How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinsta   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 01-24-2009 11:29 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-quit-listening-rush-limbaugh-want-things/

Wow! Quite a feather in Limbaugh's cap, to be thought of as being so infuential and dangerous that he has to warn senators not to listen to him.

If he is worried and warning about Limbaugh and partisan thinking now, you can rest assured the Unfairness Doctrine is not in the distant future.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


26 posted 01-24-2009 11:56 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Warning people not to listen to Rush Limbaugh is like warning them not to program in COBOL or not to sniff the wrong chemicals. There are simply certain things known to cause brain damage, you know.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 01-24-2009 08:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Cute, Ron. You're getting craftier now that you are older

The US must lead the world in brain-damaged people, then, based on Limbaugh's listening audience.

When's the last time you heard a president warn people not to listen to a specific radio announcer? That's shows weakness and defensiveness to me.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


28 posted 01-25-2009 02:40 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Mike & Ron-

That was a transparent attempt by Obama to appease Pelosi and her Fairness Doctrine.  I imagine they trolled the polling waters pretty deep after those speeches to gauge reaction.  This was a test balloon.  You're going to see alot of these in the comming months.  What they ultimately do is confuse the hell out of voters.  They hear one thing, but they hear the new Pres throw a monkey wrench just to create 'a way out.'

   Case in point:  One of the first bills that Obama signed was one defining them specifically and outlawing torture EXCEPT unless it is really necessary.  WHATTT???  Isn't that what we already have?  Did this weird turn of phrase also puzzle any of you in Pip-Land, too?

  2nd Case in point:  not only did Obama propose a huge half-a-trillion bailout, he included in it, in his words no less, a TAX CUT.  Color me confused.  I thought he ran on TAX INCREASES espec. on the rich.

  As far as he specifically mentioning Limbaugh, they don't have much room to talk.  One would be really hard pressed to glibly name just ONE DEMOCRAT known as a 'Deep Thinker.'  I remember, just a year ago, Barney Franks was touted by the Dems as the Smartest Man on the Hill.   Yeah, uh huh....     He WAS smart enough to appropriate 12 million to a bank from his state known for corruption...where did the money come from?  From the bailout.  Barney's explanation: it was NECESSARY because the Republicans let the banks fail.    Yeah, uh huh....The Banking Queen Barney had nothing to do with it.....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 01-25-2009 10:17 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

True enough, Jeff, but Democrats don't really want to think about that. Barney Frank would have been bar-b-qued as a Republican for the way he ignored Freddie and Fannie but, as a Democrat, he can simply point the finger elsewhere...nice work if you can get it.

As far as Limbaugh is concerned, Obama feels threatened by him. There is no other reason to warn people against him personally. A president feeling threatened by a talk show host....boggles the mind. It IS understandable, though. Rush asks the questions the mainstream media doesn't ask. He demands specifics instead of the empty suit speeches Obama feeds the public and has since the beginning of his run for the White House. At least Obama is smart enough to know that someone like Limbaugh IS a threat to him....that's something.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


30 posted 01-25-2009 02:37 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Mike,
Let's clarify something essential:

Limbaugh is not the threat to Obama.
Hannity is not the threat to Obama.

FREE SPEECH, effective Free Speech, is the threat.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


31 posted 01-25-2009 05:43 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike and Jeff,

I didn't catch the source on that; but if the source is accurate and it was done in context. which may or may not be true, depending on the source, then it was a silly thing to say.

     When Obama says silly or stupid things, and I can guarantee you he will, then I'm fortunate to have guys as vigilant as you are to point them out.  I hope to learn from your watchfulness.

     I am unconvinced that Limbaugh's value as a commentator much exceeds that of Father Coughlin, personally, except that I believe Father Coughlin probably had a firmer moral base.  But that remains personal opinion.

     I am more distraught that the President didn't take a firmer stand against torture in all its forms by anybody in the employ of this country.  That would make our stance against torture abroad more forceful.  My contention is that the President is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Liberal Democrat in many ways, and it has generally been that, though I believe there are many things that make Rockefeller Republicans decent.  This is not a new contention of mine either.

     The upset that the two of you gentlemen show is that the President hasn't moved far enough away from the position that the two of you previously advocated, if I understand correctly.  Why are you no longer advocating your previously held positions about the necessity of torture for all elements of the United States forces?  

     I have held consistently that torture was wrong, and to the extent that the President doesn't commit himself to an outright ban on it, I'm willing to say that the President is wrong.  I was willing to say the same about President Bush, though more vigorously because his position on torture was more outrageous by far, and was asserted through a series of lies and misdirections.

     I am glad to see you upset now; very glad.

     Where was it then?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
      
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


32 posted 01-25-2009 06:13 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Oh, man....i really DON'T want to get into another discussion on torture.

Let's look at this legally:  If the state wants to prosecute a criminal, they have to create a law on the book that makes a specific behavior illegal.  The problem with most all laws are they are not specific enough.  

What Obama did, correctly, was to spell out for the first time exactly what IS torture, beyond the very obvious horric examples of mutaliation, death, etc.  There was this grey area of undefined or unagreed-to definitions of specific torture.  Ok...Obama spells these out, BUT says extreme methods of interrogation MAY be necessary to extract information.  Do you not see the hypocrisy of this argument?  It has nothing to do with Mike's or my position on torture:  it has to do with convincing the mainstream public that specific act 'X" is illegal (ie, waterboarding, vicious dog threat, etc).

   I am against ANY politician, when revamping a law to become more clear, actually MUDDIES the water.  In my opinion, this is what Democrats excel at in lawmaking....good intentions, terrible follow-through, unintended but forseen consequences.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


33 posted 01-25-2009 11:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jeff is exactly right, Bob. Torture is not the issue here. The issue is Obama's words, promises and actions. If he makes a grand statement that he is going to stop something and then SORTA stops something while allowing portions of it to continue, there is a character issue there. That same character issue has come out in his lobbyist qualifications and is now coming out in his supposed war against earmarks. That's where the beef is.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


34 posted 01-26-2009 01:11 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Sorry, Jeff, but until it's resolved it's going to be around for a very long time.

     The United States thought Waterboarding was torture clearly enough to prosecute folks for doing it in Nurenberg in 1947.  The charge was war crimes, and we thought it was torture then.  The limits we felt were appropriate were pain or distress the equivalent of organ failure or death, and there are cases on record of those limits being exceeded.  You can look them up yourself.

     It was very clear that torture was applied to many people with no information to give.  Nobody at Abu Gharib knew anything about Al Qaeda, for example, for the very simple reason that at that point in time there was nobody from Al Qaeda there.  Humiliating, beating, or torturing folks for information about Osama bib Laden, no matter how many times we have been reassured that torture was effective, couldn't have gotten information about that organization from people who actually had none to offer, could it?

     If you think you're sick and tired about talking about torture, think how sick and tired some of those folks must be.

     Me, I've been trying to talk about it for years with people who want to hear nothing about it, let alone acknowledge that the U.S. did any of it on purpose and that we have responsibility for making the damage right.  To the extent that we can, if fact, make the damage right.

     And Mike, thinks for your comments as well.  I just had a chance to have a look at that.

     You really might find some of these questions at least brought up in the npr link I offered.  I don't think you will or should be fully satisfied there.

     I find myself somewhat less than fully interested about items of less visceral nature when we were trying to talk about torture here.  I'm sure that the President is equipped with a fully articulated set of flaws about many things.  I am upset at this point about his difficulty in being clear about forcing a stop to all torture as a matter of U.S. policy now.  Without reservation.

     I was upset about the matter during the last administration for very good reason.  I expect more from our current President in this matter.  I was voicing my upset about the lies and failures of our last President in this matter.  This doesn't mean I don't have room for upset if I feel that our current President falls short here.

     Should you wish me to feel upset that the President has fallen short of my expectations about torture now, you've got it.  What about your expectations about Bush's policy about torture over the last eight years, Mike?  I'm trying to be straightforward here.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 01-26-2009 08:10 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

when we were trying to talk about torture here

We WEREN'T  trying to talk about torture here, Bob. You brought it up - again - as you have lately in every thread about any topic. Where exactly do the fairness doctrine and torture have their common ground?

