The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Bin Laden's Death. How do you feel about it?
Bin Laden's Death.. how do you feel about and what are some of your thoughts on everything that is happing?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
I also noticed that you can't cite an actual case where any specific person lost a single shred of liberty, based on anything either in the Patriot Act or your previous claims.
So we should wait until it violates someone's rights before we judge that it is bad law or unconstitutional?
The Patriot Act is bad law, I used to think no biggie. Then I realized where it could lead and what it could lead to.
How many crimes are listed as potentially domestic terrorism when before they were just crimes?
IMO terrorists are just criminals writ large, not enemy combatants. That's giving them too much credit, since they are cowards and only go after soft targets. They should be dealt with as any other criminal that is not a citizen protected by the Constitution.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
I really don't think putting a boot in someone's ass is the American way.
Yes it is.....
-
Permalink Reply by joshua yelverton on
-
I believe this says it all
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Jack, I moved this to a new thread so replies can stay in a logical sequence...
See my replies to your latest below:
"Ben, you've finally gotten confused by your own argument(s)." That's diversionary editorializing, and it's not factually correct. I have made exactly the same point throughout this discussion.
"My comments about the germans is that, since they WERE germans, in CIVILIAN clothes it was understood that they were SPYS (saboteurs). In other words, germans had NO business being on U.S. soil since we were at war with them as a nation. That's not really the case with terrorist, aliens, et al." Wrong. See it in your words...again...
"My comments about thegermansterrorists is that, since theyWEREaregermansterrorists, in CIVILIAN clothes it was understood that they were SPYS (saboteurs). In other words,germans hadterrorists have NO business being on U.S. soil since wewereare at war with them as a nation"
"That's not really the case with terrorist, aliens, et al." Umm, yes, it is for the terrorists.
"I can NOT find a single case of an alien being held according to the P.A.."
Because...there are NOT any. In other words, no freedoms have been lost or infringed upon, despite your claims.
"On the other hand, since the P.A. does NOT allow for that alien to have a lawyer nor there be writ of h.c. how would be know about it? Of course, that's just me being snarky." Non sequitur. That has nothing to do with knowing that someone is imprisoned or not. The writ of h.c. requires that a prisoner either be charged or released. The problem is that in a war, there is no need to meet criminal law standards. Every country in the world including the U.S. does it with prisoners of war, they do it routinely, and they do it in accordance with international law - and in our case, U.S. law.
"You asked how liberty may have been given up for security, I supplied wording from the P.A." A cut-and-paste job is not an explanation of anything, let alone how you believe ANY amount of liberty may have been given up for ANY amount of security.
"You choose instead to make...dunno, some kind of parallel, collateral, non-sequitor arguments?" Wrong. My arguments go right to the heart of the matter. You want to artificially define the debate as a criminal law matter when in fact it is a prisoner-of-war matter that falls completely outside of your artificially narrow construct.
"But go ahead and have fun with, I stand by my (earlier, earliest, first, second ?) statement that we have indeed given up some liberty for (the appearance of) security." You can't show any evidence to support your claim, you can't show that a single individual has indeed given up any of the liberty that you claim we all (hypothetically?) have given up, and you went straight to offering your opinion that my arguments aren't valid without offering a shred of real evidence to counter my points, but feel free to stand by your unsupported opinion - it's your right.
"You just like to argue for the sake. That's cool too." More diversionary editorializing. If you can't refute my point, just say that it's OK for you to argue your point but that you don't think it's fair for me to disagree. Don't you find it even a little insteresting that we can change the word "German" for "Terrorist" and the past tense to the present and find that the only point you made applies in exactly the same way to WWII Germans (aliens, BTW) in the past as it does to terrorist aliens in the present?
-
-
I believe that Jefferson's statement applies to all of us, not just the ones in Wal Mart.
Or...do you think we should exclude some Americans from being vigilant due to the place of their employment?
-
-
Mark,
Please define "unreasonable"? When it comes to preventing someone's ability to sneak a bomb or weapons onto an aircraft with a few dozen - or a few hundred - other potential terrorist victims, I believe that it is entirely reasonable for TSA to either scan you or "feel you up".
My point is that you have NO Contitutional right to travel by air...or any other form of mass transportation. If the technology is 100% effective or not isn't really pertinent - it's the best thing available, and no matter how unpleasant, there is no Constitutional right for anyone to board the aircraft at all. That makes the security measures for getting on the aircraft merely unpleasant and potentially less than 100% effective, but it doesn't make it un-Constitutional.
Ditto for whether we would have heard about TSA screening out an airplane bomber or not.
-
-
Mark Oomkes,
"So we should wait until it violates someone's rights before we judge that it is bad law or unconstitutional?" No, but in this case, there is plenty of legal precedent that enemy combatants are not entitled to the same legal process as are simple criminal defendants, nor is the standard for evidence and proof the same for the two.
"The Patriot Act is bad law, I used to think no biggie. Then I realized where it could lead and what it could lead to." Here is some evidence to the contrary. I especially point you to the author's 4th point (of 5).
"How many crimes are listed as potentially domestic terrorism when before they were just crimes?" I don't know exact numbers, but the number of things that define terrorism are finite. Further, you slipped in the word "domestic" when the topic was "alien terrorists" so that's really changing the subject. Back on topic, the things that make them terrorism are the scientific details (chemical composition, amount, etc) that make the substance meet the legal definition a "WMD". Those definitions of what constitutes "WMD" apply equally to whoemever has or uses them - U.S. citizens, resident aliens, or foreign enemies. Those definitions - the ability to harm great numbers of other people at once - are what makes the difference between a WMD/terrorist act and simple criminal activity.
"IMO terrorists are just criminals writ large, not enemy combatants." I disagree. There's a big difference between Osama bin Laden and, say, Ted Bundy. Ted was a really bad guy, but his attacks didn't kill thousands of people in one day. That's a much bigger difference than simply "writ large".
"That's giving them too much credit, since they are cowards and only go after soft targets." You mean "soft targets" like our military command center at the Pentagon? Soft targets like the soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or...soft targets like the WWII German sabateurs who Jack and I are discussion planned to attack?
"They should be dealt with as any other criminal that is not a citizen protected by the Constitution." No, they shouldn't. Those "any other criminals" don't try to kill thousands of us at a time with military-type weapons or improvised military-type weapons like using jetliners as guided missles.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
B- "Specifically what liberty did we give up for safety - either temporary or otherwise?"
J - I answered that by including the wording from the patriot act:
‘SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS.—
‘‘(2) RELEASE.
Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained
irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien
may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien,
until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no
longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3).
This specific section removes an aliens right to habeus corpus as well as a lawyer. You didn't ask me to provide SPECIFIC examples of a person losing their liberty, but rather "...what liberty did we give up..." We allowed the right to a writ of habeus corpus for aliens who are "suspected" of being terrorists.
J- "I can NOT find a single case of an alien being held according to the P.A.."
B- Because...there are NOT any. In other words, no freedoms have been lost or infringed upon, despite your claims. It wasn't a question of who has lost their rights, it was show me HOW our liberties have been given up. We gave up the right to a writ of habeus corpus for an alien (any alien.)
B- The problem is that in a war, there is no need to meet criminal law standards. Every country in the world including the U.S. does it with prisoners of war, they do it routinely, and they do it in accordance with international law - and in our case, U.S. law.
J- I agree. However, other than a feel good declaration of a "war on terrorism" there has been NO declaration of war. I believe that at best, captured individuals are referred to as 'enemy combatants.' Since there is no declaration of war I don't know where or how international law applies. Certainly waterboarding appears to violate international law/Geneva Convention.
J- "You asked how liberty may have been given up for security, I supplied wording from the P.A."
B- A cut-and-paste job is not an explanation of anything, let alone how you believe ANY amount of liberty may have been given up for ANY amount of security.
J- The cut and paste job was wording from the p.a. that shows how a basic right, a writ of habeus corpus, has been abandoned with regard to any alien that is found, deemed or thought to be a terrorist. Note the rest of the wording I cut and pasted: until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3).
A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. This no longer applies to ANY alien suspected of being a terrorist. More over, guilt or innocence does not have to be proven in a court of law, only by the A.G.
B- My arguments go right to the heart of the matter.
J- What exactly IS the heart of the matter? You're claiming since no one (that we know of) has had THEIR liberty denied that my claim is false? I claimed that our liberties have been sacrificed for security and showed that in the way the P.A. has been written.
B- You can't show any evidence to support your claim, you can't show that a single individual has indeed given up any of the liberty that you claim...
J- I never said anyone HAD lost their liberty, only that the p.a. ALLOWS for it. Whether or not someone has lost their liberty is beside the fact, the P.A. ALLOWS for it in violation of the constitution. You're trying to dismiss this claim by requiring me to prove someone's liberty has been violated.
B- Don't you find it even a little insteresting that we can change the word "German" for "Terrorist" and the past tense to the present and find that the only point you made applies in exactly the same way to WWII Germans (aliens, BTW) in the past as it does to terrorist aliens in the present?
J- Just because you change german for terrorist doesn't prove anything. You're comparing apples to oranges. At war with a nation is considerably different to being 'at war' with a terrorist organization. It's really more like a war with the mafia or drug lords.
I guess according to your logic, if we WERE at war with the mafia, anyone with an italian sirname could be held as amafiosoterrorist.
At the risk of yet more "diversionary editorializing" (which I noted you never do), this is (I assumed) an exchange of opinions and thought. I wasn't aware I was required to adhere to any specific rules of the debate club.
-
-
"The Patriot Act is bad law, I used to think no biggie. Then I realized where it could lead and what it could lead to."
Here [ http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/02/The-PATRIOT-Act-an... ] is some evidence to the contrary. I especially point you to the author's 4th point (of 5).
Ben,
I avoided any use of ACLU links http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Morals%20and%20L/M+L/... for fear that you would dismiss them as reactionary and uber-liberal. However, your link to the Heritage Foundation is the conservative equivalent.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-foundation
"Keep up the wonderful work of truth which emanates from Heritage."
– John Ashcroft in praise of Heritage
"Some of the finest conservatives in America today do their work in The Heritage Foundation. For those of you new to all this, The Heritage Foundation is America's leading conservative think tank."
– Rush Limbaugh, November 10, 2000.
-
-
Wrong again.
The fact that no one has lost liberty is prima facie evidence that none has been lost.
The fact that no prisoner of war has ever been entitled to habeus corpus means that not giving it to terrorist prisoners of war is no loss of liberty for anyone.
Your hypothetical about the Mafia is imaginary. If they're U.S. citizens, then they get habeus corpus, because they're not aliens. If they're not U.S. citizens, then if they engage in terrorist activity that meets the legal definition, then the P.A. applies because they're terrorists, not because they're the Mafia.
A declaration of war is not necessary for a de fact war. Just in recent U.S. history, there is Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Libya, Panama, Grenada, Kuwait/Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq (again) and now Libya (again), to say nothing of that little SEAL foray into Pakistan.
The one thing that you said that makes sense here is that a war on terrorism is unlike a war with a nation - then you messed up your line of reasoning with that inane apples and oranges comment.
Yes, the war with the terrorists is different - because they don't wear uniforms and limit their attacks to strictly military targets. Then again, they DID declare war on us - watched any of the old Osama bin Laden videos? He not only declared war on us, he did it over and over.
Most importantly, the P.A. and every individual part of it has withstood Constitutional challenges.
Lastly, I'm LMAO at your claim that changing your points about the Germans to the terrorists doesn't prove anything. If that's the case, it was silly for you to ever make those comments, since they apply equally to the WWII Germans and present-day terrorists, and the concept is YOURS.
Your apples-and-oranges claim is incorrect. Since OBL declared war on us, it's not even Red Delicious to Golden Delicious - it's Winesap to Winsap, all the way.
-
-
Of course, when you can't debate on the facts, then you start attacking the source...isn't that a tactic out of "Desperation 101?
Disprove, if you can, that the Patriot Act has withstood every legal challenge thrown at it, in toto and in detail as my link states....tick, tock, tick, tock...
Then you post a link that comes back "HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer" as a counterpoint???
However, I congratulate you for finding the deeper truth in the words of John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh, quotes that I had not seen until this very hour.
-
-
The fact that no one has lost liberty is prima facie evidence that none has been lost.
We don't know that for sure since there is no way to know it since the P.A. doesn't allow for a writ of habeus corpus.
I never said anything about giving rights (or taking them away from) terrorists. What I did refer to was the abrogation of rights in the P.A. to any alien that the government suspects of being a terrorist. Their guidelines for that are vague at best.
If they're not U.S. citizens, then if they engage in terrorist activity that meets the legal definition, then the P.A. applies because they're terrorists...
I agree. But that only works if the alien IS a terrorist (for example, captured on the battlefield or in the act or determined to have been responsible for an act of terrorism). But the P.A. allows for ANY alien in the U.S. to be held without habeus corpus if "suspected" of being a terrorist. If they are found not to be one by the A.G. then oops, our bad, have a nice day.
Not sure, but I believe that for an actual declaration of war, it has to come from a nation. And on our part, has to come from congress.
The one thing that you said that makes sense here is that a war on terrorism is unlike a war with a nation - then you messed up your line of reasoning with that inane apples and oranges comment.
Ben, you're violating your own rules here by both editorializing and judging my comment to be inane. Aren't you the one that's always calling foul with those kind of comments?
Yes, the war with the terrorists is different - because they don't wear uniforms and limit their attacks to strictly military targets. Then again, they DID declare war on us - watched any of the old Osama bin Laden videos? He not only declared war on us, he did it over and over.
They also are not a nation, just a collection of like-minded extremists. Significantly different form having a nation declare war on us. That obl declared war on us is meaningless. By your logic, if a cartel of mexican drug lords declare war on us, we're going to invade mexico...wait, oh yeah, we've sort of done that already, in afghanistan and iraq.
Ultra-conservative websites that bolster your claim are little different than ultra-liberal ones that bolster mine. I've avoided using them.
I'm glad you're amused. It keeps things from getting to uptight.
It would appear that you've digressed some to make fun of my point about germans.
You raised the issue of the germans:
The German sabateurs who sneaked ashore from a U-boat in Operation Pastorius during WW II, who were apprehended, imprisoned and tried and hanged never left U.S. soil once they landed. They were enemies, they were aliens, and they weren't wearing uniforms - exactly like any enemy combatant terrorist taken in an act of war against the U.S. now.
To which I replied:
The germans were, by their very presence, enemy combatants that, given they were NOT in uniform, were subject to immediate execution (if so desired.) The reason...the were GERMANS and we were at war with germany.
You went on:
nd...they were tried by...wait for it...a military tribunal. So much for your claim that any "alien" in the U.S. is legally entitled to the same laws and rights as the rest of us. Habeus Corpus didn't apply to those Germans, BTW.
Remind me, where did I ever say ANY alien is legally entitled to the same laws and rights? I only ever said that legal aliens in this country are entitled to our laws and rights. Clearly the germans weren't here legally and neither are actual terrorists. But the P.A. doesn't have to distinguish between the two. Any alien can be detained and deprived of their legally entitled rights on the basis of suspicion.
"...silly of you..." See now you're just being dismissive and mildly insulting. I thought you were better than that?
The changing of the wording in YOUR point about the germans was YOUR doing, not mine. It's silly of you to think that enemy soldiers from a nation we are at war with is the same thing as a rag tag bunch of radical extremists. Apples and oranges still.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
