The Cost of Doing One's Duty [Archive] - Marine Corps

10thzodiac

10-12-06, 07:39 AM

NEW YORK TIMES Editorial: October 11, 2006

During the recent debate over how to handle the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, the Bush administration made a lot of noise about its commitment to fair treatment for the detainees and its respect for the uniformed lawyers of the armed forces. Anyone who believed those claims should consider the fate of the Navy lawyer whose integrity helped spark that debate in the first place.

In 2003, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift was assigned to represent Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen accused of being a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda — for the sole purpose of getting him to plead guilty before one of the military commissions that President Bush created for Guantánamo Bay. Instead of carrying out this morally repugnant task, Commander Swift concluded that the commissions were unconstitutional. He did his duty and defended his client. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in June that the tribunals violated American law as well as the Geneva Conventions.

The Navy responded by killing his military career. About two weeks after the historic high court victory in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Commander Swift was told he was being denied a promotion. Under the Navy’s up-or-out system, that spelled the end of his 20-year career, and Commander Swift said last week that he will be retiring in March or April.

With his defense of Mr. Hamdan and his testimony before Congress starting in July 2003, Commander Swift did as much as any single individual to expose the awful wrongs of Guantánamo Bay and Mr. Bush’s lawless military commissions. It was a valuable public service and a brave act of conscience, and his treatment is deeply troubling.
The law creating military tribunals for terror suspects, passed by Congress in a pre-election panic, leaves enormous room for the continued abuse of prisoners and for the continued detention of scores of men who committed no crime. If their military lawyers are afraid to represent them vigorously, their hopes for justice dim even further.

The Navy gave no reason for refusing Commander Swift’s promotion. But there is no denying the chilling message it sends to remaining military lawyers about the potential consequences of taking their job, and justice, seriously.

seabag

10-14-06, 12:56 AM

Who cares? Lawyers defend The "rights" of child molesters, rapists, murderers, and other vermin, free them on a technicality, cash the check, and sleep very well at night, knowing they put another monster back on the streets. Who cares?

yellowwing

10-14-06, 05:21 AM

First to Fight For Right And Freedom...

jryanjack

10-14-06, 05:52 AM

Without know ALL of the facts in Cmdr Swift's promotion we are left to assume that the Al Qaeda Time is correct. I mean there could be no other reason why the Cmdr was not promoted.

Zulu 36

10-14-06, 08:44 AM

What makes any of us assume the military assigned only the best and brightest to defend those scumbags? In fact, I presumed the military lawyers assigned were probably the ones their commands could afford to send, i.e., the mediocre attorneys who probably were on the fast track to early career ends anyway. If I were a JAG and got tasked to provide a staff attorney for a year or two TAD assignment of this nature, it wouldn't be my best producer that went.

Who got sent to guard and mess duty all of the time? Not the top Marines in the unit, and for the same reason. Get rid of the problem child even if only temporarily.

Plus, so what? He's getting his 20-year retirement anyway at a respectable rank. It's not like they really screwed over him at the 19-year point.

10thzodiac

10-14-06, 09:45 AM

Saturday, July 1, 2006

Gitmo win likely cost Navy lawyer his career

'Fearless' defense of detainee a stinging loss for Bush

By PAUL SHUKOVSKY (paulshukovsky@seattlepi.com)
P-I REPORTER
Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift -- the Navy lawyer who beat the president of the United States in a pivotal Supreme Court battle over trying alleged terrorists -- figures he'll probably have to find a new job.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=236 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width=10></TD><TD colSpan=2>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060630/226CORRECTION_SCOTUS_GUANTANAMO_TRIALS_WCAP105_802 862429062006.jpg</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD width=10></TD><TD width=45>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/art2/zoom.gif (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/photo.asp?PhotoID=94085)</TD><TD class=credit align=right>AP</TD></TR><TR><TD width=10></TD><TD class=caption style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7px" colSpan=2>Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift first represented Hamdan two years ago in U.S. District Court in Seattle.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Of course, it's always risky to compare your boss to King George III.
Swift made the analogy to the court, saying President Bush had overstepped his authority when he bypassed Congress and set up illegal military tribunals to try Guantanamo detainees such as Swift's alleged al-Qaida client, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.
The justices agreed, ruling 5-3 Thursday in favor of dismantling the current tribunal system.
Despite his spectacular success, with the assistance of attorneys from the Seattle firm Perkins Coie, Swift thinks his military career is coming to an end. The 44-year-old Judge Advocate General officer, who was recently named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country by The National Law Journal, was passed over for promotion last year as the high-profile case was making headlines around the world.
"I may be one of the most influential lawyers in America," the Seattle University Law School graduate said, "but I won't be in the military much longer. That irony did strike me."
Swift's future in the Navy now rests with another promotion board that is expected to render its decision in the next couple of weeks. Under the military's system, officers need to be promoted at regularly scheduled intervals or their service careers are essentially over.
"The way it works, the die was cast some months ago," he said. "The decision has been made. I don't know what it is yet." But he thinks his chances are slim.
Asked if he believes he was passed over for promotion last year for political reasons, Swift would not speculate.

"I don't know," he said. "I'm not going to worry about it. I didn't volunteer for this. I got nominated for it. When I got it, I just decided to do the best I could."
Swift has worked under two officers as a member of the small team of lawyers defending "enemy combatants" being held at Guantanamo Bay. Both of them spoke highly of Swift Friday and said they gave him very high ratings on his annual review, called a fitness report.
"He's doing a fantastic job," said Swift's current boss at the Office of Military Commissions (tribunals), Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan.
Sullivan spoke of the crucial importance of the case decided Thursday by the Supreme Court. "It's a fundamental constitutional question about the powers of the president," Sullivan said. Asked about Swift's aggressive legal challenge of the commander in chief, Sullivan saluted Swift's "moral courage."
"He has been absolutely fearless is pursuing his client's interests. And also he has exhibited an extraordinary level of legal skill. His legal strategy has been brilliant.
"We all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and he has certainly done that, literally."
Swift spoke Friday about his "immense pride" in the military justice system. "I don't feel that because you join the military you should lose rights. If there is anyone who deserves the protection of those rights, it's the people who are willing to lay down their lives for it."
So the question is will Swift lay down his career because of his vigorous defense of a Yemeni tribesman who was Osama bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan.
Swift's first supervisor at the Office of Commissions was Col. Will Gunn, who said Friday that he gave Swift two annual fitness reports and "I gave him very high ratings overall."
Asked whether he thought politics might have played a role in Swift being bypassed for promotion, Gunn focused on Swift's atypical career as a military lawyer. "Charlie has spent a lot of time as a litigator, a trial advocate. That's really unusual in the JAG. You find that people in the more senior ranks have moved around and proved themselves in a variety of settings."
Most of Swift's career has been spent in the courtroom.
"While Charlie is a brilliant guy, a tenacious litigator, he does not have all the blocks checked like some other folks have," Gunn said. He called it a "breadth-of-experience" issue.
Swift clearly believes that his vigorous defense of Hamdan was, in a very real way, a vigorous defense of military justice and the Constitution.
"If they are calling the commissions (tribunals) military justice, it's got to live up to what military justice is. It means something. It's about the law, not what the leaders want. The greatest thing about the JAG Corps is ... I had the opportunity to work every day in a system I believe in."
Swift figures he'll hear around the second week of the month whether he's been passed over for promotion again. If so, he says, it will be time to dust off the resume.
He doesn't know what might be next, but when asked if he might move back to the Puget Sound area, he said: "I lived in Seattle for 6 1/2 years. I love Seattle."
He proceeded to reminisce fondly about sitting in the Kingdome's outfield bleachers watching the Mariners play. "And my wife is an airplane pilot. She could live anywhere."

ivalis

10-14-06, 10:59 AM

The fact that he won the case before the supreme court suggests to me that he is no mediocre attorney.

I would of thought he would of gotten some kind of award rather than shown the door.

OLE SARG

10-14-06, 08:14 PM

WHY do we keep beating this dead horse on GITMO - IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THESE SCUMS, OR SHEETHEADS, GET BETTER TREATMENT THAN OUR OWN MARINES IN THE BRIG IN CAMP PENDLETON!!!!!!!!! WHAT IN THE **** ARE YOU GUYS THINKING???????
I guess with mccain's "terrorist's bill of rights" we can even KISS MORE OF THE TERRORIST'S ASSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THESE *******S LOST ALL THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY KILLED OR TRIED TO KILL ONE OF OUR BROTHERS - TRY TO REMEMBER WHY THESE SCUMBAGS ARE WHERE THEY ARE AT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER ****ING FI,

greensideout

10-14-06, 08:46 PM

I am still at a loss to understand how "foreign enemy combatants" have the rights and freedoms that are granted to American citizens by the United States Constitution?

sgt tony

10-14-06, 08:48 PM

I agree with OLE SARG all the way. Lets get our troops the proper treatment. They are Americans and have EARNED that right.

rb1651

10-15-06, 04:53 PM

OLE SARG, you hit the nail on the head!!! :thumbup:

10thzodiac

10-15-06, 08:42 PM

Someone on the news recently was comparing our military to a Big Hammer and that everything that was a problem looked like a nail. LOL

OLE SARG

10-15-06, 09:02 PM

It makes it hard on our military when you have our driveby media and the left fighting for the terrorists. Makes you want to say, "If you don't like it, leave it"!!!!! I expect nothing but the least from these *******s!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

ggyoung

10-16-06, 11:51 AM

OLE SARG how wright you are

10thzodiac

10-16-06, 06:20 PM

Would Thomas Jefferson have insisted on upholding the principles of international law in general, and the Geneva Conventions in particular ? There are echoes of the Jeffersonian precepts of 1781 in Article 3 of the Conventions - which has been the focus of so much negotiation between the president and Senate Republicans - and in the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Both Article 3 and Hamdan bar inhumane treatment of war prisoners. More than 200 years ago, Jefferson urged that Americans should endeavor "as far as possible to alleviate the inevitable miseries of war by treating captives as humanity and national honor requires."

Strong presidential power is important in times of war. Even so, the checks and balances embodied in Congress and the courts are vital to the democratic process. Congress was created to check "the dog of war," as Jefferson put it. Regarding prisoners of war, he would have called for their just treatment to show the United States as a beacon of liberty and justice throughout the world.

Jefferson would have been appalled by Bush's misguided policy in the Middle East as tactically shortsighted, strategically ineffective, and above all, dishonorable. He would have applauded the Supreme Court's ruling in June against the Bush administration's position on allowing military tribunals to withhold evidence from prisoners of war, as depriving the accused of due process guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. And he would have endorsed the efforts of Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and other congressional leaders to put the brakes on Bush's foreign policy and redirect the country, even in these difficult times, to a path that preserves the morals of our founders: duty, justice and national honor.

Otherwise, what are we defending?

jgorosco

10-16-06, 06:49 PM

Now I have heard it all!!! 10zoo, Now you are speaking on behalf of someone from the past that you Know for a fact that would not agree with Our President now and would agree with someone else. You Cir! are true, bonafide F*cking Idiot!! How in the Hell you are still allowed on this site is amazing. Go ahead and come back with an article a qoute and just more Bvllsh*t from your mouth. To be honest I can't believe I wasted my time on you.

10thzodiac

10-16-06, 07:20 PM

If freedom of speech upsets you, then you served for nothing and are in the wrong country.

May I suggest Saudi Arabia, I understand they have torture too.

OLE SARG

10-16-06, 07:30 PM

Let me add to that - mccain is a fruitcake!!!!!!! Anyone who would make the statements he did about the mistreated and misguided sheetheads, has to be brain-damaged!!!!!!!!!!! Yea, let me add that our congress has become a den of thieves and crooks, i.e., jefferson d-la (everyone keeps $90,000 in cash in their freezers + caught on tape taking a bribe!!!!!, foley, the pervert, r, swimmer kennedy d-ma, who got away with murder, dirty harry, d-az, the land barron (gets 1 and a half million dollars from a piece of property he sold 3 years ago, and the list goes on. politicians, most of them, today have but one goal when running for office, to hell with the people, hooray for me and how much money I can make PLUS THAT GREAT RETIREMENT PROGRAM!!! SCREW ANYBODY THAT TRIES TO DEFEND THESE *******S!!!!

SEMPER FI,

10thzodiac

10-16-06, 07:55 PM

McCain, was prisoner of war in North Vietnam for six years; friends say McCain speaks rarely of beatings and other abuse he endured, but that those experiences lend particular authority to his stand against American maltreament of detainees.

In a letter to Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain, the military leaders called torture and cruel treatment "ineffective methods, because they induce prisoners to say what their interrogators want to hear, even if it is not true, while bringing discredit upon the United States".

The McCain proposal would mandate that all branches of the U.S. military use only the U.S. Army's Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation (FM 34-52), which prohibits use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. government agency, to define the limits of prisoner custody.

greensideout

10-16-06, 08:04 PM

Zulu 36

10-16-06, 08:05 PM

He would have applauded the Supreme Court's ruling in June against the Bush administration's position on allowing military tribunals to withhold evidence from prisoners of war, as depriving the accused of due process guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
I'm not certain that Jefferson would recognize war as he knew it in the 18th Century to exist in war as we know it now in the 21st Century.

Be that as it may, I doubt seriously that Jefferson would applaud any such decision by the US Supreme Court as under Article Three of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court was not granted that authority. SCOTUS almost always exceeds its Constituional authority anytime they decide a case these days.

SCOTUS took the authority as arbiter of consitutional questions upon themselves in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), thus usurping Congressional perogatives. Sadly Congress then, and Congress now, usually allows SCOTUS and the "inferior courts" to continue usurping their authority. Usage now has almost the full force of Consitiutional law.

Congress is not ignorant of this usurpage. Personally I think it is a deliberate act to throw "blame" for keeping or dumping unpopular laws onto someone not accountable to The People through election. " Congress often exempts legislation from judicial review when it serves their purpose (see 99.9% of their earmark legislation).

So, I don't think Jefferson would approve of most of what is happening these days. Especially the reluctance to defend and preserve our nation from invaders, even (and especially) if it means fighting the invaders in their own countries.

Terrorists and PWs are not citizens of our country. They do not have, or deserve, the rights guaranteed to those of us lucky to be citizens of the United States of America. Anyone who says otherwise seems to be more concerned about those scumbags who want to kill us then they are about us.

As you quote Jefferson (from what source I do not know), "as far as possible to alleviate the inevitable miseries of war by treating captives as humanity and national honor requires." As far as possible I agree with. But not to the detriment of our citizens. Pick a side. Us or them. If them - move there and convert to Islam.

I know what country I fought for and it wasn't to give the enemies of my nation aid, comfort, or the Bill of Rights.

jgorosco

10-16-06, 09:02 PM

If freedom of speech upsets you, then you served for nothing and are in the wrong country.

May I suggest Saudi Arabia, I understand they have torture too.


No Freedom of Speech doesn't upset me. It is you that upsets me!! All the fvckin' time with your political bullsh*t!! Do you ever get tired of listening to yourself. How about once in awhile talk about Marine Corps stories.

To me, it seems it is you that has a problem with America, so why don't you try another country that caters to your wants and needs.

10thzodiac

10-16-06, 10:15 PM

As you quote Jefferson (from what source I do not know), "as far as possible to alleviate the inevitable miseries of war by treating captives as humanity and national honor requires." As far as possible I agree with. But not to the detriment of our citizens. Pick a side. Us or them. If them - move there and convert to Islam. I know what country I fought for and it wasn't to give the enemies of my nation aid, comfort, or the Bill of Rights.

They might start thinking what is good for you.

It could be argued that the terrorists attacked our Military Industrial Complex (MIC), not Americans per se; namely the banking (<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1:place><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:PlaceName>Twin</st1:PlaceName><st1:PlaceType>Towers</st1:PlaceType></ST1:place>), military (Pentagon) and government (Capitol). Did you ever really ask yourself why those targets?<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>
<O:p< font O:p<>

Just think if Usama really thought 9/11 the American people were his real enemy instead of the MIC. I wouldn’t of wanted to live around any nuclear reactors and their in the open waste storage. Could you imagine if they took out <st1:City><ST1:place>Chicago</ST1:place></st1:City>'s water pumping station offshore? It is in the open in <ST1:place>Lake Michigan</ST1:place> minutes from our airport, not to mention Zion Nuclear Reactor a little farther.

If the opposite was true, that if the Middle Easterners were over here exploiting our oil, we would probably do the same to them. Does that make any sense?

No, Usama has probably read Sun Tzu's "Art of War", "Let the enemy do voluntarily what you would have him do by force” i.e. bankruptcy. Do not laugh, 9 billion a month and we are still at square one and no end in sight. Remember Usama bankrupted the <ST1:place>Soviet Union</ST1:place> in <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Afghanistan</ST1:place></st1:country-region>; remember that is when Usama and the Taliban were our friends, lol.

If we pulled out of <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Iraq</ST1:place></st1:country-region> now the Sunnies and the Shiites would fight it out and after there would be no room left for foreign insurgents (terrorists).

We have to start spending that 9 Billion a month Iraqi War money on homeland security instead, because the person with suitcase nuke is already out there.

The <ST1:place>Jefferson</ST1:place> source in my last post is from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Wheather you know it or not you served a country of laws, even though you may not arbitrarily like some of them, but that is what makes this country great. No one is above the law, not you, or King George.

As far as you having me converting to Islam and moving there (there ? I thought they had Islamics here too, I know you thought they are all over there, after all this is your America), no thanks I find that Religions harden hearts and enslave minds, I have enough problems here already.

Have a good Constitution

Semper Fidelis

10th

P.S. jgorosco, I didn't forget you, I'm just ignoring ignoranuses today.
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
</O:p<>

Zulu 36

10-17-06, 06:06 AM

Zodiac,

Your writings read exactly like the Soviet propaganda I read in years past. Do you carry your CP card still?

Also, the Philadelphia Inquirer is not a "source" for quotations. Which of Jefferson's writings or speeches was the source of that statement, and/or what scholarly document can I find it in? One of the house organs for American communists (aka: liberals) does not count as a scholary document on the best of days.

ahanlon

10-17-06, 10:37 AM

I'm new here and so I almost hesitate to get into this argument without being properly introduced, but what the hell. When the American colonies were trying to separate from Great Britain, didn't Jefferson argue in the Declaration of Independence that the rights of men (meaning both genders, of course) were inherent and inalienable? That no government or monarchy had the authority to either grant them or take them away, because, as he put it, they were god-given? If rights are inherent and inalienable, then everyone has these rights regardless of citizenship. If we believe this, then we are bound to respect the rights of everyone as if they too were Americans. We can't just retreat into our own prosperous little worlds and assume that rights we take for granted are ours because of our citizenship. To do that would be to concede that our rights are determined and controlled by the government. That's unamerican guys. Our personal freedoms, including the right to our opinions freely expressed in any kind of debate, are kind of basic to who we are as Americans. In fact, the constitution was written in that spirit, right? Accordingly, we can't assume that anyone imprisoned in gitmo is guilty until evidence is produced in a court of law. When the Bush administration declares that some people are exempt from the right to a fair trial, or that the Geneva Convention accords do not apply, then they are also saying that you have rights only because the government grants them. That position subverts our own law of the land, and the Administration should be held accountable for its attempt to subvert the constitution.

For two hundred years our country has been seen as a beacon of hope. Thanks to the Bush administration that's all over now.

By the way, I don't see why 10thZodiac shouldn't post articles from any source he wants, after all Drifter posts what seems like an endless stream of right wing propaganda all the time. Nobody says anything about that. I make these remarks with all due respect, of course. Like I say, I'm new here, although I've been reading a lot of posts over the last week or so.

When I was on active duty I served with all kinds of people who had all kinds of opinions and who were from everywhere. They all had in common either Parris Island or San Diego. They all had in common the color green. In many ways the Marine Corps was way ahead of the rest of the country in terms of integration and recognition of "diversity." I was very young when I enlisted and the first lesson I learned about tolerance for differences of others was in the Marine Corps. That lesson has not been superseded by any experience in the civilian world since.

GunnyL

10-17-06, 12:28 PM

ahanlon

10-17-06, 01:42 PM

Hi Gunnie,

You know Thomas Jefferson actually wanted us to know what he thought. That's why he wrote books. Please allow me to recommend one: Notes on the State of Virginia, edited by Willian Peden; W.W. Norton and Company NY 1972. ISBN: 0-393-00647-6.

In it you'll find lots of interesting topics, including a discussion on the natural right of humans to live free lives balanced against the necessity to establish a government as protections against anarchy. That's a good one. Jefferson also writes about the separation of church and state in this book, not to protect religion, but to protect the government. Interesting stuff, I tell ya. In spite of the 18th century locutions, the book is not hard to read as Jefferson was a good writer. He wrote lots of other stuff too, including over 50,000 letters and, oh yeah, the Declaration of Independence. If you take the time to read this stuff, then, yeah, it's possible to know what he thought, because while you read, the intervening 150 years or so melt away and you have access to Jefferson's mind. One of the reasons he may have written so much is so that it would be possible for future generations (that's us) to speculate about what he might have thought about current events. That's how culture evolves: the past feeds the present.

By the way Gunnie, I'm curious about why you think Zod is so far to the left. To the left of what? Where do you think the center is?

10thzodiac

10-17-06, 01:59 PM

You notice the article in question comes from the Communist Times, otherwise referred to as the New York Times and we all know that 10thzodiak is as far to the left as you can get.
I like how he has intimate knowledge of what Thomas Jefferson would have wanted. This is not the world that Thomas Jefferson lived in Numb Nuts so don't go around trying to speak for someone who's been dead more than 150 years. I don't believe you've ever had any intimate conversations with the man and that he told you what he would have wanted in the world we live in today.
You prove everyday that the Enemy within is the most dangerous foe facing this country today.
10thzodiak, Ahmadinejad and Kim's boy!

No GunnyL, I'm sorry to disappoint you the article does not come from the Communist Times (Pravda) but from Philadelphia Media Holdings L.L.C., Brian P. Tierney a Republican activist who represented many local groups in the Philadelphia area. Do you feel a little silly now ? http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15592459.htm
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>
Philadelphia Inquirer Founded <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:date Month="6" Day="1" Year="1829">June 1, 1829</st1:date>, The Philadelphia Inquirer is <st1:country-region><ST1:place>America</ST1:place></st1:country-region>'s third-oldest surviving daily newspaper.
<O:p></O:p>
What’s with you and Lance Colonel Death From Above, every time I quote our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Supreme Court Decisions, General Butler, Senator McCain and other American Icons, all of a sudden I’m a Pinko Communist ? Between the two of you, I expected you would have more intellect than that. What is your problem and please spare us the child like rhetorics and name-calling? Try conducting yourselves like Marines deeper than your tattoos when you post!.<O:p></O:p>

SF

10th

GunnyL

10-17-06, 02:54 PM

10thzodiak the original artical you posted is labeled New York Times Editorial dated 11 October and that is the artical I was referring to. Do you feel silly now. You don't reference an artical in the Jefferson post, so you're plagerizing someone elses work, but I should have known, that's usually the way you post; with other peoples words, thanks for finally giving the author credit.
I don't really care who wrote the artical, Thomas Jefferson didn't live in 21st Century America and his words are only indicative of his thoughts as they were relevant to the time he occupied this earth. My views on a lot of things have changed as the world around me changes. Things that were relevant during my early years are no longer relevant today. So taking someones words out of context from another period in time and trying to indicate that they would feel the same way about a situation you try to apply them to is simply dishonest.
As for ahanlan, Gunny is spelled with a Y not IE. And judging by your profile and the fact that you list UC Berkeley you would have no way of knowing what the center is. Also, it's Camp Zukeran not Sukerin.
I don't cut and paste other peoples words, my thoughts are my own. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the New York Times is out of touch with reality and yes, very far to the Left!

jgorosco

10-17-06, 03:20 PM

HEY 10ZOO HOW IS THIS FOR ACTING LIKE A MARINE "GO FVCK YOURSELF NUMBNUTS"
I could give a rats azz if you have your own thoughts or use other peoples thoughts as your own. I am just sick of you turning this Marine site into a political zoo!!

Lance Colonel Out

drumcorpssnare

10-17-06, 03:54 PM

10thzodiac- Please tell us what Mr. Jefferson would have thought of an enemy with absolutely no concept of justice, fair-play, honor, liberty, freedom, etc. Would Mr. Jefferson have encouraged the press to lie to Americans or at the least, 'slant the partial truths'? If British terrorists had blown up Independence Hall in 1806, would the venerable Thomas Jefferson have said,"We just need to leave the English alone, and everything will be better."
Also, check your history...the prisoners of war during the Revolution, on both sides, were generally relegated to miserable, disease infested prison ships. Chances for mere 'survival' were slim. Yeah, that's 'great' treatment for a POW! Lots of Honor and Justice there!
These prisoners in Gitmo are the "BAD GUYS"!!! They aren't interested in sitting around having coffee and smokes, and shootin' the breeze. They want to kill us!

:usmc: SEMPER FI !!!

ahanlon

10-17-06, 04:16 PM

Hi Gunny. Yup, I spelled gunny wrong. Sorry. Evidently, judging from the rest of your post, that's one of the few words you know how to spell. My advice? I wouldn't be correcting anyone else's spelling if I were you.

Interestingly enough, Sukiran, as spelled in my profile (which you managed to get wrong), was correct in 1958. During the late sixties the government tried varying the anglicanizations of Japanese words. For example, machinato became makiminato. It's sort of the way Peking became Beijing. In the process, Sukiran became Zukeran. See? You need to, like, read and stuff in order to know what you're talking about.

Yes, I went to U.C. Berkeley, like a lot of other marines, including Major General Oliver Smith USMC. General Smith was a highly decorated combat veteran of WW II and Korea. He was advanced to four-star rank on retirement because of having been specially commended for heroism in combat. He is most noted for (pay attention now gunny) commanding the 1st Marine Division during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. Yup, I went to U.C. Berkeley and I'm proud of it. I'm in good company.

As for knowing where the center is. I never said I did know. I asked you where you thought it was. So? Where do you think it is?

You don't know, do you?

semper fi
Art

<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="whitesmoke" valign="top">
</td><td colspan="2" bgcolor="whitesmoke" valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

jgorosco

10-17-06, 04:24 PM

Great another one. I vote for a political forum on this site to keep all this garbage to it self

jinelson

10-17-06, 04:40 PM

Yes - We could call it the Utopian Forum - A place to share leftest rants from the Peoples Republic Of Berkeley and give aid and comfort to our enemies!

OLE SARG

10-17-06, 04:53 PM

God-damn, I Feel Great, I've Had My History And Spelling Lessons From The Left. I Am Ready To Conquer The World!!!!
Oh God, Don't Talk About The Poor Mistreated Sheetheads At Gitmo Or You'll Get The Lefties Going Again!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Sheetheads Aaarrreee Sssooo Mistreated It Is Pitiful!!

Semper Fi,

ahanlon

10-17-06, 05:30 PM

You mean sort of like a concentration camp?

Also Jim, I'm offended. I haven't posted any rants. I worked hard on those posts and strove to maintain a reasoned and calm approach to the issues under discussion. It's not like I posted in an outsize font in order to simulate shouting. That, if anthing, is a ranting technique. Also, in point of fact, you don't know enough about my politics to know where I fit in on the political spectrum. Disagreement is not "leftist" or "rightist." In fact, we have a moral duty to disagree with others if we feel we are headed in the wrong direction. I started responding to these posts because I thought some posters were attacking Zod unfairly. The posts became personal rather than reasoned responses in a forum that is by definition a place for debate. Now you're attacking me as well and you don't even know me. I know, I'm falling into the same trap and I'm beginning to say things that are personal and I don't like myself when I do that. But Jim, don't you think you might assuming too much by implying that I'm a leftist purely because of where I went to college?

I have a better idea for some of you. Open a topic and isolate yourselves. Allow nobody to participate except those with whom you agree. Post a guard. That's easier than hiring a police force to confine everyone else, which is ultimately what your kind of fear will lead to. That's what gives the enemy aid and comfort.

10thzodiac

10-17-06, 05:47 PM

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid.
As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal."
We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except
Negroes." When the Know-Nothings, get control, it will read
"all men are created equal, except Negroes, and foreigners
and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating
to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty- to
Russia where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base
alloy of hypocrisy." ~ Abraham Lincoln - Letter to Joshua F. Speed, Aug. 24, 1855.

Gees, Lincoln a Republican and moving to Russia...did you guys have relatives in Lincoln's time ?

10th

OLE SARG

10-17-06, 07:53 PM

How in the #$%k did we get to Russia in this thread????????? Please get off your left horse a minute and start thinking rationally!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

DOCFITZ67

10-17-06, 08:04 PM

What do ya know, another thread were if you aint right you are very wrong!
So the cost of doing my duty is to have my some of my Brothers call me nasty names if I don't agree with the policies of the current CIC. HUH. WTF!

DOCFITZ67

10-17-06, 08:08 PM

10thzodiac

10-17-06, 09:39 PM

You know I use to spell Camp Zukeran as Camp Sukiran. I was stationed there 24 months 1963-65.

One of the many times I was there on vacation, I noticed it was spelled Zukeran. Thinking I was wrong all this time I adopted Zukeran as the spelling thinking I had it wrong, but actually they changed it. Very astute ahanlon, kudos to you !

When I was there this year I noticed it was changed again, it is now Camp Foster and Four Corners Koza, is now Okinawa city.

Once long time ago when I was visiting Okinawa my son's high school friend was stationed in my old outfit 12 Marines there. I had him get us Burger Kings on Base and bring them up to the Hilton as that was the only Burger king in Japan. Why, well I was told Micky D's were just to expensive off base for Marine pay, so they imported a Burger King.

This year three Domino's pizza's in Tokyo cost me $90.00 and I bought the cokes separately and they were no bargain either. The pizzas were cheap compared to the restaurants and she wants to go back next year while we are still young, lol. A cab ride between the two airports in Tokyo is $250 to $300 for ninety minute trip... I take the bus $36.

SF

10th

003XXMarineDAD

10-18-06, 12:07 AM

Kudos 10thzodiac
your post will always point out the far left fringe and bring out your comrades to help you spread your mindless games you play. I play to defend the Marines on the ground now and the ones that have gone before and were disparaged in the sixties by the left from the past and the current ones still alive but older from the sixties. The one thing I have seen and had words with in person on the anti war protest lines is the one's from the sixties still smell as bad as they did then.

:D

10thzodiac

10-18-06, 07:32 AM

Kudos 10thzodiac
your post will always point out the far left fringe and bring out your comrades to help you spread your mindless games you play.

In Marine speak, Smedley walked the walk and then talked the talk !

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Not a single drop of American blood should ever again be spilled on foreign soil. Let's build up a national defense so tight that even a rat couldn't crawl through! “~ Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC on Interventionism

I trust General Butler's quote won't be dismissed as (to use your words) far left fringe by you and your comrades as mindless games were playing.

To the contrary 003XXMarineDAD I and my comrades were or are Marines in harms way like your son is now. If we are to fight and die, let it be for our homes and the Bill of Rights, not an oil well in Iraq (see below) or some lousy investment of bankers. “War for any other reason is simply a racket." ~ General Smedeley D. Butler<O:p</O:p

It is so plain, some day I hope you will be able to see what General Butler was telling the Marines.

General Butler is not here now and others must take up where he left off or he and the Marines that follow him served for nothing more than some lousy investments for bankers and Iraqi oil wells.

Semper Fidelis:usmc:

10th

drumcorpssnare

10-18-06, 08:11 AM

Camper51

10-18-06, 09:58 AM

the two marks in the title might just represent the narrowness of mind of some people...

ggyoung

10-18-06, 10:58 AM

Stop all this crap. We are Marines, not a bunch of school kids.

ahanlon

10-18-06, 04:42 PM

10thzodiac- a couple quick thoughts...
You quote Lincoln's letter concerning the equality of "all men." Do you suppose he was referring to "law abiding citizens", or did that include criminals, confederates, terrorists, and other dregs of humanity? The reason I ask is, why did he suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus for those suspected of complicity in dividing our nation? If he considered "them" equal, they should have been afforded the full protection of the law. Is it possible that he was smart enough to realize that the dangerous people who would completely undermine what this country stands for, do not deserve it's protection?

Second, although Maj. Gen. Butler died before Dec. 7, 1941...do you REALLY think he would have been in favor of just rebuilding the Pacific Fleet, as opposed to taking the fight to the Empire of Japan? I have every confidence that Smedley would have rolled up his sleeves, and jumped right into all aspects of the Second World War.

:usmc:

Mark, that is a really good question. Consider this: since according to the consitution and the Bill of Rights everyone is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, Lincoln clearly did mean 'all men." You can't just accuse someone of a crime or misbehavior and have him taken away. When the accuser is the state, then it becomes enormously more important. That's why the writ of habeas corpus exists--to protect you and me and everyone else from being thrown in jail or taken into custody or having our houses searched without just cause only because we've been accused of something. The accused has to have a chance to challenge the accuser and demand that evidence be shown to justify the accusation. If a judge decides that the state's accusations have merit, then the case goes to trial.

You mention two categories of people: Law-abiding citizens vs criminals, confederates, terrorists, etc. Let me ask you: who is going to decide who are the law abiding citizens and who are the criminals? I'm sure you know it's up to the courts and the criminal justice system to decide those matters. The writ of habeas corpus is there so that officials who either don't know what the law is or who don't care what the law is can't put innocent people in prison. In our legal system the burden of proof is on the state, you, if you've been accused of a crime, don't have to prove you're innocent; "they" have to prove you're guilty. So I don't disagree with the distinction you make between law-abiding citizens and criminals, I only would like to point out that the writ of habeas corpus exists so that we truly know how to tell the difference.

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus on two occasions. The first was at the very beginning of the civil war during a time of serious unrest in the state of Maryland. It was so bad that local confederate sympathizers were forming militias to fight Union troops. Lincoln had to do something drastic to save the situation from total deterioration. Furthemore, martial law had been declared. Consider also that Lincoln's only agenda was to preserve the Union. He had no other aim in mind. I don't think that is the case with our current administration. Also, as bad as the current situation is, it isn't even close to something as catastrophic as the civil war.

The second instance of Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus was a little more iffy and Lincoln later admitted he made a mistake (Lincoln was an amazing statesman. He could admit he made a mistake and expect forgiveness, which of course he received). The incident involved the arrest of a "copperhead," a newspaper editor, I think, but I'm not sure. Copperhead was the term they used to identify Northern anti-war advocates. Copperheads didn't necessarily sympathize with the south, but they wanted to end the war. I don't remember all the details right now, but they are easy to research on the web. The point is that the suspension of habeas corpus is a serious tactic and it should never be used to ensnare people wholesale. Too many innocent people get hurt that way. For example, during WWII the U.S. government suspended habeas corpus and wrongfully imprisoned thousands of Japanese Americans only because they were Japanese. That was the wrong thing to do.

By the way, the provision in the constitution that addresses suspending habeas corpus gives to power to do so to the Congress, not the president. Otherwise the executive branch becomes too powerful and the system of checks and balances suffers.

Oh and Smedley Butler? Yeah, I believe he would have jumped right into the fight after Pearl Harbor. But there was a big difference between WWII and the banana wars that the U.S. fought in Central America during the thirties.

Great question Mark. Right to the point and appropriate to this discussion. Thank you for asking it.

semper fi
Art

greensideout

10-18-06, 05:44 PM

Mark, that is a really good question. Consider this: since according to the consitution and the Bill of Rights everyone is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, Lincoln clearly did mean 'all men." You can't just accuse someone of a crime or misbehavior and have him taken away. When the accuser is the state, then it becomes enormously more important. That's why the writ of habeas corpus exists--to protect you and me and everyone else from being thrown in jail or taken into custody or having our houses searched without just cause only because we've been accused of something. The accused has to have a chance to challenge the accuser and demand that evidence be shown to justify the accusation. If a judge decides that the state's accusations have merit, then the case goes to trial.

You mention two categories of people: Law-abiding citizens vs criminals, confederates, terrorists, etc. Let me ask you: who is going to decide who are the law abiding citizens and who are the criminals? I'm sure you know it's up to the courts and the criminal justice system to decide those matters. The writ of habeas corpus is there so that officials who either don't know what the law is or who don't care what the law is can't put innocent people in prison. In our legal system the burden of proof is on the state, you, if you've been accused of a crime, don't have to prove you're innocent; "they" have to prove you're guilty. So I don't disagree with the distinction you make between law-abiding citizens and criminals, I only would like to point out that the writ of habeas corpus exists so that we truly know how to tell the difference.

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus on two occasions. The first was at the very beginning of the civil war during a time of serious unrest in the state of Maryland. It was so bad that local confederate sympathizers were forming militias to fight Union troops. Lincoln had to do something drastic to save the situation from total deterioration. Furthemore, martial law had been declared. Consider also that Lincoln's only agenda was to preserve the Union. He had no other aim in mind. I don't think that is the case with our current administration. Also, as bad as the current situation is, it isn't even close to something as catastrophic as the civil war.

The second instance of Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus was a little more iffy and Lincoln later admitted he made a mistake (Lincoln was an amazing statesman. He could admit he made a mistake and expect forgiveness, which of course he received). The incident involved the arrest of a "copperhead," a newspaper editor, I think, but I'm not sure. Copperhead was the term they used to identify Northern anti-war advocates. Copperheads didn't necessarily sympathize with the south, but they wanted to end the war. I don't remember all the details right now, but they are easy to research on the web. The point is that the suspension of habeas corpus is a serious tactic and it should never be used to ensnare people wholesale. Too many innocent people get hurt that way. For example, during WWII the U.S. government suspended habeas corpus and wrongfully imprisoned thousands of Japanese Americans only because they were Japanese. That was the wrong thing to do.

By the way, the provision in the constitution that addresses suspending habeas corpus gives to power to do so to the Congress, not the president. Otherwise the executive branch becomes too powerful and the system of checks and balances suffers.

Oh and Smedley Butler? Yeah, I believe he would have jumped right into the fight after Pearl Harbor. But there was a big difference between WWII and the banana wars that the U.S. fought in Central America during the thirties.

Great question Mark. Right to the point and appropriate to this discussion. Thank you for asking it.

semper fi
Art

These are the same people that we are working hard to kill. You do understand KILL don't you?

They are the enemy. The ENEMY, get it?

Maybe we should end taking prisoners and kill them all in the AO as was done at Iwo. You know about that BATTLE don't you?

The other side of the coin would be to squeeze information from them in hopes to stop another 9-11 ATTACK. You do remember that date, right?

OLE SARG

10-18-06, 05:54 PM

GSO,
In their eyes, 9-11 probably didn't occur!!!!!!!! I don't know that they know the definition of "enemy"!!!

SEMPER FI,

10thzodiac

10-18-06, 06:17 PM

Habeas Cporpus: The Supreme Court held that <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><ST1:place>Lincoln</ST1:place></st1:City> could not suspend habeas corpus. One of <st1:City><ST1:place>Lincoln</ST1:place></st1:City>’s campaign chairmen and friend appointed to the high court wrote the opinion. Of course, Abe was dead at the time.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, highly disagreed with <st1:City><ST1:place>Lincoln</ST1:place></st1:City>’s suspension of habeas corpus, noting that even Thomas Jefferson, confronted with Aaron Burr’s plan to create a new nation out of land around <st1:City><ST1:place>New Orleans</ST1:place></st1:City>, stated explicitly that he did not have the power suspend habeas corpus.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
· President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus lacked both moral and constitutional justification. It confined thousands in military prisons for opposing war and voided years of jurisprudence. The Constitution never gives the president the right to suspend habeas corpus, nor can that right be inferred from the commander-in-chief clause or the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. <st1:City><ST1:place>Lincoln</ST1:place></st1:City>’s suspension was not only illegal; it was also dangerous, threatening the separation of powers that prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Moreover, his actions inspired future presidents to ignore the Constitution during times of crisis. Especially today, with the post-9/11 crackdown on civil liberties, Americans would be wise to reread Ex parte Merryman. (Link (http://tinyurl.com/rrjw6))<O:p></O:p>

The original decision, which ALL Americans should read, is here (http://tinyurl.com/nqfrk). <O:p</O:p
<st1:City><ST1:pLincoln</st1:City>, it should be noted, put out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for his ex parte Merryman decision. He was unable to find a marshal willing to arrest the 84-year-old judge.<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>
General Smedley Butler on war with <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Japan</ST1:place></st1:country-region>: Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of <ST1:place>Europe</ST1:place> are on the loose. In the Orient, the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Russia</ST1:place></st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Japan</ST1:place></st1:country-region> fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Japan</ST1:place></st1:country-region>. Then our very generous international bankers were financing <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Japan</ST1:place></st1:country-region>. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to <st1:country-region><ST1:place>China</ST1:place></st1:country-region> mean to us? Our trade with <st1:country-region><ST1:place>China</ST1:place></st1:country-region> is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine <ST1:place>Islands</ST1:place>? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Philippines</ST1:place></st1:country-region> in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.<O:p></O:p>

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of <st1:State><ST1:place>Washington</ST1:place></st1:State> (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that <st1:country-region><ST1:place>America</ST1:place></st1:country-region> is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.<O:p></O:p>

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.<O:p></O:p>
The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.<O:p></O:p>

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the <st1:country-region><ST1:place>united States</ST1:place></st1:country-region> fleet so close to <ST1:place>Nippon</ST1:place>'s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of <st1:State><ST1:place>California</ST1:place></st1:State> were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off <st1:City><ST1:place>Los Angeles</ST1:place></st1:City>.<O:p></O:p>

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the <st1:State><ST1:place>Maine</ST1:place></st1:State> would never have gone to <ST1:place><st1:PlaceName>Havana</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType>Harbor</st1:PlaceType></ST1:place>. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Spain</ST1:place></st1:country-region> with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.<O:p></O:p>

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.<O:p></O:p>
We must take the profit out of war.<O:p></O:p>
We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.<O:p></O:p>
We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

The above are excerpts taken out of General Butlers book “War is a Racket” http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Another book (suppressed) about General Butler “The Plot to Seize the Whitehouse” By Jules Archer shows how General Butler saved <st1:country-region><ST1:place>America</ST1:place></st1:country-region> from a Fascist Plot to install himself as the American Mussolini and depose President Roosevelt. Wealthy operative members hatched this plot in 'The American Legion’. http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
SF>><O:p

10th></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>

ahanlon

10-18-06, 06:46 PM

These are the same people that we are working hard to kill. You do understand KILL don't you?

Did you actually read my post? What do you think we're talking about?

Okay, look, I'll be as blunt about this as possible. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will ultimately defeat our enemies on the battlefield or anywhere. But here at home the writ of habeas corpus protects YOU!

What habeas corpus represents is exactly what was being attacked on 9-11. If we are so scared that we suspend habeas corpus, then those who attacked us win.

It can't be said more clearly than that.

jgorosco

10-18-06, 06:59 PM

So the two that have all the answers for the Gov't and what the ghost from the past would have said or done; What should be done and who is best for the job? Please go ahead and do your campaign speech and get it over with. Because I am absolutely tired of hearing this and that about Our gov't and Our President from you two NumbNuts! Stop with the History lessons

ahanlon

10-18-06, 07:10 PM

The title of this conference is "The Cost of Doing One's Duty." What, precisely, did you think we were going to be talking about in here?

What's that old saying? "Those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it." Wise words.

greensideout

10-18-06, 07:12 PM

Did you actually read my post? What do you think we're talking about?

Okay, look, I'll be as blunt about this as possible. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will ultimately defeat our enemies on the battlefield or anywhere. But here at home the writ of habeas corpus protects YOU!

What habeas corpus represents is exactly what was being attacked on 9-11. If we are so scared that we suspend habeas corpus, then those who attacked us win.

It can't be said more clearly than that.

I would say that obeying the laws of the land are what best protect me. To do otherwise is to subspend my rights by my own action.

The prisoners at gitmo in my view, have no rights granted by our costitution.
Just because they have been transported to a location under an American Flag does not make them less of an enemy. Our troops kill the enemy. That's the justice that they have brought upon themselves.

jgorosco

10-18-06, 07:14 PM

So no real answer for what should be done then or what needs to be done? Is that what I am getting from you?

OLE SARG

10-18-06, 07:43 PM

The sheetheads at GITMO have NO ****ING RIGHTS!!!!! THEY WANT TO KILL US!!!!!!!!!! EQUALS "ENEMY"!!!!!!! THEY COULD GIVE A **** ABOUT HABEAS CORPUS!!!!!!! THEY (THE "ENEMY") HAVE NO ****ING RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That couldn't be any clearer!!

SEMPER FI,

003XXMarineDAD

10-18-06, 10:56 PM

General Butler is not here now and others must take up where he left off or he and the Marines that follow him served for nothing more than some lousy investments for bankers and Iraqi oil wells.

:D
10th for one you are NO General Butler.
But more like a Commander Cain.
:)

ahanlon

10-19-06, 02:30 AM

ahanlon

10-19-06, 09:29 AM

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That couldn't be any clearer!!

SEMPER FI,

Sarge! Be careful, you're going to break that exclamation mark key!

Osotogary

10-19-06, 10:41 AM

What's that old saying? "Those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it." Wise words.

One might also say that those that have studied and those that are studying history are condemned to repeat it as well. Me thinks it is human nature.

jinelson

10-19-06, 11:09 AM

by ahanlon - Mr. Parrish, with all due respect, you have never been in the Marine Corps and you are not in a position to judge 10thZodiac. He is a Marine who thinks. Without men like him the history of the Corps would be very different. I'm sure your son is a fine Marine and I hope he comes home safely, but don't criticize other Marines who have also put themselves in harm's way for the sake of their country. You've gone too far, sir, and your comment is out of line.

ahanlon Mr Parrish may not be a Marine but I am and I agree with what he said now is that also out of line? Now lets disect what you said,
He is a Marine that thinks.Is that to say that Marines other than you two do not have the capacity to think?
but don't criticize other Marines who have also put themselves in harm's way for the sake of their country.I see absolutely nothing in either of your profiles that would indicate that you were put in harms way. Please enlighten me, could it be harms way to you would mean the avoidance of police actions during civil disobedience at Cal Berkeley? I happen to know Mr Parrishs son, he was a Poolee member of this site before he became a Marine. He has been in harms way and tells a much different story of what is taking place than those of your ilk. I for one am tired of the endless leftest rants of those of you that would rather see the rest of us lock step with your defeatest reasoning. I believe that your beliefs and ideas would be much more welcomed at Move On.org or democratic underground but thats just my opinion.

;)

ahanlon

10-19-06, 11:17 AM

Camper51

10-19-06, 02:21 PM

Mr. Parrish, with all due respect, you have never been in the Marine Corps and you are not in a position to judge 10thZodiac. He is a Marine who thinks. Without men like him the history of the Corps would be very different. I'm sure your son is a fine Marine and I hope he comes home safely, but don't criticize other Marines who have also put themselves in harm's way for the sake of their country. You've gone too far, sir, and your comment is out of line.

The two of you (you and 10thzodiac) are amazingly alike in your thinking, however you claim that 10thzodiac is a Marine who thinks?? I find that difficult to believe since all he does is cut and paste someone elses thoughts in his posts, he never seems to have his own words to express his thoughts, just somneone else's. You at least use your own words and thoughts at times.

I also happen to agree totally with Mr. Parrish and Ssgt Nelson...

ahanlon

10-19-06, 03:17 PM

ahanlon Mr Parrish may not be a Marine but I am and I agree with what he said now is that also out of line?

