I hate bronchitis.
I don’t know anything in the Constitution that guarantees citizens an education, either. I simply voiced an opinion in favor and gave some reasons. They’re good reasons. I have no idea what an education by government proxy might be and look forward to hearing you tell me about that. A proxy is a substitute of sorts, so I’m completely unsure what possible definition could fit here. Who would be the educated party if not the student? It makes no sense.
I certainly agree with you that everybody shouldn’t go to college. Too many people confuse training and education as it is, and want college education to be “relevant.” These are people who need training in business college or some sort of professional training school. College is to help people learn how to think at an adult level, and most people have absolutely no wish, desire or ability to have or use those skills. In fact, most people flee the entire prospect screaming, as well they should. It has nothing to do with A and B students; it has to do with actually wanting to get to the bottom of things.
Entrance tests for colleges are silly. If you have the curiosity, then the tests will not necessarily show it. They may show how well you understand the fund of knowledge that the major culture expects you to have; but not all suitably curious people come from that culture. If you’re curious enough, you should pick up what you need after about a year and a half, and then you’ll be fine.
As far as me calling them 'terrorists' as opposed to calling them something softer: ain't gonna happen, Bob. They're not criminals. They're not soldiers. They are terrorists, committing genocidal acts that far exceed anything we have current laws on the books for.
Ain’t gonna ask you to call ‘em something softer, T-Bear.
Just gonna ask you to call ‘em something that you can prove. You can’t call ‘em terrorists, can’t call ‘em soldiers, can’t call ‘em criminals, and you sure can’t call ‘em committin’ any darn Genocidal acts.
I can call you a terrorist. In fact, I may just do that, considering the way you’re willing to toss the rights of people out the window without any proof. If George W. Bush had done that, as under the PATRIOT ACT he was allowed to do, he could toss you in Gitmo as well as a terrorist. The current president has those powers as well, by the way, which is why there shouldn’t have been and should not now be a PATRIOT ACT in the first place. That aside, whatever I call you does not make it so.
You might be relieved.
What gives you the right to determine the innocence or guilt of these people, Jeff? The Supreme Court, which is not a very liberal Supreme Court at all, has said that these folks deserve a trial, you know, to determine guilty or not guilty, and what punishment is necessary if there is guilt. Perhaps you are privy to information that The Supreme Court doesn’t have access to here that would make this whole trial business a terrible waste of time.
Myself, I could care less about what President Obama says about the guiltiness of this or that defendant. You are overly impressed with the wisdom and knowledge of presidents, and I include Democratic presidents by the way, especially about the culpability of various defendants. Neither Bush nor Obama knows; with some luck, a jury or a good legal proceeding may be able to tell.
A law can only punish a person once. The ideology that caused them to commit acts of murder against civilians will not be changed
by locking up a single person. If they were criminals: I would use the word: detainee or something similar. I look at the semantics this way: the Japanese rounded up in the USA post-Pearl Harbor were 'detainees.' These guys in Guantanamo are much more than that.
You lay claim to a level of knowledge, once again, which you cannot possibly have evidence to support.
Your willingness to repeat the claims in more strident terms shows that you have not yet found the evidence to refute this previously made statement of mine. I would suggest that your continued repetition of the same unproven assertions about these folks still does not actually amount to proof that your assertions are true. It only shows that you have either given up the process of actually looking for proof; that you actually think that repetition of the logical fallacy of begging the question somehow supplies the logical links that have been missing all along; or that you haven’t actually noticed that you are begging the question with these assertions.
This is the concept of Rendition. EVERY nation I know of, does this: locks up potentially bad people offshore that could be potentially released thru a justice system. You just don't hear anything about them, but they're there. The US does prisoner swaps with countries all the time. Its a form of InterPolitical justice that is, at best, unsavory.
Well, Jeff, near as I can understand it, Rendition is different. Rendition is shipping prisoners from our custody to the custody of other countries where even more uncivilized things than we are willing to do can be done to them for purposes which I do not understand. We have used Syria and Egypt, for example, as places to send prisoners by rendition for special questioning and imprisonment. We have lawsuits and charges pending against us by the Italian Government at the present for just such activities. We have kidnapped innocent folks in transit from Canada to Europe and sent them to (I believe) Syria for several years worth of torture. The guy involved, by the way, was innocent. Rendition, as I say, is something different.
If every country you know of does this, then I guess that means that it must be alright.
I remember hearing various parents respond to dreck like that coming from their teenaged kids, as I’m sure you must have. “And if your friend Harvey (or Harriet) jumped off the empire State Building on a pogo Stick, I suppose you’d think that was alright, too? Not having kids myself, I’ve never had cause to use the line; but you may have. Tell me, does it make any more sense here?
Why is President Obama not compelled to release them any time soon? Under the War Powers Act, each nation has the right to protect itself by keeping enemy combatants locked away, usually offshore, until the issue is resolved. Usually the UN provides the rubber stamp on any agreement, and mediating the necessary prisoner exchanges. The key word is 'declared war.' Bush did that, and Congress agreed: we are waging war on the Taliban and Al Q in Afghanistan. But Bush didn't put it like that: he called it 'waging a war on terrorism.' Legally, that may not lay out WHO the enemy sufficiently enough to justify certain actions with prisoners. The way this works in Iraq is this: initially, it was a declared war against Saddam Hussein. Legal enough, but when he was defeated, Al Qaeda stepped in and took over the battle. The Americans have a right to defend themselves, and thus began a SECOND war in Iraq. But Bush had already said in Afghanistan, that we were waging a war on 'Terrorism' and that covered the legality of Iraq prisoners. While Congress didn't vote on a 'war' per se in Iraq, they did vote to provide funding for the war. That still puzzles me to this day.
As far as I understand things, if these guys had been in fact captured on the field of battle, this would not be an issue. Most of these guys, as I understand it, came originally from Afghanistan, and their capture was not directly by U.S. forces but by folks that we had essentially hired to do fighting for us. The folks were demi-allies, and were essentially warlords organized by contact with our special Forces guys. Great strategy for fighting this sort of conflict, I think, but not one where you can actually say you have real allies. These guys were in it for the money and for whatever advantage they could garner from the post-war situation. I spoke about this in a prior post.
The way our Gitmo captives came to us was also for money. Some of the folks that came in as prisoners, then, may have been Al Qaeda guys, but probably not a lot of them; there weren’t a lot of them in country at any one time. There were more Taliban folks.
The Taliban guys were very conservative Muslims, but that didn’t mean that they were terrorists, Jeff. We were allied with them for a number of years against the Soviets, which is how they got to know Osama bin Ladin. The Taliban, while I have never liked a lot of their positions, you will remember, offered to turn Osama over to a neutral country for trial. Whether that would have been possible or even remotely satisfactory, I don’t know. We rejected the notion out of hand. I think we should have waited a bit to see if it was real and if there was a decent compromise possible — the Hague, for example — but then I’m an optimist sometimes.
It’s not at all clear that the people we ended up with in Gitmo were the terrorists that you believe them to be. The guys that sold them to us would have happily sold us anybody who wasn’t kin for that $5000.00 per head though; it was a fortune to them.
I've heard numerous lawyers talk about the 9 (not 7) lawyers that Obama appointed that had previously defended the detainees. It took a Freedom of Information Act demand to get Obama to release their names. The lawyers almost unanimously said: those lawyers all knew they were be ostracized in their own legal community, for taking on the defenses of the detainees. My point of view is not that much of stretch.
And I know lawyers that would agree with them.
I also know lawyers that specialize in other sorts of law who would not agree at all. I think you need to understand that there really are idealistic lawyers who still believe in idealistic sorts of things. I don’t like all of them. John Yoo, for example, one of the authors of the torture memo, seems like an idealist to me, simply not one that I find tolerable to listen to. If he can excuse torture against Afghans, he can excuse it against you or me. That’s a bit too trusting of government and authority for me.
You’d probably find a large number of JAG lawyers in those ranks, because a lot of JAG legal staff were very upset with the way that the Bush Justice Department dealt with the Gitmo folks. I also know that a lot of conservative folks are unhappy with the ACLU — this puzzles me, because the ACLU will as happily defend conservative positions as they will Liberal positions; their loyalty is to the constitution and not to one or the other end of the political spectrum. The ACLU is solidly against the way that the Gitmo folks have been treated as well.
I like the Peace and Love closing you use, so right back at you, champ.
Peace and Love,