Author Topic: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts  (Read 24761 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #90 on: June 19, 2008, 08:23:57 PM »
It should be mentioned, however, that one terror campaign aims at the domination of one region by invaders who don't live anywhere near there and the other terror campaign aims at getting the aggressors out of its homeland and back where they belong.


Yes indeed.
 Al Queda was entirely stupid to attack us on our own territory , no enemy has had that poor a judgement since imperial Japan.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #91 on: June 19, 2008, 10:13:01 PM »
<<Al Queda was entirely stupid to attack us on our own territory , no enemy has had that poor a judgement since imperial Japan.>>

We'll see.  So far the plan worked up to the point of getting America to invade Muslim lands and kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, but it seems stalled at the point of provoking the overthrow of major American puppet regimes in the region.  The major inadvertent effect seems to be the rise of Iran as a regional player and the Hezbollah move towards power in Lebanon.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.  On the surface the U.S. grip on Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan seems as secure as ever.  Maybe they've sparked something under the surface that we don't yet know about - - or maybe, as seems apparent now, the policy really was a dud as far as overthrowing the puppets was concerned.  In any event, I regard the policy on the whole to be a brilliant success, a minimal investment by a bunch of nonentities draining three trillion from the U.S. economy to date and still counting, plus the hundreds of billions more for "Homeland Security," plus stretching military resources to the breaking point, plus exposing the worst side of America to the entire world, costing probably up to a trillion more in goodwill.  All from 19 jihadis with box-cutters.  Probably the most successful single strike by Third-Worlders against the Empire in the entire history of colonialism.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #92 on: June 19, 2008, 10:33:10 PM »
<<It's why we're in a war with militant Islam, but if you want to refer them as being on a terror campaign, no skin off my back>>

Uhh, it wasn't militant Islam that I was referring to as being on a terror campaign, it was the Bush administration.
 

Oh I knew that.  Tee Template...Bush bad, Bush evil.  Anything Bush is trying to do, bad....anything he opposes, you need to support.  I mean, it's quite the level of BDS.  I mean, largely the Iraqis are thankful Saddam is no longer in power.  Largely the Iraqis are grateful that we took him out.  Largely they support our efforts of bringing democracy to their country, where it didn't exist during Saddam.  Iraqi "elections" were a complete sham.  Saddam was a dictator, his government sponsored and carried out brutal mass murders, including the use of WMD. 

The folks who are largely fighting us AND the Iraqis are insurgents & terrorists that either wish to bring back the status quo (Saddam/Suuni-like dictatorship) and/or trying to turn Iraq into a new thug/terrorist-run regime, probably with Iran as its proxy. 

In either case, THOSE are your so called "freedom fighters" trying to run the evil America off its lands.  THOSE are the folks you're embracing and praying they get their act back together

Problem is they're losing.  And oh boy, this couldn't happen at a more worse time, for Obama & the Democrats....Iraqi actually growing more stable, reaching nearly all its benchmarks, Taking the lead in nearly all its internal military actions, while reconciliating across the country.  Doesn't mean Iraq is ready for world-wide tourism, still a dangerous place, but getting less dangerous as time goes on. 

If I come across them, I'll highlight this supposed world wide alienation the U.S. has caused 

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #93 on: June 19, 2008, 11:57:03 PM »
<<I mean, largely the Iraqis are thankful Saddam is no longer in power.  Largely the Iraqis are grateful that we took him out. >>

I don't know where you get this BS from, sirs, but it's obviously at odds with the real world.  Whatever they thought of Saddam, are they "largely" thankful for the chaos, the hundreds of thousands of violent deaths, the bombings, the shoot-outs, the ethnic cleansing, the lack of electricity and gasoline?  Are they "largely" grateful for the 26,000 Iraqis arbitrarily arrested, tortured and kept incommunicado? 

<< Largely they support our efforts of bringing democracy to their country, where it didn't exist during Saddam.>>

Oh, and you know this because . . . ?  It doesn't look to me like they "largely" support anything you do, propaganda photos of GIs hugging babies notwithstanding, which is why none of you can venture out of  the Green Zone except in large armoured convoys.

<<  Iraqi "elections" were a complete sham. >>

Like they really gave a shit.

<< Saddam was a dictator . . .>>

NO!!  In the Middle East??  A DICTATOR??  Oh God, whoever could have imagined??   I guess all those years the U.S. government supported him, they must have thought he was bringing democracy to his people.  IMAGINE the surprise and the horror your government must have felt when they realized the man they had supported all those years was really a DICTATOR.  Oh, the SHAME of it all!!

<< . . . his government sponsored and carried out brutal mass murders . . . >>

Yes, he suppressed rebellions against his rule with the use of force.  Shocking.  See when the Iraqis rebel against the rule of foreign invaders, the U.S. would never THINK of using force to put them down.  NOBODY ever got killed resisting U.S. rule in Iraq, but try resisting Saddam Hussein??  UNIMAGINABLE violence, baby.  The WORST!!!

<< . . . including the use of WMD. >>  Yeah, the use of WMD.  The raw materials for which he got from, uh, from . . .  awww, nevermind, what's it matter where he got them from anyway?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #94 on: June 20, 2008, 03:06:21 AM »
<<I mean, largely the Iraqis are thankful Saddam is no longer in power.  Largely the Iraqis are grateful that we took him out. >>

I don't know where you get this BS from, sirs, but it's obviously at odds with the real world.

Yea, because in the real world people move into dictatorships.  It's what they long to raise their children in.  Gads, do you ever read what you write sometimes?


<< Largely they support our efforts of bringing democracy to their country, where it didn't exist during Saddam.>>

Oh, and you know this because . . . ? 

More of that Tee-leaf reality on display where a Dictatorship isn't really a dictatorship.  Hell they elected Saddam with 100% of the vote.  Democracy on grand display. 

oy


<<  Iraqi "elections" (that elected Saddam) were a complete sham. >>

Like they really gave a shit.  

Yea......right        ::)


<< Saddam was a dictator . . .>>

NO!!  In the Middle East??  A DICTATOR??  Oh God, whoever could have imagined??   

Hey, we're making progress.  I think Tee's actually going to concede that Iraq was a dictatorship under Saddam, and not some flower of democracy


<< . . . his government sponsored and carried out brutal mass murders . . . >>

Yes, he suppressed rebellions against his rule with the use of force.  Shocking. 

LOL....now Tee is supportive of the Dictator.  Has to do what he has to do to stay in power, right.  Perfectly justifed in his actions.  I mean, Castro had to do it, why not Saddam


<< . . . including the use of WMD. >> 

Yeah, the use of WMD. 

Yes, their USE.  Good, still more progress
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #95 on: June 20, 2008, 05:16:35 AM »
<< Saddam was a dictator . . .>>

NO!!  In the Middle East??  A DICTATOR??  Oh God, whoever could have imagined??   I guess all those years the U.S. government supported him, they must have thought he was bringing democracy to his people.  IMAGINE the surprise and the horror your government must have felt when they realized the man they had supported all those years was really a DICTATOR.  Oh, the SHAME of it all!!




The root cause of terrorism .

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #96 on: June 20, 2008, 05:18:32 AM »
<<Al Queda was entirely stupid to attack us on our own territory , no enemy has had that poor a judgement since imperial Japan.>>

We'll see.  So far the plan worked up to the point of getting America to invade Muslim lands and kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, but it seems stalled at the point of provoking the overthrow of major American puppet regimes in the region. 

If this is a success I would hate to see your idea of a failure

Quote

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #97 on: June 20, 2008, 06:03:39 AM »
<< Saddam was a dictator . . .>>

NO!!  In the Middle East??  A DICTATOR??  Oh God, whoever could have imagined??   I guess all those years the U.S. government supported him, they must have thought he was bringing democracy to his people.  IMAGINE the surprise and the horror your government must have felt when they realized the man they had supported all those years was really a DICTATOR.  Oh, the SHAME of it all!!




The root cause of terrorism .
===================================
Saddam was hardly the root cause of terrorism in the Middle East.

There isn't one country that has not been a victim or a perpetrator of terrorism there in the last 20 years or so.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #98 on: June 20, 2008, 11:35:24 AM »
MT:  <<So far the plan worked up to the point of getting America to invade Muslim lands and kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, but it seems stalled at the point of provoking the overthrow of major American puppet regimes in the region. >>

plane: 
<<If this is a success I would hate to see your idea of a failure>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I didn't call it a success.  As you can see by simply re-reading the sentence, the plan has had an element of success and an element of failure.

I regard the killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims by Americans a success for al Qaeda if it results in the overthrow of the American puppet regimes and the destruction of American power in the region, and a failure if it does not.

I regard the fact that America was forced to blow three trillion bucks in Iraq plus the cost of the Homeland Security Program as an umitigated and unparalleled success for al Qaeda.  If you think that blowing three trill on a totally pointless and profitless enterprise is some kind of success for America, I'd hate to see YOUR idea of a failure.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #99 on: June 20, 2008, 12:05:15 PM »
I regard the fact that America was forced to blow three trillion bucks in Iraq plus the cost of the Homeland Security Program as an umitigated and unparalleled success for al Qaeda.  If you think that blowing three trill on a totally pointless and profitless enterprise is some kind of success for America, I'd hate to see YOUR idea of a failure.

That money includes estimated future spending for the next 60 years. The total actually spent to this point is far less.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #100 on: June 20, 2008, 12:56:10 PM »
Yeah, I know, they passed the buck of future military health-care onto the backs of the next generation.  That'll make it go away.  It's already done wonders for your currency in the present.  (As a frequent visitor, I can't say that I'm all that distressed about it.)

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #101 on: June 20, 2008, 02:33:02 PM »






"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #102 on: June 20, 2008, 03:41:46 PM »
This cartoon is just plane silly.

All the 9-11 hijackers were on a suicide mission. If they were not identified and captured before the attack, it is clear that after it, they could not be locked up, nor tortured, as they were all blown into hundreds of teensy pieces.

A suicide bomber will never be deterred by the threat of being locked up or tortured. They will not need habeas corpus after the act.

The alleged terrorists can be tried based on the accusations against them. Most secret information is stale and of no use to anyone after so many years have passed.

It might, however, serve to disgrace the US torturers. But they, like Superchicken, knew the job was dangerous when they took it.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #103 on: June 20, 2008, 07:02:22 PM »
<<Gads, do you ever read what you write sometimes?>>

Yeah, basically (minus the sarcasm) I wrote that you can't possibly support (with facts) your allegation that the Iraqis are "largely" thankful that Saddam is no longer in power."  You have no basis in fact at this point in time for saying that.  You made it up out of your own head. 

To state, as you did (with obvious sarcasm) that "in the real world people move into dictatorships" or that "[dictatorship] is what they long to raise their children in" are asinine generalities that contribute absolutely nothing to the argument.  Whether people move into or out of dictatorships is hardly the point, since migrations occur for mostly economic reasons.  For example, the massive post-war immigrations into North America from Italy, Greece, Ireland and Germany slowed to a trickle after those countries' economic conditions improved dramatically.  Mexican immigration, legal and illegal, into the U.S.A. is ALL about economic opportunity and has nothing to do with dictatorships.  In Iraq itself the current refugee crisis caused by flight from that country is many times the number of refugees who had fled from the Saddam Hussein regime.  http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679

Whether people long to raise their kids in a dictatorship is a meaningless question unless you compare that with other conditions in which they "long" to raise their kids, as for example, under foreign military occupation, under a civil war, under a Shi'ite or Sunni regime, etc.

The bottom line, minus all your sarcasm, detours, non sequiturs and loony irrelevant examples, is as I originally said, you have absolutely ZERO evidence to back up your ludicrous claim that Iraqis are  "largely" thankful that Saddam is gone.  You don't know what the hell you are talking about, so you just make that stuff up as you go along.

I had made a very similar observation regarding your nutty claim that << Largely they [Iraqis] support our efforts of bringing democracy to their country, where it didn't exist during Saddam.>>  THAT also you had no way of knowing and when challenged brought up all kinds of irrelevant bullshit, "dictatorship isn't dictatorship," "Tee-leaf reality," "Saddam got 100% of the vote."  Bottom line again, you don't know what the hell you are talking about and have no factual way of supporting your ridiculous claim.  The whole fucking country is devastated, hundreds of thousands of them are dead, millions are refugees, but they "support U.S. efforts to 'bring democracy.'"  Are you out of your fucking mind?

In response to another one of your asinine claims (<<  Iraqi "elections" (that elected Saddam) were a complete sham. >>) I very sensibly pointed out that most of them didn't really give a shit.  I happen to know quite a few Iraqis, MOST of them refugees from Saddam Hussein's regime, many of them fleeing during or after the Iran-Iraq war to avoid military service and as long as they had good jobs, Western living conditions, free education and medical care, they did not give a shit about politics and that is just a fact.  Your idiotic assertion, totally devoid of any facts to support your position, was a rolling-eyes icon and a "Yeah right" as if YOU somehow knew better.

Again, I made some mockery of plane's hypocritical, fake disapproval of Saddam ("Saddam was a dictator") - - a TOTAL IRRELEVANCY in a world in which the U.S.A. routinely and across the globe, supports and has supported dictators, some of theme much worse than Saddam - - which you then tried to turn into an expression of my alleged "support" of dictators in general.  Nice try, sirs, but I was never a supporter of Saddam and never will be.  What I was opposed to was the Bush administration's lying bullshit that they were opposed to Saddam because he was a brutal dictator - - in fact they were opposed to him despite the fact that he was a brutal dictator.

And in a final comment on your post, I would suggest that before you go too hard on Saddam for his use of WMD, you might want to know how much the U.S.A. had to do with him getting the WMD in the first place, and how much support they gave to his war effort in which the WMD was used. 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 07:06:54 PM by Michael Tee »

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts
« Reply #104 on: June 20, 2008, 07:18:19 PM »
Actually my comments are core to the arguement, while you're apparently under the pathologically warped notion that the vast majority of Iraqis loved living in a dictatorship, and if it weren't for those evil americans screwing up such a good thing, all would be be right as rain
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle