J. Man Spice for President

[rdh007]

What battlefield? Iraq? Afghanistan? Also, I'm a little confused here because the article I read talks about American soil. Wouldn't Guantanamo count? Methinks it would if Iran attacked it.

 

[The Senator]

I support this decision. After watching "The Road to Guantanamo," and learning about the many innocent Iraqis and Afghanis who were imprisoned indefinitely, I wholeheartedly believe that every detainee should have the right to a fair trial and the best legal assistance possible.

 

[Marx]

The Supreme Court acted outrageously. They counter-acted precedence already set by the Supreme Court, but granted American Rights to Enemy Combatants found on the battlefield being held out of American soil. The constitution does not protect their rights and thus the court acted outside its means.

But didn't the Bush Administration act "outragiously" first by opening up Guantanamo and labelling them as "unlawful enemy combatants?" You cannot hold someone without charge or trial, without legal representation, for an unknown amount of time. It violates basic human rights and the Geneva Conventions. (Although, the Bush Administation sidestepped that by labelling them as "enemy combatants" instead of prisoners of war.) Should the US Constitution have been opened up for these detainees? I'm not sure. But Guantanamo is a massive violation of human rights...something needed to be done.

 

[StorminNorman]

But didn't the Bush Administration act "outragiously" first by opening up Guantanamo and labelling them as "unlawful enemy combatants?" You cannot hold someone without charge or trial, without legal representation, for an unknown amount of time. It violates basic human rights and the Geneva Conventions. (Although, the Bush Administation sidestepped that by labelling them as "enemy combatants" instead of prisoners of war.) Should the US Constitution have been opened up for these detainees? I'm not sure. But Guantanamo is a massive violation of human rights...something needed to be done.

You can hold POW's and Enemies Combatants without charge or trial. We are giving terrorist the rights we never gave enemy soldiers in any other war. These are not American citizens and are not on American soil and thus not subject to the same rights in the justice system American citizens are.

This is a very very very damning decision for our soldiers who will now have to play policeman. Gathering evidence will be as important as saving innocent lives, or taking down the enemy. Better dead than alive will have to be the new philosophy in regards to the treatment of suspected terrorists found on the battlefield.

 

[BlackLantern]

You can hold POW's and Enemies Combatants without charge or trial. We are giving terrorist the rights we never gave enemy soldiers in any other war. These are not American citizens and are not on American soil and thus not subject to the same rights in the justice system American citizens are.

This is a very very very damning decision for our soldiers who will now have to play policeman. Gathering evidence will be as important as saving innocent lives, or taking down the enemy. Better dead than alive will have to be the new philosophy in regards to the treatment of suspected terrorists found on the battlefield.

I agree

 

[The Senator]

We are also holding people who never, ever had any connection to terrorism whatsoever indefinitely. They are already considered terrorists in the eyes of the United States government, they will be tried and charged as such without any investigation or the chance to defend themselves.

Our government is willing to imprison, charge, and possibly execute innocent people. Because we screwed up and started rounding up people without any investigation at all, we deserve to pay the price. And the price we have to pay-- allowing suspected terrorists access to American defense-- is insignificant as far as I'm concerned.

 

[StorminNorman]

We are also holding people who never, ever had any connection to terrorism whatsoever indefinitely. They are already considered terrorists in the eyes of the United States government, they will be tried and charged as such without any investigation or the chance to defend themselves.

Our government is willing to imprison, charge, and possibly execute innocent people. Because we screwed up and started rounding up people without any investigation at all, we deserve to pay the price. And the price we have to pay-- allowing suspected terrorists access to American defense-- is insignificant as far as I'm concerned.

But there is no way to separate the two on the battlefield. Everyone we captured, our military believed them to be working with the enemy. We have to put faith in the judgment of our soldiers.

While there should be an overview system to allow innocent people the ability to appeal - it should go through military courts, not US Civil Courts.

