Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[Swiss Mercenary]

Listen, it's very simple, really. You live in a fantasy world of theorization and speculation. I live in the real world, as I know things that frankly you can't imagine. We have nothing additional to discuss, as you are too stubborn to realize that there are people and governments in this world that simply do not abide by your standards of what's normal.

Sure I can leave it at this. Not that you ever had anything to discuss.

Frankly, up to date, your contribution to this forum seems to have consisted of 'You couldn't possibly understand what I'm talking about', 'When I was a kid, we had to walk five miles, in the snow, uphill, both ways', 'Stalin had a dog, ___ has a dog', and 'Crawl off and die.' No big loss.

[Occhidiangela]

Sure I can leave it at this. Not that you ever had anything to discuss.

Frankly, up to date, your contribution to this forum seems to have consisted of 'You couldn't possibly understand what I'm talking about', 'When I was a kid, we had to walk five miles, in the snow, uphill, both ways', 'Stalin had a dog, ___ has a dog', and 'Crawl off and die.' No big loss.

Given that I gave you a citation that showed your position to be based on smoke, mirrors, and hot air, I reply to you about the ICC in two ways.

1) It has no jurisdiction in the US, and that is good. If any ICC agent want to come and find me in the US, I am a very good shot. I also know a few folks in the local sheriff's department.

2) The moves were afoot in the late 1990's to try and use the ICC to bring trumped up charges against US peacekeepers on missions overseas. (Read Deep Pockets Extortion) It was forestalled by our Congress, who weren't idiots, when Clinton was ready to sign.

I will never condone a US soldier being bound by any other law than the US laws, and by those laws our nation, via Senatorial confirmation of a treaty, have bound our nation to. Hence, if I broke Geneva while on active duty, my own military and our court system would have my guts for garters.

That pair of strictures covers pretty much anything the kangaroos in the Hague, or elsewhere, can dream up. Our court system is robust enough to prosecute for any and all crimes any of our soldiers commit. Did you note that prison sentences were handed down to a number of jailers from Abu Ghraib?

Due process of law, not due process of kangaroo. It is a protection under the Constitution that is not forfeited by donning the uniform. Until there is indeed one world government (ROFL) then there is no proper balance of power, nor of influence, in the "international court system."

If you don't understand me, look at the applause Chaves and Mahmoud got from the UN General Assembly. Not everyone comes to the table under the same premise. l

Occhi

[SwissMercenary]

Given that I gave you a citation that showed your position to be based on smoke, mirrors, and hot air, I reply to you about the ICC in two ways.

For the record, I've changed my mind from a pro-ICC to a 'Not overly thrilled' stance the last time it was brought up in the other thread.

For the rest - I attack this legislature for the same reasons that you attack the ICC. You consider it to be a kangoroo court, something quite different from trial by one's peers, and to not have a proper balance of power or influence. And I may not necessarily disagree with you there at this point in time.

However, the very same can be said about the kind of system for detaining and trying 'terrorists' that Dubya's working his best to get in (See - bill in question).

In regards to Maher Arar, the RCMP effed up their half of it, but that hardly absolves the US of their share of the deal. Incidently, one of the two parties has undergone a federal investigation, and apologised for their mistake. The other is citing the oft-(ab)used 'national security' as a set of sandbags, and waving away any responsibility. 'La, la, la, I can't hear you...'

[kandrathe]

...
However, the very same can be said about the kind of system for detaining and trying 'terrorists' that Dubya's working his best to get in (See - bill in question). ...

Here we go again... <exhasperated sigh> Hello? Is there anyone fargin listening? Hello? 3 branches of GOVERNMENT have weighed in here. Bush tried to act in US vs Hamden without law changes, then the Supremes weighed in, then Congress made some bills, then a compromise with Congress, Bush will probably sign it, and now off to the Supremes again.

We just got through wading through 1000 pages of laws here, and now you just choose to ignore that and go back to that voice in your head? "Bush is the one... Bush is the great Satan... Bush is the American Dictator..." This is hardly a system of Bush's design, this is a system where Bush is trying to do what he believes the President is authorized to do under constitutional War powers, only to be rightly challenged by Congress and the Courts.

Seems like a frickisied balance of power to me. Let me repeat my former challenge to you on Congress and presidential power...

<span style="font-family:Arial Black">"Show me any law that Congress has passed that gave the President more power than he had that was not given to him by the Constitution! "<!--fontc--><!--/fontc--></span> In fact they could not give him more power, only limit their own. But, try to find a single case where they did that.

Trust me. As a libertarian, who looks at the founding fathers for original intent, I'm very aware of all the crap in our system that has curtailed the rights of the people, and altered the balances of power in our three branches of government.

[SwissMercenary]

New provisions did not provide him with more power. He simply applied, and applies existing ones for his own benefit - to excess.

It's not a one-man show (He's not nearly clever enough), but if you are so concerned with the label I applied, would you rather see all instances of 'Dubya' be replaced by 'Executive and Legislative branches of the US' (The Judicial isn't drafting this legislature, only limiting it, so I'm giving them a pass)? If so, then you're more then welcome to read it as such.

[kandrathe]

New provisions did not provide him with more power. He simply applied, and applies existing ones for his own benefit - to excess.

It's not a one-man show (He's not nearly clever enough), but if you are so concerned with the label I applied, would you rather see all instances of 'Dubya' be replaced by 'Executive and Legislative branches of the US' (The Judicial isn't drafting this legislature, only limiting it, so I'm giving them a pass)? If so, then you're more then welcome to read it as such.

My mistake. I thought when you used the slur "Dubya" you were talking about that one man, our President. But instead you were saying the entire establishment, consisting of 435 members of the House (and all their aids), 100 members of the Senate(and all their aids), the President, Vice President, his Cabinet, and all of his aids and appointees. So that's probably like 1000 or so people. I can see how we have trouble communicating then.

As for the Supreme's.... Don't forget that "Dubya et. al." stacked the court. You can go ahead and include them in your ~1000 since it's only 10 more.

So now we get closer to a crux of your argument which is "for his own benefit - to excess." So first I'd like to understand how either bills benefit anyone (other than the accused in that they get rights that no other nation would give to terrorists), and second, if the bills admitedly limit his power how can they be excessive? You resent the President for trying to apply the law as his lawyers interpret it? Have you ever known any under-zealous prosecutors? Nope. Me either.

[SwissMercenary]

My mistake. I thought when you used the slur "Dubya" you were talking about that one man, our President. But instead you were saying the entire establishment, consisting of 435 members of the House (and all their aids), 100 members of the Senate(and all their aids), the President, Vice President, his Cabinet, and all of his aids and appointees. So that's probably like 1000 or so people. I can see how we have trouble communicating then.

As for the Supreme's.... Don't forget that "Dubya et. al." stacked the court. You can go ahead and include them in your ~1000 since it's only 10 more.

Most of those people are going along because of the party line, or in the case of the opposition, because they are completely spineless.

There aren't too many that actually set the policy. The rest, for the most part, rubber stamp it.

How about Dubya and Pals, then?

As for the SCOTUS, stacked or not, it seems to me that they are the most sane of the three branches at this point in time.

So now we get closer to a crux of your argument which is "for his own benefit - to excess." So first I'd like to understand how either bills benefit anyone (other than the accused in that they get rights that no other nation would give to terrorists)

No other non-western nation.

How do they benefit him? My bad with the 'benefit himself'. More along the lines of 'Push forth an agenda unfit for consideration in a free society'

and second, if the bills admitedly limit his power how can they be excessive?

I see it this way:

Act I: Shrub excersises what I see as various infringments on civil liberties.

Act II: Those darned SCOTUS rulings keep getting in the way, claiming its illegal.

Act III: Draft some legislature to make it legal.

Act IV: Carry on as he did before.

The problem in II was not solved - he simply legalised his actions.

You can cite outdated legislature, and that argument carries some weight, but not to the levels that he's been going.

You resent the President for trying to apply the law as his lawyers interpret it?

Most certainly. Within the letter of the law? If you do some arm-twisting, possible. Within the spirit of the law? Hardly. Now, you may say that various civil liberties that we have taken for granted, which are meant to be protected by the law, are not part of the spirit of it... In which case, that's your opinion.

I'm also sure that you're able to point out a few couple of hundred historical precendents of presidents paying no heed to the spirit of the law, emergency powers, and the like, but once again, the War on Terror, and the abuses of civil liberties associated with it, are a different ballpark.

[Ashock]

Sure I can leave it at this. Not that you ever had anything to discuss.

Frankly, up to date, your contribution to this forum seems to have consisted of 'You couldn't possibly understand what I'm talking about', 'When I was a kid, we had to walk five miles, in the snow, uphill, both ways', 'Stalin had a dog, ___ has a dog', and 'Crawl off and die.' No big loss.

Imagine yourself arguing with someone that says that the sky is usually green, because he is colorblind.

I do not have enough patience to waste my time talking to those that do not comprehend that which is obvious. That is reserved for Special Ed classes.


-A

[Occhidiangela]

In regards to Maher Arar, the RCMP effed up their half of it, but that hardly absolves the US of their share of the deal.

We have an accord. No prizes for "getting it right" on that one, anywhere.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Bush is trying to do what he believes the President is authorized to do under constitutional War powers, only to be rightly challenged by Congress and the Courts.

I don't think he's smart enough to figure much of this out. I think his position is "What can I get away with pulling off" (as not a few of the presidents have done: JOhnson, Nixon, Clinton, FDR and his jugdes) and his closest advisors and attorney sorts look for cracks in the system and see how they can defend a move with little or vague precedent.

His signing statements, and some of the rhetoric in the past few years, lead me to believe that this group believe in both the death of a thousand cuts, and the innundation of harassing fire as a path to victory (domestic legal battlefield.)

Oh, sweet, irony, thy name is Cheney. That approach is the strategy of guerilla warfare, where the fight is with guns, not quills.

The pen isn't always mightier than the sword.

Occhi

[SwissMercenary]

Imagine yourself arguing with someone that says that the sky is usually green, because he is colorblind.

I do not have enough patience to waste my time talking to those that do not comprehend that which is obvious. That is reserved for Special Ed classes.
-A

Then remind me again, why do you even post in these threads, since it seems that you only do so to point out just how stupid the rest of us are.

[kandrathe]

...
Most certainly. Within the letter of the law? If you do some arm-twisting, possible. Within the spirit of the law? Hardly. Now, you may say that various civil liberties that we have taken for granted, which are meant to be protected by the law, are not part of the spirit of it... In which case, that's your opinion.

I'm also sure that you're able to point out a few couple of hundred historical precendents of presidents paying no heed to the spirit of the law, emergency powers, and the like, but once again, the War on Terror, and the abuses of civil liberties associated with it, are a different ballpark.

When you work in a beauracracy there is the "right" way, and the "way it works" which are seldom the same. I view the system in a larger context, and over a longer span of time. The checks and balances are in place, and Presidential power over time has been mostly used appropriately. But, set the way back machine to WWII, and consider the way that American citizens and resident aliens were treated (link). I can only hope we are being more sensible and humane this time.

[SwissMercenary]

When you work in a beauracracy there is the "right" way, and the "way it works" which are seldom the same. I view the system in a larger context, and over a longer span of time. The checks and balances are in place, and Presidential power over time has been mostly used appropriately. But, set the way back machine to WWII, and consider the way that American citizens and resident aliens were treated (link). I can only hope we are being more sensible and humane this time.

This isn't WWII - this emergency has no end. It is hence, an unfair comparison. And yes, I'm well aware of the internment camps, both in the US, and here, as well as the various other measures in place.

The Cold War would be a better one (And we all know what happened to McCarthy, there...)

[Occhidiangela]

This isn't WWII - this emergency has no end. It is hence, an unfair comparison. And yes, I'm well aware of the internment camps, both in the US, and here, as well as the various other measures in place.

The Cold War would be a better one (And we all know what happened to McCarthy, there...)

As my unpublished paper of 1991 described it, it is "The Not So Cold War." It has been since before the Wall came down, and it has only heated up since then. The irony is, it ain't even gotten off of simmer.

Wait until the Chinese start tossing trumps onto the card table.

Things will get real interesting, real faat. May you all live in interesting times, and may I have enough Guinness to get me through them.

My nation's fate is now in the hands of Generations X and Whine, which is another reason that I drink.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Things will get real interesting, real faat. May you all live in interesting times, and may I have enough Guinness to get me through them.

My nation's fate is now in the hands of Generations X and Whine, which is another reason that I drink.

Occhi

We are living in interesting times, indeed. And there are days when I wonder what sort of disservice I have done to my children, just by bringing them into this world. May there be Guinness left over for them too.

[kandrathe]

This isn't WWII - this emergency has no end. It is hence, an unfair comparison. And yes, I'm well aware of the internment camps, both in the US, and here, as well as the various other measures in place.

The Cold War would be a better one (And we all know what happened to McCarthy, there...)

WWII was also set for a stalemate, until we set aside our morality and dropped a couple nukes on the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshimi. Just as Vlad the Impaler had done to stop the Ottoman Turks, the US demonstrated its will to utterly destroy Japan in a most horrific manner. The insurgency in Iraq believes that if they can shed enough American blood, aided by the outcry of the press, the Americans will lose their stomachs for fighting and the Jihadi's will win. How's their strategy working? Does the West have the will to stay and win? If we give up on Baghdad this time, where will we make a stand? Paris? Madrid? London? New York? Toronto? Does no one else see the consequences of appeasement and capitulation to the jihadis?

I'm also reminded of Colonel Kurtz from Apocolypse Now. When you go into a war offering nebulous concepts like "democracy" and your enemy is willing to delve into the extremes of horror, how can you win? This is simply a twisted lesson in Maslow's pyramid of need. The citizens of Iraq are worried daily about survival. What tangible is the US and friends offering them at the base of the pyramid? If you look at defining moments and conflicts in history, winning is more about willpower than raw numbers, superior tactics or technology. As Sun Tzu would say, in order to defeat the jihadis we must defeat their strategy.

The similiarity to the Cold War, might relate if the comparison were of Communism to Islamic Jihad. Not many people in the west bought into the notion of collective farming, and redistribution of wealth -- so too not many people will be very interested in sharia law and burqa's. If you want to see how it happens, look to Londonistan, or France.

[--Pete]

Hi,

WWII was also set for a stalemate, until we set aside our morality and dropped a couple nukes on the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshimi.

The invasion of Japan would have been expensive in terms of both American and Japanese lives, but in no way would it have been a stalemate. The character and mood of both nations at that time would have insured that only when Japan was willing to accept unconditional surrender would the war have ended. And the threat of the USSR actively becoming a participant in the invasion of Japan increased the pressure to surrender.

As to the "we set aside our morality" crap, give it a rest. Using the nukes was the correct decision. It stopped the war faster. In the balance, it saved lives. Yes, it even saved Japanese civilian lives, look up their 'sharpened bamboo spear' defense policy. More people were killed in the fire bombing of individual cities than in each of the nuclear strikes. It is only through the fear of all things nuclear brought about by the intelligentsia's ignorance of all things technical that the revisionist view of history that using the nukes then has come to be seen as somehow wrong.

The insurgency in Iraq believes that if they can shed enough American blood, aided by the outcry of the press, the Americans will lose their stomachs for fighting and the Jihadi's will win. How's their strategy working? Does the West have the will to stay and win? If we give up on Baghdad this time, where will we make a stand? Paris? Madrid? London? New York? Toronto? Does no one else see the consequences of appeasement and capitulation to the jihadis?

Hmmm, let's see. Baghdad, their home where we're the unwanted invader and they have strong support. Paris, Madrid, London, New York, Toronto; not their home, where they are not wanted, where they have no meaningful support. Yes, I can see where the two are exactly alike. Clearly if we pull out of Iraq, the jihad will invade Rhode Island next week and bring Islam in on the point of a bayonet. Or maybe not?

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Clearly if we pull out of Iraq, the jihad will invade Rhode Island next week and bring Islam in on the point of a bayonet. Or maybe not?

--Pete

Might improve Rhode Island if they did, hard to say, but I'm not ready to endorse that piece of social experimentation just yet.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

The invasion of Japan would have been expensive in terms of both American and Japanese lives, but in no way would it have been a stalemate. The character and mood of both nations at that time would have insured that only when Japan was willing to accept unconditional surrender would the war have ended. And the threat of the USSR actively becoming a participant in the invasion of Japan increased the pressure to surrender.

Agreed. Had we not nuked them, we still might have won, but at a terrible cost to both the US and Japan.

As to the "we set aside our morality" crap, give it a rest. Using the nukes was the correct decision. It stopped the war faster. In the balance, it saved lives. Yes, it even saved Japanese civilian lives, look up their 'sharpened bamboo spear' defense policy. More people were killed in the fire bombing of individual cities than in each of the nuclear strikes. It is only through the fear of all things nuclear brought about by the intelligentsia's ignorance of all things technical that the revisionist view of history that using the nukes then has come to be seen as somehow wrong.

I'm not saying it was the wrong decision, but here we are wringing our hands over the treatment of about 1000 suspects in Gitmo. We can choose to incinerate thousands of innocents in the name of war, but hold a few hundred taliban and terrorists without due process (guaranteed to citizens) and people scream that we are becoming a totalitarian state. My point is that you treat the enemy like, you know, the enemy.

Hmmm, let's see. Baghdad, their home where we're the unwanted invader and they have strong support. Paris, Madrid, London, New York, Toronto; not their home, where they are not wanted, where they have no meaningful support. Yes, I can see where the two are exactly alike. Clearly if we pull out of Iraq, the jihad will invade Rhode Island next week and bring Islam in on the point of a bayonet.

I was stretching a bit. :) But, I'm disturbed when after the Danish cartoon incident an angry mob of protesters in London waved placards reading, "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Behead the one who insults the prophet", "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way", or "7/7 is on its way", "Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way" and "Europe you'll come crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring". France, an opponent to the Iraq war, still is an Islamic terror target because they are trying to resist islamification of schools and their culture.

[--Pete]

Hi,

We can choose to incinerate thousands of innocents in the name of war, . . .

Nope. Not 'innocents', 'enemies'. Their status was determined at Pearl Harbor, and confirmed by FDR and congress. If you want to discuss the utility (or maybe 'futility' is a better word) of bombing non-military, non-strategic sites, then this might go somewhere.

. . . but hold a few hundred taliban and terrorists without due process (guaranteed to citizens) and people scream that we are becoming a totalitarian state.

Again, BS. First show that they are indeed 'taliban and terrorists' and not just random goatherds. Once you've done that, then and only then hold them. It's not the holding, it's the grabbing without need of proof that pisses off those of us who think the USA should stand for something.

My point is that you treat the enemy like, you know, the enemy.

Yep. I just ask that you show that the individual is indeed the enemy before you treat him like one. Not some random bystander, not just someone with a name that kinda sounds like that of an enemy.

--Pete