Discussion: The Supreme Court

[Truthteller]

And Bush supporters are falling all over themselves to make this seem like it's not a direct loss for W.

HA! Not bad.

But it only serves to confuse the true nature of the debate.

Try this then; So would you say that GW Bush is wrong to process via military tribunals the enemy combatents in Getmo? How would you go about it then?

 

[War Lord]

HA! Not bad.

But it only serves to confuse the true nature of the debate.

Try this then; So would you say that GW Bush is wrong to process via military tribunals the enemy combatents in Getmo? How would you go about it then?

He wants criminal trials.

 

[Truthteller]

Ahhh so the legislative can make amendments to lets say "the right to live"?
Therefore all is left to the wim of the people, hmmm cool just hope that legislators never decide to enact laws to gas jews for example after all when it has enough support from the people and the elected officials it's right and lawfull isn't it?

Exactly!

That is the way our government is constructed. Of course your extreme example will never happen because there would not be enough public support for it. But it serves to illustrate the point.

 

[The Overlord]

Genova convention?

The one that protects mutants?

Really now, picking up on typos instead of making a real agruement, your not much of a debater. You know I meant the Geneva convention. Now can you provide a straight answer or will you rely solely on smoke and mirrors?

 

[War Lord]

Really now, picking up on typos instead of making a real agruement, your not much of a debater. You know I meant the Geneva convention. Now can you provide a straight answer or will you rely solely on smoke and mirrors?

If the Geneva convention is hampering the war on terror, then it may very well be necessary to pull out of it.

 

[Truthteller]

He wants criminal trials.

That won't happen for the vast majority, nor should it. So it is best to just get over it.

I suspect that there might be a few that get them. Those that are special circumstances. Some number of the detainees will be returned to their home countries, as some have already been.

The others will likely see military tribunals. This after the congress sanctions them.

 

[Emrys]

Exactly!

That is the way our government is constructed. Of course your extreme example will never happen because there would not be enough public support for it. But it serves to illustrate the point.

Man am I glad that our system doesn't allow for such arbitrary decision making. There are basic laws and freedoms that can never be changed without a direct 3/4 majority in democratic voting, not representative voting,

 

[Truthteller]

The USA adheres to the Geneva Convention! In the case of Getmo, it does not apply - but the detainees there are still treated better than what is proscribed by the Geneva Convention!

This notion that the USA is somehow not treating detainees properly or humanly is not only untrue, but it is a giant red herring!

 

[Emrys]

If the Geneva convention is hampering the war on terror, then it may very well be necessary to pull out of it.

So why not abolish every law that hinders the government to do what it wants?

 

[sinewave]

HA! Not bad.

But it only serves to confuse the true nature of the debate.

Try this then; So would you say that GW Bush is wrong to process via military tribunals the enemy combatents in Getmo? How would you go about it then?

I think, and apparently the Supreme Court does as well, that it's wrong to hold prisoners at Gitmo indefinitely, without charging them. Like bored said, since they're not military combatants, charge them as criminals and let the US judicial system determine their fate.

 

[Truthteller]

Man am I glad that our system doesn't allow for such arbitrary decision making. There are basic laws and freedoms that can never be changed without a direct 3/4 majority in democratic voting, not representative voting,

3/4 of the states must pass any constitutional amendment. Is that what you are referring to? That is correct.

But note that it is not 3/4 of the national popular vote, but rather 3/4s of the total 50 states - in the state legislature - this is the Ratification process.

 

[War Lord]

So why not abolish every law that hinders the government to do what it wants?

Depending how it goes, it could eventually come to that. You can't ever say, in times of war, how far it is you'll go to achiece an objective and no further, because then you're basically telling the enemy how far he has to go to defeat you.

 

[Emrys]

3/4 of the states must pass any constitutional amendment. Is that what you are referring to? That is correct.

But note that it is not 3/4 of the national popular vote, but rather 3/4s of the total 50 states - in the state legislature - this is the Ratification process.

Nope I'm not an US citizen, I mean how things work in my country, we can only change our constitution if a 3/4 majority of all citizens go for it.

 

[bored]

HA! Not bad.

But it only serves to confuse the true nature of the debate.

Try this then; So would you say that GW Bush is wrong to process via military tribunals the enemy combatents in Getmo? How would you go about it then?

As long as the detainees are treated as 'enemy combatants' (which is really just a way to find a loophole in the Geneva Conventions), and not military, they shouldn't be tried in a military court.

 

[Emrys]

Depending how it goes, it could eventually come to that. You can't ever say, in times of war, how far it is you'll go to achiece an objective and no further, because then you're basically telling the enemy how far he has to go to defeat you.

And you think the people would let that happen, you think they would let the government get away with taking their freedom?

 

[bored]

Depending how it goes, it could eventually come to that. You can't ever say, in times of war, how far it is you'll go to achiece an objective and no further, because then you're basically telling the enemy how far he has to go to defeat you.

If you've gotten to the point where you actually consider abolishing every law, you've already been defeated.

 

[War Lord]

As long as the detainees are treated as 'enemy combatants' (which is really just a way to find a loophole in the Geneva Conventions), and not military, they shouldn't be tried in a military court.

When should they be tried in a military court?

 

[War Lord]

And you think the people would let that happen, you think they would let the government get away with taking their freedom?

If it meant their survival, they'd choose to do that.

 

[War Lord]

If you've gotten to the point where you actually consider abolishing every law, you've already been defeated.

No, it is possible to win if you're prepared to win at all costs. If you allow yourself to be hampered, you could be defeated and then you've lost everything.

 

[bored]

When should they be tried in a military court?

When they're treated like military prisoners (P.O.W.s) and not 'enemy combatants' that don't have to be given the same treatment as P.O.W.s under the Geneva Conventions, since they're not classified as soldiers.

 

[bored]

No, it is possible to win if you're prepared to win at all costs. If you allow yourself to be hampered, you could be defeated and then you've lost everything.

That there are people alive with that world-view keeps me awake at night.

 

[Emrys]

If it meant their survival, they'd choose to do that.

Funny I thought you were the guy who told me that it's better to be dead then a slave. How is being alive and be a slave to your own government better?

 

[War Lord]

That there are people alive with that world-view keeps me awake at night.

Yes. They're called terrorists.

 

[Emrys]

No, it is possible to win if you're prepared to win at all costs. If you allow yourself to be hampered, you could be defeated and then you've lost everything.

If we destroy what makes our civilization what it is how is that winning?

 

[War Lord]

Funny I thought you were the guy who told me that it's better to be dead then a slave. How is being alive and be a slave to your own government better?

Rights and freedoms can always be restored if you have the power to do that, but if you've lost against an enemy because there was a limit that you were willing to do to win a war, than you have no ability to restore what is taken from you.