Again - now our military will have to play police and search for evidence on top of their already daunting duties.

 

[The Senator]

But there is no way to separate the two on the battlefield. Everyone we captured, our military believed them to be working with the enemy. We have to put faith in the judgment of our soldiers.

While there should be an overview system to allow innocent people the ability to appeal - it should go through military courts, not US Civil Courts.

Again - now our military will have to play police and search for evidence on top of their already daunting duties.

The soldiers have my utmost faith.

However, they, like you or I, make mistakes.

And I think that any mistake which causes someone to suffer time in prison for a crime they didn't commit is one we should not make. It is a mistake which must be avoided at all costs. Which is why I support this verdict. Our image and our integrity depends on it.

 

[StorminNorman]

The soldiers have my utmost faith.

However, they, like you or I, make mistakes.

And I think that any mistake which causes someone to suffer time in prison for a crime they didn't commit is one we should not make. It is a mistake which must be avoided at all costs. Which is why I support this verdict. Our image and our integrity depends on it.

I would prefer to see an innocent man be unfairly held at Gitmo for a few years than see a dangerous man let free and kill four or five or fifty others.

Again, however, I am not against these men and women having the ability to appeal their capture - it should be done through a military court and now civilian.

 

[The Senator]

I would prefer to see an innocent man be unfairly held at Gitmo for a few years than see a dangerous man let free and kill four or five or fifty others.

Again, however, I am not against these men and women having the ability to appeal their capture - it should be done through a military court and now civilian.

So, basically, you don't really care if anyone is wrongfully imprisoned?

 

[Excel]

You need balance. Fix the system and the guilty will be caught and the innocent left alone. That what I will do as President

 

[The Senator]

You need balance. Fix the system and the guilty will be caught and the innocent left alone. That what I will do as President

How?

 

[Excel]

To be realistic, there is not nearly enough time to have EVERYBODY get a swift trial that we find. What has been happening is people do something suspicous and they get thrown in Gitmo or whatever for a few years to rot.

What I would do is, upon arrest/capture/whatever, their case is immeadielty reviewed-as in right when they get there- and, if deemed a threat to society, they are held. If they have a reasonable explanation, which I am sure many if not all of these innocent people would have because...they are innocent...they are free to go, but would kept on a 6 week daily surveilance and have a file on record in the government.

Being deemed a threat to society will have to be harder to accomplish than it is right now. To be held rather than released under surveilance, you would have essentially have to be caught red handed.

 

[Marx]

The soldiers have my utmost faith.

However, they, like you or I, make mistakes.

And I think that any mistake which causes someone to suffer time in prison for a crime they didn't commit is one we should not make. It is a mistake which must be avoided at all costs. Which is why I support this verdict. Our image and our integrity depends on it.

I agree. That being said, I am still undecided on whether our constitution should have been opened up in this way.

 

[Excel]

I woudlnt say ALL costs. We need to work very hard to make sure innocent people are not punished but, however, in todauys world, we must ALWAYS act on the side of caution. Im being vague as that statement was, but I hope you know what i mean. If we start detaining far less people for the sake of makign sure no innocent are harmed, we will surely miss some of those who are not so innocent, and they are the ones who could do real damage.

 

[The Senator]

I woudlnt say ALL costs. We need to work very hard to make sure innocent people are not punished but, however, in todauys world, we must ALWAYS act on the side of caution. Im being vague as that statement was, but I hope you know what i mean. If we start detaining far less people for the sake of makign sure no innocent are harmed, we will surely miss some of those who are not so innocent, and they are the ones who could do real damage.

I don't believe we should let people go aimlessly out the doors of Guantanamo.

I do, however, believe that everyone should be investigated and tried. Only when a court of law determines that these people are innocent, should they be let go.

 

[StorminNorman]

So, basically, you don't really care if anyone is wrongfully imprisoned?

No - I do care. I just see this letting far more guilty, dangerous men free than innocent men.

Again - unless you have our soldiers collecting evidence, testifying, etc. for ever terrorist suspect captured in Iraq or Afghanistan - you aren't going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt these guys were guilty. Not because they aren't guilty - but simply that it is hard to prove in a court of law.

This is going to leave to a decrease in captures and an increase in casualties.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Bump.

 

[The Senator]

My foreign policy outline will be up tonight.

Governmental reform will be up tomorrow.

 

[The Senator]

A quick rundown of my foreign policy goals:

1. Re-Establish the Reputation of the United States Abroad

As President, I will do my best to meet with many nations abroad to re-establish working relationships with many of our firm and not so firm allies. We must try to establish strong relationships with countries like France, while strengthening our relationships with powers such as Great Britain and Australia.

I plan to meet with a multitude of nations to discuss how we can approach certain foreign crises-- such as the war in Iraq and the genocide in Darfur-- together, not separately. We will seek advice from all nations, and we will end the "You're either with us, or against us" mentality which drove the Bush Doctrine.

2. Meet With Our Enemies

In addition to meeting with our allies, we must also meet with some of our enemies. However, let me advise that we cannot, and must not, meet with our so-called "enemies" without setting preconditions.

We must return to the "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick" foreign policy model-- not the "Carry a Big Stick and Beat Everyone Over the Head Until They're Unconscious" model we've been following as of late. This means that we must always be willing to talk with leaders from all nations-- but the threat of military force cannot be off the table.

As President, I will personally meet with leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. But I will not meet with them over tea and scones, where we will chat about life and the like. Our discussions will be strictly business, with the demands of the United States clearly laid out on the table.

3. I Will Never Operate Under Absolutes

This is probably the most important aspect of my foreign policy. There will be no "absolutes" under my administration. This means that no country will be viewed as a member of an "Axis of Evil." No country will be labeled an appeaser of terrorism. No country will be treated disrespectfully.

Unless a government explicitly sponsors terrorism, the United States will refrain from labeling other countries as sponsors or associates of terror. Only under extreme circumstances will countries be considered as such.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

POLICIES

Here is a rundown of certain foreign policy issues I hope to tackle as President.

1. End the War in Iraq

On my first day in office, I will meet with the nation's top military leaders to formulate a responsible withdrawal from Iraq. My goal is to reduce military forces by half within my first year in office, with the full removal of troops from Iraq set to take place by 2011.

I believe that the United States should train Iraqi police and military officers to gain control over the situation in Iraq. The United States will be willing to supply weapons and training to Iraqi forces. However, we will not be willing to remain in Iraq for another hundred years, while more of our soldiers die in a war which never should have been waged in the first place.

2. Solve the Iranian Nuclear Crisis

As previously mentioned, I hope to meet with Iranian leaders to discuss the nuclear crisis evolving in Iran. The United States must not let Iran get control of a nuclear weapon.

I will not be opposed to military force, if required, to eliminate the potential nuclear threat posed by Iran. However, I believe it is essential that we talk to Iran, and work out a responsible, two-nation strategy to ensure that Iran does not begin manufacturing nuclear weapons.

3. Israel/ Palestine

I believe the United States should continue to support Israel. However, I also support the creation of a Palestinian state. As President, I will meet with numerous Middle Eastern leaders (from countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others) to formulate a plan to create a Palestinian state.

4. Nuclear Weapons

The United States should work to reduce its nuclear weapons by 50%. Under my administration, we will begin dismantling our nuclear weapons while encouraging other nations to do the same.




I apologize for running through these rather fast. If you have any questions, ask me, and I will elaborate my points further.

 

[The Senator]

New Ad:

 

[The Senator]

a second new ad:

 

[Excel]

a second new ad:

I love it

 

[The Senator]

New ad to bump up the thread:

 

[Matt]

New ad to bump up the thread:

....

Spoiler

Not to mention Excel does not get the plight of the blue collar voter!