Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here?  

Go Back   Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here? > Normal Stuff > News

Notices

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:16 PM   #51 (permalink)
Poor Sport
 
Beebs's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake
Posts: 5,306
Internets: 127341
Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Beebs
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SittinOnDubsWGW View Post
What are your examples of your first statement?

Bold part is important, obviously, and I agree with you on that part.
Blacks and Injuns.
Beebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:18 PM   #52 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebs View Post
Now go and see what article 5 of the 3rd convention says.
It "specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Which means they must be "pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:26 PM   #53 (permalink)
I make bad decisions.
 
SittinOnDubsWGW's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Desert
Posts: 3,018
Internets: 108015
SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute SittinOnDubsWGW has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to SittinOnDubsWGW
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebs View Post
Blacks and Injuns.
good call.
SittinOnDubsWGW is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:28 PM   #54 (permalink)
Poor Sport
 
Beebs's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake
Posts: 5,306
Internets: 127341
Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Beebs
Default

A competent tribunal? Perhaps, say, the Combatant Status Review Tribunals?
Beebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:29 PM   #55 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebs View Post
A competent tribunal? Perhaps, say, the Combatant Status Review Tribunals?
You mean the one that the court held in Boumediene subjected detainees to "considerable risk of error in the tribunal's findings of fact" and the DTA's provision for limited judicial review "is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus."

You mean that one?

According to what I've seen on the case:
"The CSRTs significantly impede "the detainee's ability to rebut the factual basis for the Governments assertion that he is an enemy combatant" because the detainee (1) lacks counsel and may be detained based on (2) undisclosed evidence, if it is deemed classified by the military, and (3) hearsay, depriving the detainee of an ability to confront his accusers. This deficient fact-finding process is not cured by judicial review because the D.C. Circuit is denied authority by the DTA to (4) make an independent finding about the sufficiency of the government's evidence and (5) "admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding."

Last edited by TwoBlackEyes; 01-23-2009 at 05:31 PM.
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:33 PM   #56 (permalink)
Poor Sport
 
Beebs's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake
Posts: 5,306
Internets: 127341
Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Beebs
Default

The legal procedures set forth by the constitution are used for non citizens in the US, usually, but the exact specific rights are not afforded to non citizens, even if they are usually treated as such.

When, however, that non US citizen is an illegal enemy combatant in the US, they are obviously dealt with under different guidelines.
Beebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:39 PM   #57 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebs View Post
The legal procedures set forth by the constitution are used for non citizens in the US, usually, but the exact specific rights are not afforded to non citizens, even if they are usually treated as such.

When, however, that non US citizen is an illegal enemy combatant in the US, they are obviously dealt with under different guidelines.
Actually, the court precedent says that they ARE afforded the same rights.

And I think you misunderstand the job of the constitution. We are endowed with certain inalienable rights. The constitution doesn't GIVE us rights. It simply protects the rights that we have inherently from tyranny by our government.

By claiming that our constitution doesn't give non-citizens any rights, you're technically right, but only because those rights are inherent and not ours to "give"

However, our government is limited by the constitution to not be able to limit those rights. Not anyone's rights. No matter where they were born. Our government cannot remove their rights as enumerated by the constitution, no matter where they came from. It cannot protect those non-citizens from tyranny by their own governments, but that's a different story.
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:41 PM   #58 (permalink)
Poor Sport
 
Beebs's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake
Posts: 5,306
Internets: 127341
Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Beebs
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes View Post
You mean the one that the court held in Boumediene subjected detainees to "considerable risk of error in the tribunal's findings of fact" and the DTA's provision for limited judicial review "is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus."

You mean that one?

According to what I've seen on the case:
"The CSRTs significantly impede "the detainee's ability to rebut the factual basis for the Governments assertion that he is an enemy combatant" because the detainee (1) lacks counsel and may be detained based on (2) undisclosed evidence, if it is deemed classified by the military, and (3) hearsay, depriving the detainee of an ability to confront his accusers. This deficient fact-finding process is not cured by judicial review because the D.C. Circuit is denied authority by the DTA to (4) make an independent finding about the sufficiency of the government's evidence and (5) "admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding."
Yes, actually, those are the ones; we were talking about if they recieved a section 5 tribunal, they did; the Supreme court thinks as a nation we should go beyond that, the Geneva convention however, was met.
Beebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 05:54 PM   #59 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebs View Post
Yes, actually, those are the ones; we were talking about if they recieved a section 5 tribunal, they did; the Supreme court thinks as a nation we should go beyond that, the Geneva convention however, was met.
The word of the geneva convention was met, perhaps, due to the sloppy and imprecise wording -- but surely you're not suggesting the spirit was met. The criticisms made by SCOTUS are legitimate and the fact that we sunk so low in the attempt to skirt the GC is one major reason why we have lost all honor and prestige on the world stage.
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:04 PM   #60 (permalink)
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 207
Internets: 1129
hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes View Post
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S., At 212
Ah the joys of westlaw.

457 U.S. 202, has about 34 negative citing references. One could say in many parts, Plyler is not good law in many areas. Shepardize Grasshopper, you must always Shepardize.

I think I'll leave you kids to this. It's like vaga trying to play poker for keeps with UB, but more extreme.
hfam95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:06 PM   #61 (permalink)
Poor Sport
 
Beebs's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake
Posts: 5,306
Internets: 127341
Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Beebs
Default

"So low"?

"lost all honor"

Go get interrogated under similar circumstances, in any other other country, in any other period of history, get back to me on "how low" exactly you think we went, how much "honor" the "world stage" would have, and how close to the "spirit" of the Geneva Convention was met.

Fucking give me a break, the prisoners in Gitmo have it better than any objective standard of what the treatment for fucking terrorists is.
Beebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:07 PM   #62 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hfam95 View Post
Ah the joys of westlaw.

457 U.S. 202, has about 34 negative citing references. One could say in many parts, Plyler is not good law in many areas. Shepardize Grasshopper, you must always Shepardize.
Ah, so you found fault with one citation. What about Boumediene? Would you like to point out the issues there? Perhaps you don't think it's relevant enough?
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:09 PM   #63 (permalink)
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 207
Internets: 1129
hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of
Default

Professor Walt gives +1 to Beebs.
hfam95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:10 PM   #64 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebs View Post
"So low"?

"lost all honor"

Go get interrogated under similar circumstances, in any other other country, in any other period of history, get back to me on "how low" exactly you think we went, how much "honor" the "world stage" would have, and how close to the "spirit" of the Geneva Convention was met.

Fucking give me a break, the prisoners in Gitmo have it better than any objective standard of what the treatment for fucking terrorists is.
Ah, the good old "two wrongs make a right" defense.

You do realize that the entire POINT of the Geneva convention is to protect ALL combatants from the interrogation and treatment that any other country in any other period would have inflicted.

Ask yourself if you'd like OUR "enemy combatants" (read: soldiers) treated the way we treat prisoners in Gitmo, and then get back to me. We can't expect better than we offer, and I personally think our armed forces (and even non-military contractors in the region) deserve to be treated with more respect than that.
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:19 PM   #65 (permalink)
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 207
Internets: 1129
hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes View Post
Ah, so you found fault with one citation. What about Boumediene? Would you like to point out the issues there? Perhaps you don't think it's relevant enough?
Actually you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on so many, many levels. Unfortunately for you I'm the only person around here who gets paid to have an opinion on shit like this. In that case, I'm the fucking judge and I say you don't know what you're talking about and there's really nobody you can appeal to. Arguing spirit and the point gets you poured out of court quickly.

Last edited by hfam95; 01-23-2009 at 06:29 PM.
hfam95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:29 PM   #66 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hfam95 View Post
Actually you don't what the fuck you're talking about on so many, many levels. Unfortunately for you I'm the only person around here who gets paid to have an opinion on shit like this. In that case, I'm the fucking judge and I say you don't know what you're talking about and there's really nobody you can appeal to.
Unfortunately for you, you seem incapable of mounting any kind of defense. Again, please cite the issues with Boumediene and how that ruling does NOT hold that the habeus corpus of Gitmo prisoners has been violated.
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:32 PM   #67 (permalink)
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 207
Internets: 1129
hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of hfam95 has much to be proud of
Default

Sorry, I charge for this.
hfam95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:35 PM   #68 (permalink)
Poor Sport
 
Beebs's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake
Posts: 5,306
Internets: 127341
Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute Beebs has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Beebs
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes View Post
Ah, the good old "two wrongs make a right" defense.

You do realize that the entire POINT of the Geneva convention is to protect ALL combatants from the interrogation and treatment that any other country in any other period would have inflicted.

Ask yourself if you'd like OUR "enemy combatants" (read: soldiers) treated the way we treat prisoners in Gitmo, and then get back to me. We can't expect better than we offer, and I personally think our armed forces (and even non-military contractors in the region) deserve to be treated with more respect than that.
No, the point of the Geneva Convention is to try to provide, as contradictory as it seems, a rule of law governing war. Guess who violated that rule of law governing war? The fucking prisoners in Guantanamo.

Its not "two wrongs make a right" its "the bare minimum of ethics is right in this case".

I would fucking love our soldiers to be treated the way the prisoners at Gitmo are, so would any US POW in the history of US POW's, even though that is not a reasonable comparison since those detained there ARE NOT FUCKING SOLDIERS, THEY ARE TERRORISTS.

We treat these terrorists, who have violated every possible and conceivable convention of "fair warfare", with harsh, but at a bare minimum, fair and ethical, treatment.

I don't know what fantasy world you currently reside in, where treatment of criminals, let alone enemy combatants anywhere in the history of the universe has been anything but much worse than exists in Gitmo, but there are county fucking jails worse than Gitmo.

Last edited by Beebs; 01-23-2009 at 06:38 PM.
Beebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 06:56 PM   #69 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebs View Post
but there are county fucking jails worse than Gitmo.
Ah, all those county jails where they waterboard the prisoners. Yeah.

You know why we set up rules for war? To protect ALL combatants from the interrogation and treatment that any other country in any other period would have inflicted.

How the hell do you think we're going to be able to expect any other nation to not torture their prisoners while we still torture ours?

No matter how much you want it to, two wrongs still don't make a right. It's NOT ok to act like barbarians just because other people did. We're supposed to take the higher road than the people we're fighting, remember? They "hate us because of our way of life" remember? So what does it say when we give up our ideals in order to fight them?

Oh yeah.

They win.
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 07:26 PM   #70 (permalink)
Emperor Meow
 
THEINCREDIBLEdork's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,316
Internets: 284585
THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute THEINCREDIBLEdork has a reputation beyond repute

Send a message via AIM to THEINCREDIBLEdork
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SittinOnDubsWGW View Post
Constitution applies to anyone inside the U.S.
Isn't this why we hold them at guantanamo? (grasping at straws here)

#YOLO
THEINCREDIBLEdork is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2009, 07:28 PM   #71 (permalink)
Been told twice
 
TwoBlackEyes's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of TwoBlackEyes has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THEINCREDIBLEdork View Post
Isn't this why we hold them at guantanamo? (grasping at straws here)
Guantanamo is a US military base. Therefore it is US soil, though only leased from Cuba. The fact that the lease is no longer with a government we have a relationship with is the loophole Bush tried to use to pretend like he didn't have to follow the rules.
TwoBlackEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright © 2002-∞ - Nubblies.net