As far as Bush's doctrines over the past eight years, I could just follow the democrats pat answer whenever I brought up Clinton...THAT'S PAST HISTORY. MOVE ON! We are still paying for Clinton decisions and we will continue to pay for Bush's, also. Obama is the president...move on.

I'll bring up Bush when Obama's changes of Bush policy lead to another attack on the US...which, in my mind, is not an unlikely scenario.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


36 posted 01-26-2009 01:03 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

I agree with Mike:  If you want to start a new Gitmo thread, that's cool.  

Let's remember one thing:
These men detained at Guantanamo Bay are NOT soldiers.  They don't wear uniforms, they don't adhere to the Geneva Convention.  They use human shields, hide in cities, put women and children on rooftops of supposed air strike targets.  They don't play within the rules of engagement, ever, and there are consequences to that if they are caught.  The offenses of the guerillas that kill off their own people in order to discourage attacks on a specific area is a thousand times more despicable than waterboarding.  

This is not a Prisoner of War camp.  They are not entitled to the rights granted a soldier.  End of Story.  All lines of logic end with that statement.

and now.....back to our regularly scheduled show on the Fairness Doctrine.....
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


37 posted 01-26-2009 01:09 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
This is not a Prisoner of War camp.  They are not entitled to the rights granted a soldier.  End of Story.  All lines of logic end with that statement.

And therein lies the death of due process, presumption of innocence, and ultimately, justice.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


38 posted 01-26-2009 05:57 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Case in point: One of the first bills that Obama signed was one defining them specifically and outlawing torture EXCEPT unless it is really necessary. WHATTT???


Except when it is really necessary?

I’ve read the executive order several times but couldn’t find that part - where does it say that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


39 posted 01-26-2009 07:06 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Thanks for the link, Grinch. You're right, I saw nothing in the EO suggesting torture will be circumstantially allowed as some claimed.

Having to read that Executive Order, however, might well be construed as mild torture.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


40 posted 01-26-2009 07:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Nor do Jeff or Mike fit those models.  Simply because somebody off the street says that the two of you are terrorists, the last government felt and acted as though it had the right to treat you as one.  Furthermore, it passed out $5000.00 bounties to anybody who was willing to say that you were one, or that had heard you were one.  Then it was willing to torture you until you confirmed that story or proved to be an especially dangerous and resistant terrorist who wouldn't confess.

     When time came that international and domestic —U.S. — pressures became too much to resist, the conditions for "trials" were such that these "terrorists" were not allowed to know the nature of the charges against them, were not allowed to called witnesses, and were not even allowed to act as their own attorneys.  JAG Attorneys who actually believed that these guys were basically guilty because the government said they were walked off the cases because of the gross violations of legal procedure, basically in agreement, despite their conservatism, with Amnesty International (which actually doesn't have a political left or right agenda, despite the idiot who's running it in this country).

     I'm sorry that Jeff and Mike feel this is not about the fairness doctrine, but I thought that this might actually be a case in point.  How The conservative or liberal (for that matter) attempt to monopolize the use of media could be used to limit information and debate or, for that matter, encourage it.  At this point, free speech seems to be working well, although it does seem to be under attack.

     I'm sorry that Jeff and Mike feel that I want to confine the debate to the past.  I thought I was fairly clear in saying that if President Obama wasn't entirely against the use of torture, then I would join both Jeff and Mike in condemning President Obama as well and said, to the extent he doesn't do so, I condemn him now.  I repeat that statement now.  This is much more substantial than Republican or Democrat, guys.  It's about, among other things, Habeas Corpus, which seems to suffered substantially and which may be repaired if we stay on to of it.  It may be repaired.  Maybe.

     It's pretty difficult to have torture happen unless Habeas Corpus has been seriously injured.

     And unless the Patriot Act has been substantially altered, just like the last President, the Current President has the right to declare anybody he wants to an enemy alien and to make they vanish.  That happened a couple of times that we know about in the last administration.  How many more times it happened, we do not and possibly may never know because the way the law reads is that the answer to that question is secret, and they can lie to us about it if they wish.  Under the Freedom of Information Act, they may be able to redact the answer to that entirely.

     You, Jeff and Mike, felt that was fine under the last administration.  I did not.  I still feel, under an administration in which I have a great deal more trust that it is wrong and loathsome.  This has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican, guys, this has to do with being willing to be a native of Disappear-ica or America.  I would put it to you that there have been times in your lives that you would have stood up proudly and said, "This is not the way we do things in America," and that this might well be a time for saying that again.

     If this country has gone so far as to allow torture as an element of government policy, take a minute and consider what else it has to have allowed to allow us to get there.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 01-26-2009 07:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

take a minute and consider what else it has to have allowed to allow us to get there.

To get us where, Bob?

I'm sorry that Jeff and Mike feel this is not about the fairness doctrine

Don't apologize, Bob. Just point out where torture is mentioned in the fairness doctrine and I'll be happy to apologize for such an assumption.


I'm afraid this melodrama of people vanishing in the night thanks to Bush is a little too much for me. I realize you will go to great lengths to paint Bush with the darkest possible brush available...but really.

The last person I heard of a person disappearing that a president did not want around was Vince Foster. Oh, wait...that was an accident....right?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 01-26-2009 08:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Grinch...


One of the orders requires the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual, ending President Bush's policy of permitting the agency to use secret methods that went beyond those allowed for military interrogators. However, the New York Times reports that White House counsel Gregory Craig privately told Congressional officials that "the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other the 19 techniques allowed for the military," in the paper's paraphrase.

The order closing Guantánamo assigns the Attorney General to lead a review of what should happen to the remaining detainees and does not rule out the possibility of trying some of them using military commissions, as has the Bush administration. Another order directed a high-level review of the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a suspected terrorist termed "dangerous" by Obama and currently being held in a military jail in South Carolina.

But the WhoRunsGov blog finds that the order on "coercive interrogation methods" actually leaves "wiggle room" to allow torture. Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights pointed to the following lines in the executive order that he said provided a possible loophole by creating a Task Force to study the issue:

    The mission of the Special Task Force shall be:

    (1) to study and evaluate whether the interrogation practices and techniques in Army Field Manual 2-22.3, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies...

Ratner says the order appears to allow for an evaluation of "whether" the Army Field Manual techniques are sufficient to "protect the nation." This, said Ratner, "would allow the Task Force to go beyond the Army Field Manual." The administration could conclude that "based on the recommendations of this commission, we will allow certain techniques to be used in certain circumstances." While acknowledging that the CIA is likely to find the order too restrictive, Ratner said, "I don't like the fact that there’s any kind of loophole in an executive order that supposedly outlaws torture."
http://www.ww4report.com/node/6711

Here is another interesting article...
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/_greg_craig_briefed_members.php

There are, however, ambiguities in the orders regarding treatment of certain detainees that could either be the result of the swiftness with which these orders were issued or ambivalence within the Obama administration. We are hopeful that as the process unfolds and gets clarified, there will be no doubt that detainees must either be charged, prosecuted and convicted or they need to be released. That’s the American way; our legal system, while not always perfect, is the best in the world. Adherence to American legal principles requires unconditional action; there is no room for a middle-ground. It would be an enormous mistake for the Obama administration to allow for indefinite detention in any case, or to endeavor to create any system other than our centuries-old justice system for prosecuting detainees. If President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates hold on to any part of the Bush administration’s legal farce, they will soon end up in the very same legal morass that the prior president found himself in over the last eight years. http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/22/president-obama-orders-closure-of-gitmo-bans-torture/

Grinch, if you read this article, it may make a few questions clearer....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090123/pl_politico/17841
This entry is in response to your entry here and is all I will say about torture in this non-torturous (but soon becoming so) thread


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


43 posted 01-26-2009 10:43 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike and Jeff,

          The original posting by Jeff said that Liberals wanted to bring back the fairness doctrine.  He them quoted some Air America folks, who denied it in the quote he picked to support his position.  This somehow became proof of what liars liberals are since they didn't agree with his initial assertion and since he apparently couldn't find any Liberals who agreed with him.

     The two of you felt that this seemed like an excellent idea, though.  Apparently it is a mark of incisive thinking to call people you are talking about by derisive nicknames.  Bahama for Obama was something that I found really useful in furthering the sense of community in our discussion.  I thought that the respect that it showed those of us who might disagree with you was somewhat less than helpful in enabling me to extend my respect as well in your direction.

     I do believe that both of you deserve it. Sometimes I have trouble extending it, for which I must apologize.

     When Mike said he felt that all the conservative talk show hosts researched their facts and presented them, and that the Liberals did not, I wondered if we were talking about the same planet.  On my planet, people are vastly more fallible than that, and even the best of people have flaws, often large ones.  I'm not the best of people, so I'm not the best of examples.  I know for sure that I'm wrong a fair amount of the time.  I don't thing Mike, good as Mike is, is about to consider himself one of the best of men; nor do I suspect that Jeff is either.  They're both far too realistic for that.

     Seeking some sort of ground that was reasonably specific, and that I found of interest, I chose to bring up the subject of torture.  I'm against it.  I was against it before, I'm against it now, and it doesn't matter to me who does it; I'm against anybody torturing anybody.  I have no Democratic or Republican favorites in the matter.  As far as I'm concerned, I'd hate it if Bill Clinton, F.D.R., or J.F.K did it.  I'm against it if President Obama does it or approves of it.  And if Bush 43 did it, I'm against that too.

     I also decided that I'd say I was for Habeas Corpus.  That's something that hasn't been too wildly left wing in English speaking countries, at least theoretically, since 1215 or so and the Magna Charta.  I thought that this much would be something that we could get together on.

     This might be an example of how fairness Doctrine might or might not be used.

     Apparently, I find, that only Democrats are supposed to be against Torture and are supposed to be for Habeas Corpus.  That Jeff and Mike are uncaring that it has been used against American citizens.  And that they seem to think that a discussion of these things is out of place because talk of Torture is, if I understand the two gentlemen, boring, trivial, out of place and partisan.  I believe you if that's what you say.  I believe that I may have misunderstood you as well, I simply am not sure.

     I once again restate, that if our new President encourages or is less than scrupulous in getting rid of torture, I condemn his actions or lack of them.  I restate that I believe torture has no place in a discussion of political party.  Torture is about the practice of evil and not the practice of politics.

     We have a considerable job in front of us getting the matter of rights, including the Right of Habeas Corpus, back on track in this country, and the sooner we get started seriously, the better.  We need to be working with each other and not art cross purposes.

     You should trust no government with the sort of power that we have given this one as a result of perhaps twenty years or more of inattention, Republican and Democratic,
gentlemen.  The Patriot Act doesn't say that only Democratic or only Democratic governments have a right to exercise the powers listed there.  I for one, have no idea about what a lot of them are; and what I do know of some of them, I find frightening in the extreme.

Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven

     In addition to my grumbling, I do want to make a special point of thanking Mike for providing the interesting links, especially the ones to The Atlantic.  That Magazine, while it's taken a turn to the right over recent years, is still a fine magazine and offers an interesting and insightful look at news.  I'd lost touch with it for far too long, and I'd suggest that to the extent that we're working toward developing  a list of magazines that offer a respectful and useful look at the world with more of an interest in truth than political slant, we might consider adding this one to the list.  

     Thank you, Mike.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


44 posted 01-26-2009 11:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Seeking some sort of ground that was reasonably specific, and that I found of interest, I chose to bring up the subject of torture.

Nice try, Bob, but you have brought up torture on every recent alley post, regardless of the subject matter. This excuse rings hollow.  

That Jeff and Mike are uncaring that it has been used against American citizens.  And that they seem to think that a discussion of these things is out of place because talk of Torture is, if I understand the two gentlemen, boring, trivial, out of place and partisan

Bob, if I answered that comment the way I would face to face with you, I would be banned, not only from the Alley, but from the site and, quite frankly, you are not worth that result. Have a good life.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


45 posted 01-26-2009 11:53 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:
  Bob said:
Seeking some sort of ground that was reasonably specific, and that I found of interest, I chose to bring up the subject of torture.

Mike replies:

Nice try, Bob, but you have brought up torture on every recent alley post, regardless of the subject matter. This excuse rings hollow.  



Dear Mike,

          I certainly have.  I also brought it up frequently beforehand.  I have never needed any "excuse" to bring up this most repugnant of subjects.  It suffers from an all too ready willingness of good people to avoid dealing with it.  


quote:
  Bob said:
That Jeff and Mike are uncaring that it has been used against American citizens.  And that they seem to think that a discussion of these things is out of place because talk of Torture is, if I understand the two gentlemen, boring, trivial, out of place and partisan.

Mike says:

Bob, if I answered that comment the way I would face to face with you, I would be banned, not only from the Aley, but from the site and, quite frankly, you are not worth that result. Have a good life.



     Mike, the part you omitted when you quoted me was the part right afterward where I said, "I believe you if that's what you say.  I believe that I may have misunderstood you as well, I simply am not sure."

     A simple, "Bob, you did misunderstand," would have worked as well if you were interested in replying to the facts of the matter, whether I understood your position correctly about torture.  Since, as a search of your postings on the subject will show that you have in fact consistently come out in support of torture as a instrument of national policy during at least the past administration, your sudden indignation about the matter leaves me at a loss.  

     What is it you are indignant about?  That I suggest that we have used it?  The facts are clear, and you have in fact supported it, though minimizing its effects.  Or that I have suggested that we have used it against American Citizens?
We have, again; including the case of the man who was widely touted as "The American Talliban."  I, for one, would be interested to know how quickly counsel was provided.  The guy who was arrested when he landed in O'Hare airport on the charges of planning to set off a "dirty Bomb"  was denied access to a lawyer, placed in isolation and questioned.  By the time a lawyer was able to get to him, almost two years later, he had been driven insane.

     These were American citizens.  Anything that was done to them could have been done to you.  If legal protections that were designed for all of us were put aside in his case were put aside to aid the prosecution, the same could be done for you if any over-enthusiastic prosecutor decided that it would be in his interests to do the same to you.

     As to whether I am worth Jack, I don't think it matters much.  Probably not.

     The country, Habeas Corpus, and the rule of law, however do.  I think that you may actually have the impression that if you can get rid of me, then these other questions will go away and that the good life in question will be had, not by me, but by you.  The truth is that I hope that you're right.

Affectionately yours, Bob Kaven
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


46 posted 01-27-2009 12:53 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

See this is what sticks in my craw:

first, people don't know that the Terrorists are not soldiers.  They are not.  They're considered murderers by every court in the land, and prosecuted as such.

They are also not entitled to Habeas Corpus, and this gets my goat every time I hear an uninformed liberal talking head or even Congressmen spout this nonsense.  Even in the Civil War times, the United States has held 'combatants of war' until the war was over.  Why?  Because 90% of the time when released they go right back and bear arms.  The Japanese held during WWII were not released until AFTER the war:  the German prisoners captured were not released until AFTER the war.  Also the trials did not take during the war- they never do.  They come when the war is over.  Too bad so sad for the terrorists that the war is stretching out.   Those are the known rules of war, and they knew exactly that when they were captured,they wouldn't be released until AFTER the Iraq war is concluded.  Obama is major-league jumping the gun on the release date, for no other reasons than to appease liberals.  Great.  The nation be damned, but got to please those liberals who still call murderers 'freedom fighters.'

Enemy combatants can be held legally by ANY country until the war ends. So stop already with the 'aw...the poor rights of the suspected terrorists.'    

If they want to play 'war', then, by G*d, make them wear uniforms, and quit using human shields, then we'll talk about what kind of 'fairness' they are entitled to.  The very first thing Saddam's men did when Bagdhad was about to be overrun, was to run out in the streets, strip off their uniforms and hide in civilian homes.  Pansies, cowards.  Then they have the nerve to strap bombs to CHILDREN and make them fight the war for them.  Real admirable.  

    Oh, by the way, roadside bombs are ILLEGAL by Geneva standards also since they kill innocents, but you NEVER EVER hear liberals talk about how unfair these are.  There are still millions of unexploded mines in Afghanistan that daily blow the crap out of civilians.  Where is the outrage over this?  Even in North Vietnam, there are whole areas that are inhabitable, to this day, due to undetected mines in rice paddies.  

  Justice, to me, would be making them defuse all roadside bombs and Muslim-planted mines in Afghanistan.  They planted them...let them defuse them.  If they survive, they can go home.  THAT's Justice!!
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


47 posted 01-27-2009 12:59 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Bob, had I come in here earlier I would probably have deleted your last three posts. They stand now only because others replied to them before I got here.

You just don't seem to get it. And, frankly, I'm getting tired of explaining it to you. Every single time you talk about Mike and Jeff, every single time you talk about their feelings or try to put words in their mouth, every single time you crawl back into your armchair psychoanalysis, you STOP talking about the topic. You seem to be intrinsically incapable of talking about any subject in here without making it personal.

Please discuss the post, not the posters. If there's some part of that you still don't understand, please, by all means, let me know.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


48 posted 01-27-2009 01:10 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
They are not (soldiers). They're considered murderers by every court in the land, and prosecuted as such.

quote:
Even in the Civil War times, the United States has held 'combatants of war' until the war was over.

Which way do you want to play that card, Jeff? Either they're alleged murderers or they're combatants of war. You don't get to straddle that fence.

Terrorists are criminals. They should be treated no differently than Charles Manson and Ted Bundy. You know, the part where we prove they actually are criminals before we punish them? Then and only then can we smack it to 'em.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


49 posted 01-27-2009 01:27 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Ron, certainly I'm no legal expert, and not trying to straddle the fence, although i could see why you would say that.  Not my words:
these are the words of legal experts, military ones that say that terrorists need their own designation:  they are neither soldiers nor civilians.  The Viet Cong wore uniforms (most of the time), so they were considered soldiers.  

  The whole crux of the biscuit is WHAT classification these men are exactly:  if they are combatants, they are eligible to held accountable by a Military Tribunal.  They can also be tried for crimes against humanity as civilians, but again the grey area comes when they are seen firing at US soldiers, they can be defended, poorly i might add, as potential soldiers.  The law needs to distinguish between them, and doesn't.  That's why Gitmo was created.  They are off shore for a reason, and legal reasons are a biggie.  They can't legally even be tried for War Crimes, if you can believe that, since only soldiers can.  They CAN, however, be brought to justice under specific charges of 'attempted murder.'  See how sticky this is?  This is one of the reasons they haven't been tried yet.  No-one is really quite sure what to classify them as, and what penalities are to be used.   Some legal experts have gone as far as to suggest that they ALL are shipped back to Iraq for prosecution as 'murderers' in non-military courts.  

   Be aware also that military courts do not have the same jurisprudence requirements that US civil courts have.  In a murder trial, for instance, a military tribunal does not have to have all members in concordance.  They only have to convict them on a majority of evidence.    This whole trial will be a madhouse of lawyers, conjecture, and precedent setting.  

  The United States has said they are not going to prosecute simple gun toting combatants as murderers.  These men that are left, are mass murderers, who either succeeded in multiple deaths, or attempted to.  I remember Chaney saying once that they are not interested in throwing the whole Iraqi terrorist regime in prison simply because they opposed takeover.  They will, however, go after the major offenders and planners of bombing attacks against civilians, roadside bombs, Al-Q and other terrorists Leaders, 9-11 planning, and other OVERTLY terrorist only activities.  

To sum up:
they could be called 'enemy combatants' in a legal or detention context.

They could be called 'terrorists' when they are on the field of war.  

They could always be called 'murderers' since they are not soldiers.  

[This message has been edited by threadbear (01-27-2009 02:46 AM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine Reinsta   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors