By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Afghanistan Taliban leader at Gitmo!

steven787 on 11 March 2009

Requiring that a person is guilty before being punished is liberalism, you are correct.

Thank you for clearly stating that your view point means proof is irrelevant.

It is worse to fear one person than to fear bad ideas.

You're treating this like a Killzone v. Halo argument. Just because one is good or bad doesn't mean the other is the opposite.

They are bad. What the Bush administration was doing is also bad.

There's also something called relativism, just because both are bad doesn't mean they are equally bad.

I personally strive for good. I'd like my country to do the same - as opposed to striving for less bad.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Around the Network
Tyrannical on 11 March 2009
steven787 said:
Requiring that a person is guilty before being punished is liberalism, you are correct.

Thank you for clearly stating that your view point means proof is irrelevant.

It is worse to fear one person than to fear bad ideas.

You're treating this like a Killzone v. Halo argument. Just because one is good or bad doesn't mean the other is the opposite.

They are bad. What the Bush administration was doing is also bad.

There's also something called relativism, just because both are bad doesn't mean they are equally bad.

I personally strive for good. I'd like my country to do the same - as opposed to striving for less bad.

 

 

Everyone of them was caught red handed.

Many of them were illegally in Afghanistan, armed, and caught with other insurgents.

That's Prima Facie evidence and that is all that is required.

Armed with a gun and sitting in the car of an alleged Taliban leader, Rasoul insisted to American authorities he was forced to carry the gun by the Taliban.

I suppose he could have just been picked up as a hitchhiker when he was captured. He did say he was only holding onto the bomb components because the other guy didn't have pockets. It was just a coincidence he was traveling with other armed terrorists. And if someone made me carry a gun at, ummmm, gun point I guess I'd do that too.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

steven787 on 11 March 2009

Your assuming one HAS to go with the other.

If that story were true than he should have either been held in Afghanistan and tried there, tried at an international court (which the US doesn't participate in), or tried here for being a civilian who attacked US forces.

If the Taliban is a government and he's a member of there army and is held as an enemy combatant then he would have to be released to Afghani authorities or hold a war crimes tribunal.

Enough evidence to convince you apparently wasn't enough to convince the Justice Department of either the Bush or Obama administration, because those solutions above have been used in the past (except ICJ)... Bush needed to keep them off American soil because there wasn't enough evidence. There were plenty of options no matter which political take you have on the status of detainees, enemy combatants, Combative NGOs, and Regime Remnants, IF there was significant evidence.

Bush screwed himself and the American people by trying to create a new legal category where Americans could detain enemy combatants indefinitely because he was an anti-internationalist (maybe even super nationalist).

There's already laws (domestically and internationally) that can deal with this type of thing. If anyone guilty is going free, they are going free because Bush chose to work outside of the law.

Granted, my argument depends on the assumption that the Bush Administration wanted to find a solution...



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

akuma587 on 11 March 2009

Oye, some people aren't even worth arguing with.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson