If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Updated NDAA: 166 prisoners will remain at Guantanamo Bay pretty much forever   (aclu.org) divider line 347
    More: Fail, Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo, ndaa, freedom of conscience, inauguration day, indefinite detention, signing statements, Anthony Romero  
•       •       •

7848 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2013 at 3:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



347 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-04 05:46:03 PM

Curious: 1)  ford and carter being less effective would depend on how you define effective. bush rushed into afghanistan and then stood there with no plan to finish the fight and no way out. having done so well there he then rushed into iraq based on lies and once again farked up. this time majorly. we poured money into iraq hand over fist with no accountability and did it off the books. but hey it's only money and he had a lot less since there were not one but two bush tax cuts. if you want to fark up the economy then that's an effective way to do it. add that to bush standing by while deregulation became the order of the day and watch the economy totally implode. yes he was real effective.


You must not remember the stagflation of the 1970s, which is why I specifically brought up Ford and Carter (though I suppose I could've included LBJ and Nixon since their policies helped sow those inflationary seeds - with a little help from William McChesney Martin and Arthur Burns, of course).

You think the economy is bad now? Do you have any idea how bad things would've been then had Volcker not gotten inflation under control?

2) i had to google it but found your $222 trillion PV. from the CBO website: Many budget analysts believe that the alternative fiscal scenario presents a more realistic picture of the nation's underlying fiscal policies than the extended-baseline scenario does. and many don't. it's a worse case scenario and you should know that. given your FDR and LBJ bashing i'm suspecting you consider yourself a fiscal conservative. yes i used that disdainfully.

Here's a link to the economists who calculated that present value. Even if they are off by 75% and the true figure is $55.5 trillion, that's still an astronomical number that cannot possibly be serviced through tax increases on the rich alone. Even with the rose-colored glasses that CBO static scoring is forced by law to view future spending, the PV of future obligations are still within the $30 - $50 trillion range, which again are absolutely impossible to service without severe tax increases on everyone that would cripple the economy.
 
2013-01-04 05:48:04 PM
I wouldn't feel one little bit in danger if every prisoner in Gitmo was kicked out the front door with a ticket to their country of origin tomorrow.

I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.
 
2013-01-04 05:51:46 PM
Those meatbags can't possibly have any more relevant intel for us to water board out of them. If seeing them locked up bothers people so much, march their shackled asses into the Atlantic. Wash hands. We need to stop worrying about being "better" and focus more on being "winners". Besides even if 100% of them are completely innocent goat herders, there arent enough of them to matter when compared to the thousands of innocents those sandy shiat stains murdered in New York.
 
2013-01-04 05:53:27 PM

cefm: I wouldn't feel one little bit in danger if every prisoner in Gitmo was kicked out the front door with a ticket to their country of origin tomorrow.

I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.


Gitmo, is why you think our justice system is farked?!
 
2013-01-04 05:57:18 PM

ChipNASA: gobstopping: ManRay: Republicans are not going to do it.
Democrats are not going to do it.

Who is left?

WHOM


weren"t mE

- - - -

This is what I meant to post. Better late than never.

Setup:
ManRay: Republicans are not going to do it.
Democrats are not going to do it.

Who is left?


Punchline:

pit.dirty.ru
 
2013-01-04 05:59:51 PM

sprawl15: Uranus Is Huge!: Any Fark Independents with an affirmative solution?

sprawl15: the choice is pretty clear that we must choose the option that is morally just - releasing the ones we won't/can't try.


I said 'Fark Independents'. 'Morally just' is clearly just coded commie talk.
 
2013-01-04 06:01:27 PM

orbister: That's not a war. You can't declare war against something as vague as terrorism, and if you do you can't then expect to use that vacuous declaration to justify marching into any country you don't like anywhere around the world.


I know you'll never admit you're wrong, but you are. Congress declared war against a new type of enemy - that of an extra-governmental organization with the ability to wage war on the level of a national entity, something the framers of even the Geneva Convention never imagined.

orbister: You (an we) didn't declare war on Afghanistan so you (and we) have absolutely no right to treat fighting there as a war.


You're right. We're at war with the Taliban, the Government of Afghanistan at the time of which action was authorized under the War Powers Resolution by the United States Congress.

detritus: Let's not make this a Ron Paul discussion. Argue the facts.


Facts and Ron Paul are mutually exclusive.
 
2013-01-04 06:02:38 PM

sprawl15: The fact is that the War Powers Resolution is standing legislation and you seem to be totally ignorant of it or its implications.


Your internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. You are at war with no countries; you are therefore not permitted by international law to behave as if you were.
 
2013-01-04 06:04:10 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Any Fark Independents with an affirmative solution? You all clearly have a handle on what will not work. Any thoughts on what would?


Let the lot of them go. Even if they're guilty, if we're unwilling to prosecute within a month to maybe a year of an arrest (well, "a short period", but that's how it's usually interpreted), the appropriate course of action is to release them. In fact, it's a legal requirement.

Why is it a legal requirement? Because, by not giving them the rights of POWs under the Geneva convention and so on, we've declared that they're not soldiers. If they're not soldiers, they're civilian criminals, no matter how hard the government wishes on a star those are the only two legitimate categories recognized by either US or international law. If you use war powers to capture people, they're subject to international law. If not, they're subject to US law. The grey area the feds are pretending to use does not exist.
 
2013-01-04 06:06:01 PM

cefm: I wouldn't feel one little bit in danger if every prisoner in Gitmo was kicked out the front door with a ticket to their country of origin tomorrow.

I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.


I agree with you. Some of the people in Guantanamo may have been dangerous men and some of them may be dangerous men. You are, however, creating a lot more dangerous men by keeping them there and stoking fires of injustice, resentment and fury in countries which were none too keen on you in the first place.

Releasing them might put 100 terrorists bad on the ground - keeping them there will produce hundreds or thousands more, year after year after year.
 
2013-01-04 06:07:47 PM

thisisarepeat: We need to stop worrying about being "better" and focus more on being "winners". Besides even if 100% of them are completely innocent goat herders, there arent enough of them to matter when compared to the thousands of innocents those sandy shiat stains murdered in New York.


By the same token, of course, three thousand dead in New York pales into insignificance compared to the number of civilians your armed forces (and ours) killed in Iraq.

Moral equivalence with terrorists doesn't work. You're the nice guys; be the nice guys.
 
2013-01-04 06:07:57 PM

russsssman: So when you become president and have access to ALL the information, it's actually the best option... It's almost like Bush wasn't so bad after all.


Yes he was. Remember, he's the one who started this clusterf*ck in the first place.
Has he not done so, or at least done so in a way that was legal (as in "there's laws on the books that could be used here to solve this problem that we should use"), maybe the next guy might have better options on the table from which to choose.
 
2013-01-04 06:08:56 PM

hubiestubert: We can't bring many of these folks to trial. Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights. We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause. The issue is that they remain in a legal Limbo, because no one put a lot of thought into chain of custody or chain of evidence in their capture. We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system, and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

THIS was my problem from the get go. THIS. Had we made this into a law enforcement matter, we could have captured, tried, and convicted a good number of folks. There are Supermax facilities where we have terrorists locked up today, and without any contact with their peeps. They have been removed from the field, and were convicted in a real trial. Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk. Free and clear if we even tried.

Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

Is it a travesty?  Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...

LET THEM GO.

If they start anything, we'll kill them with our collective arsenals of freedom. I personally weigh more than many of them; not that hard to squish a human being.
 
2013-01-04 06:08:58 PM

JustFarkinAround: Our soldiers are beaten, abused and BEHEADED. Comparable to our enemies,


Okay. This is true.

Hitler gassed 6 million Jews. Are you saying America should have done the same thing? (I'm aware of the Japanese internment)

If we're the good guys, we should be acting like it. It doesn't excuse evil actions by the other side, but if we're just as bad, why the hell are we even bothering to make war contractors rich?

I have a solution: We could save all the lives on both sides and just have all Americans mail monthly checks to the military contractors. It'll be a win/win for everyone: It'll save a lot of lives and will save the contractors the cost of R&D to maximize profits. It'll still be the same thing, just without all the bombs and guns and stuff.
 
2013-01-04 06:09:37 PM
LET THEM GO.
 
2013-01-04 06:11:06 PM

orbister: BronyMedic: Okay. I'll bite. What nation's flag were they fighting under, in clearly identifiable uniforms and with a clear hiarchy of command responsibility for their actions?

OK, I'll bite. What declared war were they fighting in?

"The war on ______."

 
2013-01-04 06:12:18 PM

BronyMedic: orbister: That's not a war. You can't declare war against something as vague as terrorism, and if you do you can't then expect to use that vacuous declaration to justify marching into any country you don't like anywhere around the world.

I know you'll never admit you're wrong, but you are. Congress declared war against a new type of enemy - that of an extra-governmental organization with the ability to wage war on the level of a national entity, something the framers of even the Geneva Convention never imagined.


Rubbish. Congress may have decided to declare war against a concept, but that bit of domestic grandstanding has no relevance to international war at all. You couldn't decided to declare war on lefthandedness and then expect the rest of the world to applaud as you killed every southpaw you could find around the world.

You're right. We're at war with the Taliban, the Government of Afghanistan at the time of which action was authorized under the War Powers Resolution by the United States Congress.

War is declared against countries, not against political parties. You need, with all due respect, to learn that there is a big world out there and that American law and politics does not trump international law or the behaviour of civilised states.

Would you have been OK, by the way, if we'd send in the SAS to retrieve IRA terrorists and their supporters (Ted Kennedy, for example) from the US during the troubles in NI?
 
2013-01-04 06:16:45 PM

orbister: Your internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. You are at war with no countries; you are therefore not permitted by international law to behave as if you were.


www.troll.me

Uh, the United States has waged a declared war for the last 10 years against the Taliban and their Remnants. The fact that you don't agree  with it is the point that is irrelevant here, as you are a citizen of another nation who has done the same. But, should you feel that strongly about it, you're more than welcome to march up to the border and demand everyone involved for trial at the Hague. But murder, even by roaring laughter, will get you deported from the United States.

orbister: By the same token, of course, three thousand dead in New York pales into insignificance compared to the number of civilians your armed forces (and ours) killed in Iraq.

Moral equivalence with terrorists doesn't work. You're the nice guys; be the nice guys.


Riiiiight. Because US Soldiers were machine-gunning civilians in the market, and wearing bomb vests loaded with ball bearings into schools over there, right? Please stop being hyperbolic and disingenuous. You look like an idiot when you try to equate precision bombing done with regards to non-comb ant casualties, and direct operations with the same with that.

War is hell. And it is good it is so. War should be so heinous, so miserable and bloody that it remains a last resort after all options are exhausted. On the same venue, there are some people who just want to watch the world burn. "Nice guy" diplomacy will never work with them.
 
2013-01-04 06:17:33 PM

orbister: sprawl15: The fact is that the War Powers Resolution is standing legislation and you seem to be totally ignorant of it or its implications.

Your internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. You are at war with no countries; you are therefore not permitted by international law to behave as if you were.


Really? You don't think the metric a country uses to determine its state of war is relevant to determining if something is a declaration of war or not?

Fascinating.

You should let Milošević know that he couldn't have committed war crimes because he never declared war.
 
2013-01-04 06:17:46 PM

Jim_Callahan: Uranus Is Huge!: Any Fark Independents with an affirmative solution? You all clearly have a handle on what will not work. Any thoughts on what would?

Let the lot of them go. Even if they're guilty, if we're unwilling to prosecute within a month to maybe a year of an arrest (well, "a short period", but that's how it's usually interpreted), the appropriate course of action is to release them. In fact, it's a legal requirement.

Why is it a legal requirement? Because, by not giving them the rights of POWs under the Geneva convention and so on, we've declared that they're not soldiers. If they're not soldiers, they're civilian criminals, no matter how hard the government wishes on a star those are the only two legitimate categories recognized by either US or international law. If you use war powers to capture people, they're subject to international law. If not, they're subject to US law. The grey area the feds are pretending to use does not exist.


Oh, I get it. Let them go and then as soon as they get back to their mud huts... BOOM!! Rain down the Hellfires! I like it.

In all seriousness, I always like finding common ground with the posters from the dark side.
 
2013-01-04 06:18:54 PM
I've never gotten a good answer when I've asked this before: Why aren't the Nuremberg Trials a valid blueprint we could use to try these combatants, uniformed or not?
 
2013-01-04 06:19:20 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: sprawl15: Uranus Is Huge!: Any Fark Independents with an affirmative solution?

sprawl15: the choice is pretty clear that we must choose the option that is morally just - releasing the ones we won't/can't try.

I said 'Fark Independents'. 'Morally just' is clearly just coded commie talk.


I was a Fark Independent before it was cool.

/and stopped being a hipster when it became too mainstream
 
2013-01-04 06:21:06 PM
Unacceptably.
 
2013-01-04 06:21:26 PM

sprawl15: detritus: Wrong. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liber t y/2012/aug/14/why-does-ron-paul-insist-declaration-war/

Let's not make this a Ron Paul discussion. Argue the facts.

The fact is that the War Powers Resolution is standing legislation and you seem to be totally ignorant of it or its implications.


Since when did federal law trump the constitution? I think it's you who is woefully ignorant of law.
 
2013-01-04 06:21:41 PM

Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.


Reid (D) said no funding would be given to gitmo closing before the ink dried.
Obama found something out after the election, saved face with a bill, but knew it was never closing, at signing.
 
2013-01-04 06:24:07 PM

cefm: I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.


lmao

no topic brings out the Area Men Who Are Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine The Constitution To Be like this one
 
2013-01-04 06:26:40 PM
G-Bay is an abomination of American Law and Rights.

Unacceptable.

Figure it out, now, and close the fuker for its current purposes.

Do America a favor for once, The Man.

Word.
 
2013-01-04 06:26:42 PM

detritus: Since when did federal law trump the constitution?


What part of the War Powers Resolution trumps the Constitution?

Be specific.
 
2013-01-04 06:26:47 PM

orbister: Rubbish. Congress may have decided to declare war against a concept, but that bit of domestic grandstanding has no relevance to international war at all. You couldn't decided to declare war on lefthandedness and then expect the rest of the world to applaud as you killed every southpaw you could find around the world.


According to your opinion, no country in the world can wage war without the blanket approval of the rest of the world. Not only is that absurd, it's not based in any reality. The only legal language which prohibits war on an international scale is the prevention on the waging of "aggressive" war, which is questionable when applied to the Afghanistan conflict, as the national Government harbored, provided material support, and financial aid to extra-national terrorist groups.

orbister: War is declared against countries, not against political parties.


Bullshiat.

War is against a specific actor. World War II was not a war with the German people, and Mr. Fritz Herndorf at 14 Bratwurst, Munich was not the target of the action. It was the Nazi Government. Similarly, the war with Afghanistan was not with individual Afghanis, but with the Taliban Government. Once that government ceased to exist, operations were switched from one of multi-national war, to one of Marshalistic rebuilding and continuing to act against the Taliban Remnants.

orbister: Would you have been OK, by the way, if we'd send in the SAS to retrieve IRA terrorists and their supporters (Ted Kennedy, for example) from the US during the troubles in NI?


You were more than welcome to - just remember an act of war against your primary trading and financhial partner might not be a smart move. The problem with your argument is that the US never made it a government policy to harbor known fugitives and members of the IRA, made official efforts to stop funding and punish those groups which supported them, and provided material and military support to the UK Government during the troubles. So it's a comparison that is false.

I've never heard of Foreign Exceptionalism. Thanks for embodying the troupe.
 
2013-01-04 06:26:59 PM
The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?
 
2013-01-04 06:28:35 PM

detritus: Since when did federal law trump the constitution? I think it's you who is woefully ignorant of law.


When when was the War Powers Act declared unconstitutional? In reality, it actually clarified and limited the presidential war powers as written under the constitution in order to prevent another Vietnam from happening.

I think it is you who is pretending the words written in the constitution don't have hidden meanings, and that legislation is not used to clarify and reasonably limit those powers granted to a specific branch of Government to prevent that branch from being too powerful.
 
2013-01-04 06:29:24 PM

Hydra: You must not remember the stagflation of the 1970s,


no. not particularly. for one thing it didn't hit me as much as the crash of 2008 did. TARP, the auto bailout, stimulus, etc were needed due to bad actions by greedy people. i don't remember massive intervention like that. but hey i could be wrong.

Hydra: that's still an astronomical number that cannot possibly be serviced through tax increases on the rich alone.


true, and nowhere on the web will you find me saying anything like that. i think the "payroll tax holiday" was a mistake from the beginning. did we need something? sure. was that it? hell no. frankly the latest lib crap from lawernce o'donnell about how the 450k is just 250k adjusted for inflation is nonsense. getting rid of all the bush tax cuts would have been the best deficit move. this half assed thing is too little too late but since the unwashed masses can't handle the truth and there is some economic stimulus in this well fine.

my concern right now is the congress thinking that "entitlements" should be cut. SS is self funding or would be if congress quit raiding it. ok that's a stretch but chained CPI sucks when there have been years with no COLA at all already. and believe me when that happened my actual COL went up. this years pittance won't offset what going to happen with corn and the trickle down from that. there are respected studies that say that by delaying medicare you actually cost us money. i suspect you have seen them.

IMO the problem is two fold, 1) the federal government took on too much the states should be doing 2) giving it back to the states just means folks getting farked over now since the states have been "no new taxes" themselves into economic misery. living in LA i can tell you Bobby has pushed the "no new taxes" thing to a unsubstantial point. all the while pissing and moaning about how horrible the federal government is. while passing out the big checks. farking hypocrite. well there will be no more big checks and guess what, we're about to go (further) into the toilet.

and as a small present here a wiki page on political scandals. guess who had a lot of them? it wasn't ford or carter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_th e _United_States
 
2013-01-04 06:29:54 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Holocaust Agnostic: Saborlas: Because the reason Obama hasn't closed Gitmo is entirely because he doesn't want to. There's no party of sickos who jerk off at the idea of indefinite detention refusing to pass defense bills unless they're allowed to keep their Persian prisoner porn. Nope, no obstructionists here.

Obama never intended to end indefinite detention. Clodding titmouse was always a literal promise. That is, he would imprison people without tial forever but do it stateside.

How did closing gitmo become clodding titmouse? Fark you android!


This may be the funniest auto-correct I have ever heard.

/I don't get out much.
//But seriously DREW IF YOU ARE LISTENING, YOU SHOULD UPDATE THE FARK FILTER FOR "Closing Gitmo" = "Clodding Titmouse"
///Seriously...for posterity
 
2013-01-04 06:30:31 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?


Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?
 
2013-01-04 06:30:34 PM

orbister: Would you have been OK, by the way, if we'd send in the SAS to retrieve IRA terrorists and their supporters (Ted Kennedy, for example) from the US during the troubles in NI?


Me, I would have
 
2013-01-04 06:30:51 PM

sprawl15: orbister: sprawl15: The fact is that the War Powers Resolution is standing legislation and you seem to be totally ignorant of it or its implications.

Your internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. You are at war with no countries; you are therefore not permitted by international law to behave as if you were.

Really? You don't think the metric a country uses to determine its state of war is relevant to determining if something is a declaration of war or not?

Fascinating.

You should let Milošević know that he couldn't have committed war crimes because he never declared war.


Give it up, dude. You're arguing with a foreign exceptionalist. Americans are the evil imperials looking to expand their colonial empire. There's no other explanation, you see.
 
2013-01-04 06:31:03 PM

BronyMedic:
Uh, the United States has waged a declared war for the last 10 years against the Taliban and their Remnants.


You (the US) are not at liberty under international law to change the definition of "war" to suit your own domestic political needs.

Riiiiight. Because US Soldiers were machine-gunning civilians in the market, and wearing bomb vests loaded with ball bearings into schools over there, right? Please stop being hyperbolic and disingenuous. You look like an idiot when you try to equate precision bombing done with regards to non-comb ant casualties, and direct operations with the same with that.

Precision bombing sounds so nice, doesn't it? Clean. Neat. Warfare for the squeamish. How many civilians (I won't even bother asking if you believe in the concept of "innocent civilian") do you think your armed services killed in Iraq?

War is hell. And it is good it is so.

But you like the idea of "precision bombing" and remote controlled drone strikes?
 
2013-01-04 06:31:15 PM

hubiestubert: We can't bring many of these folks to trial. Or rather, if we do, they will walk thanks to lack of access to representation and violation of human rights. We can't send them home, where they will become martyrs to a cause. The issue is that they remain in a legal Limbo, because no one put a lot of thought into chain of custody or chain of evidence in their capture. We passed some laws to keep them there, but not enough to put them through our judicial system, and since there is no state of war, they can't even be tried by a military tribunal.

THIS was my problem from the get go. THIS. Had we made this into a law enforcement matter, we could have captured, tried, and convicted a good number of folks. There are Supermax facilities where we have terrorists locked up today, and without any contact with their peeps. They have been removed from the field, and were convicted in a real trial. Now, we have folks who are frightened by the thought of even bringing them to trial, because folks realize that these folks will walk. Free and clear if we even tried.

Folks can call it a failure all they want, but there really is no choice in this matter. We cannot release them--not with the current climate overseas. Not with several actors who will pounce upon them, not in nations that will simply release them and turn them into symbols and who will fete them as heroes for being captured. We can't try them here. Cannot. They go into a court, they will walk, and the result is even worse than simply letting them go home or releasing them to their state of origin.

Is it a travesty?  Yup. It was a travesty when they were captured without any thought to any form of chain of evidence or custody in the first place. It was a travesty when we turned their capture into a military matter, without any thought for trial or what to do afterwards. It is a problem that the previous Administration handed this one, and at this point, the GOP is making it impossible to even think about trying to fix ...


Yes. They are completely blameless.
 
2013-01-04 06:33:41 PM

thisisarepeat: cefm: I wouldn't feel one little bit in danger if every prisoner in Gitmo was kicked out the front door with a ticket to their country of origin tomorrow.

I feel like the entire country's legal political and moral fabric is in severe danger every day that Gitmo remains full of illegally held prisoners.

Gitmo, is why you think our justice system is farked?!


Yes.

Everybody else gets a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers with guaranteed legal representation yatta yatta.

Gitmo is full of people who will stay locked in a hole, with no trial, until they die of natural causes apparently.
 
2013-01-04 06:33:48 PM

Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?

Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?


Message for the GOP:

Wake up. Pay your fair share. Good business is made by being good, not obstructionarily intransigent. Misuse the filibuster at your peril. If you are to intransigently obstruct, you must speak. And that's that. Infinitives split. *)
 
2013-01-04 06:33:54 PM

mark12A: Just shoot them and be done with it. They were not official soldiers of any state army, thus they can be treated as spies under the Geneva convention, which entitles us to execute them as spies.


The problem is, you can't Enhanced-Interrogate them if they're dead.
 
2013-01-04 06:36:30 PM

Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?

Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?


Ideally or realistically?

Ideally, I'd like a neutral party to judge them as criminals or not. If they're not criminals they should get tickets home and the same sort of compensation package that US convicts get when they're exonerated by DNA evidence.

Realistically? Turn them loose as far from our shores as possible.
 
2013-01-04 06:37:44 PM

sprawl15: Really? You don't think the metric a country uses to determine its state of war is relevant to determining if something is a declaration of war or not?


Um, yes, when it comes to international law. And if you really are at war against "terrorism", what are you going to do about IRA terrorists sheltering in the US?


You should let Milošević know that he couldn't have committed war crimes because he never declared war.


Civil wars are a different matter. In any case. most of the charges at his trial were of crimes against humanity. Here's the full list

genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects

I've helpfully emboldened all the ones your armed services have done.
 
2013-01-04 06:37:59 PM

orbister: You (the US) are not at liberty under international law to change the definition of "war" to suit your own domestic political needs.


And you don't have the power to enforce your opinion (which is actually incorrect according to the Geneva and Hague conventions) on the United States. See, that's the thing about "international law" when it comes to international actors in a war. You can cry all you want, but you have to have the military and world political power behind you to prove that claim.

orbister: Precision bombing sounds so nice, doesn't it? Clean. Neat. Warfare for the squeamish. How many civilians (I won't even bother asking if you believe in the concept of "innocent civilian") do you think your armed services killed in Iraq?


Various numbers. Again, war is hell. The problem is that many of the count sites out there, like Iraq Body Count, consider ANY violent death reported in Iraq to be a combat-related civilian casualty.

orbister: But you like the idea of "precision bombing" and remote controlled drone strikes?


Sure I do. It's less costly, in terms of lives and funds, than carpet bombing with incenderaries and high ex bombs.
 
2013-01-04 06:38:21 PM

orbister: BronyMedic:
Uh, the United States has waged a declared war for the last 10 years against the Taliban and their Remnants.

You (the US) are not at liberty under international law to change the definition of "war" to suit your own domestic political needs.

Riiiiight. Because US Soldiers were machine-gunning civilians in the market, and wearing bomb vests loaded with ball bearings into schools over there, right? Please stop being hyperbolic and disingenuous. You look like an idiot when you try to equate precision bombing done with regards to non-comb ant casualties, and direct operations with the same with that.

Precision bombing sounds so nice, doesn't it? Clean. Neat. Warfare for the squeamish. How many civilians (I won't even bother asking if you believe in the concept of "innocent civilian") do you think your armed services killed in Iraq?

War is hell. And it is good it is so.

But you like the idea of "precision bombing" and remote controlled drone strikes?


Well, it's better than "carpet bombing" and having lots of expensive planes and irreplaceable pilots shot down IF we have to have wars. Are you honestly saying anyone "likes" the idea of war at all?

The best war would be the one that never happened; but since that's clearly never going to happen, the better war is one which kills the minimum number in the shortest time at the least expense. Now, you can do that via precision bombing and drone strikes; or you can use mass artillery and carpet bombing. I'm not sure why you seem to feel the latter is somehow preferable to the former although your language and attitude certainly conveys that impression. It would be ideal if no civilians died in any war, but that's never happened either. You say "your armed services" like nobody has any military but the US...does it only count if soldiers come from the other side or what?

What point ARE you trying to make?
 
2013-01-04 06:38:53 PM

RobertBruce: Why aren't the Nuremberg Trials a valid blueprint we could use to try these combatants, uniformed or not?


It was answered upthread. They might be found innocent.
 
2013-01-04 06:38:53 PM

orbister: do you think your armed services killed in Iraq?


Also, the Iraq war, which by every definition WOULD meet your claim of an illegal, aggressive war on the international scale, is a false comparison with the Afghanistan War.
 
2013-01-04 06:40:31 PM

orbister: Civil wars are a different matter.


Yugoslavia's internal procedures, though doubtless interesting and important, do not constitute a declaration of war in international law. Yugoslavia was at war with no countries; and therefore is not beholden by international law to behave as if they were.

orbister: And if you really are at war against "terrorism", what are you going to do about IRA terrorists sheltering in the US?


Try to be a bit less obvious about never having read the 9/11 AUMF.
 
2013-01-04 06:42:36 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Indubitably: Uranus Is Huge!: The GOP would love it if Obama turned them loose. Can you imagine all the "He freed his fellow Muslim terrorists. They're coming to get us!" derp that would result?

Fuk what the GOP wants, for they are so far gone we needn't really listen anymore to what  they want. What do  you want?

Ideally or realistically?

Ideally, I'd like a neutral party to judge them as criminals or not. If they're not criminals they should get tickets home and the same sort of compensation package that US convicts get when they're exonerated by DNA evidence.

Realistically? Turn them loose as far from our shores as possible.


I can accept both of your propositions accordingly: A) Ideally, please; B) Realistically, if necessary and sufficient, thank you. *)
 
2013-01-04 06:42:51 PM

orbister: And if you really are at war against "terrorism", what are you going to do about IRA terrorists sheltering in the US?


False comparison. The United States government never made it a policy of allowing the IRA to operate on it's soil to train,  actively prosecuted those people who were found to be supporters of them and seized assets intended for their support, and did not shelter fugitives from justice from the UK and Northern Ireland while providing financial and material support to the IRA.
 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report