when it suits but criticise others-like china and russia, when they do exactly the same.
Do as I say not as I do cuts no ice with anyone. For all the high ideals you claim to defend and represent unless you actually put them in to practice no one is going to take you seriously. As the attack in india shows international terrorism is not just about america. At least you've stopped supporting a military dictatorship in Pakistan. Maybe you should think about giving the now democratically elected pakistani government a chance and stop attacking across it's borders thereby gaining more support for the islamic extremists. You may find it hard to believe but even if you don't support terrorists seeing your nation attacked by a foreign power and innocent civilians killed as they go after them does not make you disposed to like the one dropping the bombs. If not careful Pakistan might just go the extremist route.
Obama getting in means he might be able to rebuild the international relationships you need to defeat terrorism. Closing Guantanamo goes a long way to start restoring American credibility. You need to get away from this hysterical idea that muslims are somehow going to take over america and turn you in to islamic fundamentalists.
You live in a democracy. I could understand why you wouldn't support a president and administration that arrested people without trial and held them where they could be mistreated with impunity, why do you have a problem with a president elect that considers arbitrary arrest and detention wrong? i just don't understand it.
Obama to close Guantanamo
Jester;1073146 wrote: No, if we follow international law it will onyl be a matter of time before we are forced to abandone the practice and set up real war time law.
The jihadist have been kept at bay for 7 years now, makign internationl concessions is stupid. Cowing to the world view is the exact opposite of what it will take to end this war and bring about some relative peace.
You can follow the internationl law if you want to, but its not going to save many people form bing killed under the rule of jihad.
Dont be so short sided, the terrorist dont follow international law and frankly Im sick of people claiming its us that needs to take the moral highground and process them as though the have rights, they dont have any rights, they are a thug band of murdering thieves.
Thats a bunch of horsecrap.
Im not saying abandon all laws, but this idea of treating them 'fairly' is a looser.
If you don't have the rule of law then goodbye freedom and liberty for it is the rule of law that keeps government in check and stops the powerful from just taking what they want. Throw away your constitution then because you clearly think it not worth the effort of formulating it and the body of laws around it. When you become just like the enemy you are supposed to despise then why should anyone support you in your contest with them?
I dont think the US government gives a lilly white spit what the world things abotu what they do with prisoners. I know if I were in charge and some folks didnt like it I'd probably , well, ignore it. I certainly woudlnt tell other coutnries what I was doing.
No they clearly don't and that's one of the reasons you have so few allies giving support. It's that kind of bloody minded attitude that antagonises so many around the world. If McCain had got in and that kind of attitude-those who are not with me are against me and my way or the highway- had persisted then Nato would probably have been finished and steps taken in europe to get as far away from the americans as possible. It's fairly certain that calls for british troops to be pulled out ASAP would get louder and louder as no one sees why british troops should be killed supporting such a clearly demented foreign policy. It would not be world terrorism that would worry people but a militaristic america seemingly set on starting another world war. Global terrorism is not a new phenomenon but in the past it has been dealt with without the hysteria that america seems to go in for.
What would you do if your police stopped arresting criminals but just started shooting anybody they liked? Would you applaud their action or would you call for the rule of law to be restored.
The jihadist have been kept at bay for 7 years now, makign internationl concessions is stupid. Cowing to the world view is the exact opposite of what it will take to end this war and bring about some relative peace.
You can follow the internationl law if you want to, but its not going to save many people form bing killed under the rule of jihad.
Dont be so short sided, the terrorist dont follow international law and frankly Im sick of people claiming its us that needs to take the moral highground and process them as though the have rights, they dont have any rights, they are a thug band of murdering thieves.
Thats a bunch of horsecrap.
Im not saying abandon all laws, but this idea of treating them 'fairly' is a looser.
If you don't have the rule of law then goodbye freedom and liberty for it is the rule of law that keeps government in check and stops the powerful from just taking what they want. Throw away your constitution then because you clearly think it not worth the effort of formulating it and the body of laws around it. When you become just like the enemy you are supposed to despise then why should anyone support you in your contest with them?
I dont think the US government gives a lilly white spit what the world things abotu what they do with prisoners. I know if I were in charge and some folks didnt like it I'd probably , well, ignore it. I certainly woudlnt tell other coutnries what I was doing.
No they clearly don't and that's one of the reasons you have so few allies giving support. It's that kind of bloody minded attitude that antagonises so many around the world. If McCain had got in and that kind of attitude-those who are not with me are against me and my way or the highway- had persisted then Nato would probably have been finished and steps taken in europe to get as far away from the americans as possible. It's fairly certain that calls for british troops to be pulled out ASAP would get louder and louder as no one sees why british troops should be killed supporting such a clearly demented foreign policy. It would not be world terrorism that would worry people but a militaristic america seemingly set on starting another world war. Global terrorism is not a new phenomenon but in the past it has been dealt with without the hysteria that america seems to go in for.
What would you do if your police stopped arresting criminals but just started shooting anybody they liked? Would you applaud their action or would you call for the rule of law to be restored.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Obama to close Guantanamo
I'd like to dedicate this track and it's lyrics to jester.
Enjoy Jester.
YouTube - tank
:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Enjoy Jester.
YouTube - tank
:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Obama to close Guantanamo
gmc;1072809 wrote: posted by jester
They were not US citizens, they were taken allegedly fighting against americans In THEIR own countries, not in america.
The US decided that it had the right to imprison foreign nationals and hold them without trial deliberately ignoring all international treaties that would have prevented you doing do and telling your allies that objected to it to basically go forth and multiply.
Basically you seem to be saying that the american state can arrest whoever they like in what ever country without regard to international law. You allow your government to do something which if they tried it on american citizens i.e. arresting them and holding them without trial, would have you on the street protesting at a government behaving like a dictatorship. How do you feel about your government sanctioning the use of torture. If the iranians did the ame to a captured american would you think it was OK because they needed to extract the information?
It's the sheer hypocrisy of american policy and actions that anger many people. You cannot claim to be the international upholder of law and order and freedom when you don't practice what you preach and claim the right to ignore international law when it suits but criticise others-like china and russia, when they do exactly the same.
Do as I say not as I do cuts no ice with anyone. For all the high ideals you claim to defend and represent unless you actually put them in to practice no one is going to take you seriously. As the attack in india shows international terrorism is not just about america. At least you've stopped supporting a military dictatorship in Pakistan. Maybe you should think about giving the now democratically elected pakistani government a chance and stop attacking across it's borders thereby gaining more support for the islamic extremists. You may find it hard to believe but even if you don't support terrorists seeing your nation attacked by a foreign power and innocent civilians killed as they go after them does not make you disposed to like the one dropping the bombs. If not careful Pakistan might just go the extremist route.
Obama getting in means he might be able to rebuild the international relationships you need to defeat terrorism. Closing Guantanamo goes a long way to start restoring American credibility. You need to get away from this hysterical idea that muslims are somehow going to take over america and turn you in to islamic fundamentalists.
You live in a democracy. I could understand why you wouldn't support a president and administration that arrested people without trial and held them where they could be mistreated with impunity, why do you have a problem with a president elect that considers arbitrary arrest and detention wrong? i just don't understand it.
An excellent post - the only point I would disagree with is the Mumbai attacks being international terrorism.
Last week's atrocity has all the hallmarks of being another in the long line of internal terrorism - indeed, the terrorists themselves named their demands as the release of the jailed Indian Mujahadeen prisoners an citing sixty years of Muslim oppression within India as the trigger.
They were not US citizens, they were taken allegedly fighting against americans In THEIR own countries, not in america.
The US decided that it had the right to imprison foreign nationals and hold them without trial deliberately ignoring all international treaties that would have prevented you doing do and telling your allies that objected to it to basically go forth and multiply.
Basically you seem to be saying that the american state can arrest whoever they like in what ever country without regard to international law. You allow your government to do something which if they tried it on american citizens i.e. arresting them and holding them without trial, would have you on the street protesting at a government behaving like a dictatorship. How do you feel about your government sanctioning the use of torture. If the iranians did the ame to a captured american would you think it was OK because they needed to extract the information?
It's the sheer hypocrisy of american policy and actions that anger many people. You cannot claim to be the international upholder of law and order and freedom when you don't practice what you preach and claim the right to ignore international law when it suits but criticise others-like china and russia, when they do exactly the same.
Do as I say not as I do cuts no ice with anyone. For all the high ideals you claim to defend and represent unless you actually put them in to practice no one is going to take you seriously. As the attack in india shows international terrorism is not just about america. At least you've stopped supporting a military dictatorship in Pakistan. Maybe you should think about giving the now democratically elected pakistani government a chance and stop attacking across it's borders thereby gaining more support for the islamic extremists. You may find it hard to believe but even if you don't support terrorists seeing your nation attacked by a foreign power and innocent civilians killed as they go after them does not make you disposed to like the one dropping the bombs. If not careful Pakistan might just go the extremist route.
Obama getting in means he might be able to rebuild the international relationships you need to defeat terrorism. Closing Guantanamo goes a long way to start restoring American credibility. You need to get away from this hysterical idea that muslims are somehow going to take over america and turn you in to islamic fundamentalists.
You live in a democracy. I could understand why you wouldn't support a president and administration that arrested people without trial and held them where they could be mistreated with impunity, why do you have a problem with a president elect that considers arbitrary arrest and detention wrong? i just don't understand it.
An excellent post - the only point I would disagree with is the Mumbai attacks being international terrorism.
Last week's atrocity has all the hallmarks of being another in the long line of internal terrorism - indeed, the terrorists themselves named their demands as the release of the jailed Indian Mujahadeen prisoners an citing sixty years of Muslim oppression within India as the trigger.
Obama to close Guantanamo
posted by jester
Foolishness, we are not like them and we have the rule of law but it does not apply equally to this enemy, and especially to terrorists. Our constitution does not apply to none citizens.
You have no right to claim for yourselves the right to arrest people in foreign countries and hold them for trial under your laws.
posted by jester
This is not domestic law we are discussing the example does not apply.
The same principle applies. nations sit down and decide how to peacefully regulate affairs between them to avoid conflict, just as small communities do. If you have someone that refuses to recognise the law then they are outlaws. If you do not respect international treaties why should any nation respect you or even trust you as a trading partner?
The islamic fundamentalists say basically the same thing as you. They do not recognise any law but their own and hold to themselves the right to treat others as they see fit. What is the difference between you? You both want to impose your will and claim the moral right to do whatever it takes.
posted by jester
GMC I dont give a crap who I antagonize and who joins me or not. As far as I am concerned you can leave the fight anytime you want.
You don't antagonise me you make me sad. GW said much the same and you saw how international support faded away. Believe me if that is the american attitude I think we should pull our troops out and leave them the americans to it in iraq and agfhanistan.
The only way to win in afghanistan is to completely defeat the taliban. to paraphrase henry kissinger the taliban don't need to win they just need to not lose. He was talking about vietnam but it looks like you haven't learned any lessons at all.
One attack actually in america -admittedly a major one, and you think everybody is out to get you. You'd get on a lot better without the hysteria and paranoia that seems to be part of your culture nowadays
Foolishness, we are not like them and we have the rule of law but it does not apply equally to this enemy, and especially to terrorists. Our constitution does not apply to none citizens.
You have no right to claim for yourselves the right to arrest people in foreign countries and hold them for trial under your laws.
posted by jester
This is not domestic law we are discussing the example does not apply.
The same principle applies. nations sit down and decide how to peacefully regulate affairs between them to avoid conflict, just as small communities do. If you have someone that refuses to recognise the law then they are outlaws. If you do not respect international treaties why should any nation respect you or even trust you as a trading partner?
The islamic fundamentalists say basically the same thing as you. They do not recognise any law but their own and hold to themselves the right to treat others as they see fit. What is the difference between you? You both want to impose your will and claim the moral right to do whatever it takes.
posted by jester
GMC I dont give a crap who I antagonize and who joins me or not. As far as I am concerned you can leave the fight anytime you want.
You don't antagonise me you make me sad. GW said much the same and you saw how international support faded away. Believe me if that is the american attitude I think we should pull our troops out and leave them the americans to it in iraq and agfhanistan.
The only way to win in afghanistan is to completely defeat the taliban. to paraphrase henry kissinger the taliban don't need to win they just need to not lose. He was talking about vietnam but it looks like you haven't learned any lessons at all.
One attack actually in america -admittedly a major one, and you think everybody is out to get you. You'd get on a lot better without the hysteria and paranoia that seems to be part of your culture nowadays