Obviously not.

Now lets disect what you said, Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> He is a Marine that thinks. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Is that to say that Marines other than you two do not have the capacity to think?

Not at all. It's up to the individual Marine to decide what kind of Marine he or she is going to be.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> but don't criticize other Marines who have also put themselves in harm's way for the sake of their country. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
I see absolutely nothing in either of your profiles that would indicate that you were put in harms way. Please enlighten me, could it be harms way to you would mean the avoidance of police actions during civil disobedience at Cal Berkeley? I happen to know Mr Parrishs son, he was a Poolee member of this site before he became a Marine. He has been in harms way and tells a much different story of what is taking place than those of your ilk. I for one am tired of the endless leftest rants of those of you that would rather see the rest of us lock step with your defeatest reasoning. I believe that your beliefs and ideas would be much more welcomed at Move On.org or democratic underground but thats just my opinion.

Anyone who serves in the armed forces stands in harm's way.

I'm not the kind of person who will use campaign ribbons to trump a winning argument. You can see my dates of service on my profile. Form your own conclusions. Actually, that's kind of a bad idea--your conclusions about me thus far have been dead wrong. As far as Berkeley is concerned I went back to school during the seventies, long after Vietnam ended, and long after I had served in the Marine Corps. I went to Berkeley for much the same reason I joined the Marines: they each represented the best of two kinds of life.

I don't know what police action you're talking about. Korea? Hell, I'm not that old. I put four good years in the Corps. I regret none of it. I made great friends and learned a lot about life and myself. I formed an unbreakable bond with the Corps that is almost mystical in its hold on me. That's why I don't want to see Marine blood spilled for political ends by unscrupulous politicians: Republican or Democrat. If you review my posts so far, you will see that there is nothing Leftist or Rightist about them, and certainly not defeatist, unless, of course, you consider reasoning itself to be leftist and the act of thinking to be defeatist. In fact, I have tried very hard to present my point of view as dispassionately as I can. There may be ranting on this thread, but not from me.

Incidentally, I'm sure I would be welcomed at MoveOn.org, but, in fact, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I strive to evaluate ideas on their own merits, and then try to vote the best way I can. I know you are only stating your opinions, and I respect that. I wish you would extend the same courtesy to Zod and myself.

ahanlon

10-19-06, 03:32 PM

The two of you (you and 10thzodiac) are amazingly alike in your thinking, however you claim that 10thzodiac is a Marine who thinks?? I find that difficult to believe since all he does is cut and paste someone elses thoughts in his posts, he never seems to have his own words to express his thoughts, just somneone else's. You at least use your own words and thoughts at times.

I also happen to agree totally with Mr. Parrish and Ssgt Nelson...

What do you mean "at times?" (Only kidding).

Zod's ideas and mine are similar, but not alike. Nor could they be. I can't speak for Zod and don't want to because he's very capable of doing that for himself. However, I have noticed that he does a lot of research and uses excerpts from his research to make his points. That's a valid way to go. I would guess that he's pretty busy during the day and this method is efficient for him. I have a time crunch too, and my method is to just type off the top of my head, hoping like hell I don't say anything too dumb.

You're agreement with Mr. Parrish and Ssgt Nelson is respectfully noted.

drumcorpssnare

10-19-06, 03:34 PM

10thzodiac & ahanlon- I would like both of you gentlemen to read the "Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798." Enacted by CONGRESS. BOTH HOUSES. It contains no expiration date, and has NEVER been overruled by the Supreme Court.

....."or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens,denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as enemy aliens. ......" etc.

The short version..."America's enemies will not be coddled, and nurtured, and treated with 'kid gloves."

These people who are being detained at Gitmo are terrorists. It is NOT Mr. John Q. Public, a fine upstanding American citizen, being held by our government, on a whim and for no genuine reason. These detainees are armed combatants who are too chicken-**** to wear a uniform, like a REAL soldier, sailor, or Marine! Now, back before everybody got so damned politically correct....armed combatants NOT in uniform were to be considered spys, and it was the STANDARD PRACTICE OF WAR that they could be SUMMARILY EXECUTED! Period!
They are not American citizens. They have NO RIGHTS!

SEMPER FI and God Bless America and ALL her troops!!!!:usmc:

ahanlon

10-19-06, 05:30 PM

10thzodiac & ahanlon- I would like both of you gentlemen to read the "Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798."

....."or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens,denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as enemy aliens. ......" etc.

There are undoubtedly some real nasty, mean, and plain evil people confined at gitmo who have nothing but murderous thoughts for us and anyone else who doesn't agree with their narrow and twisted way of looking at life. Thank god they're off the street. If they should die, the world would be better off. I agree completely with that. But mixed in with that bunch, who, by the way, were gathered in wholesale, not from within the United States, but from other countries, Afghanistan and Iraq primarily, are others who may be innocent.

Some, certainly not all, of these guys may have only been guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they may have been accused of being terrorists by neighbors bent on some vendetta against the accused. Then again, some of them might be confined because their names were mentioned by someone who was being tortured and wanted to stop the pain by coming up with a name--any name--if it would stop the pain.

Do we imprison ten people without due process because we're afraid one of them is guilty? Do we kill 50 people because we're threatened by ten of them? Or even this: do we kill the unlucky one or two innocents among the 50 guilty? The way the United States deals with those who may be innocent is how we are defined as a people. You already know how the Soviets dealt with this problem, how the Nazi's dealt with it, how the Japanese war machine dealt with this problem. Are we like them?

By the way, I think, although I'm not sure, the fact that the prisoners at gitmo were captured in foreign countries means the Alien and Sedition Act doesn't apply. What should apply are the Geneva Conventions, because, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, we are at war. You can deny our prisoners treatment under the Geneva Conventions if you want, but if you do that, then guess what happens to one of us unlucky enough to be captured by them? You can say that our enemies are not going to abide by the Geneva Conventions anyway, so why should we? Because if they do ignore the Geneva Conventions, then in the eyes of the world they will prove once and for all that they are the real bad guys and they will suffer for it. We will win this war. I have no doubts about that. But I want to come out of it clean and with the unequivical moral upper hand.

OLE SARG

10-19-06, 05:43 PM

Like the Terrorists treat their captured prisoners with great care, MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST LIKE THE VC AND THE NORTH VIETNAMESE TREATED A LOT OF OUR CAPTURED TROOPS - MURDERED, MUTILATED, HEADS AND GENITALIA CUT OFF, AND ON AND ON!!!!!
It is my understanding that all at GITMO are identified as Terrorists or were plucked off the BATTLEFIELD, I. E., TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!
Drumcorpssnare stated it very well as to what laws, agendas, or whatever the hell you want to call it, for the *******s, un-uniformed sheetheads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

10thzodiac

10-19-06, 05:43 PM

ahanlon Mr Parrish may not be a Marine but I am and I agree with what he said now is that also out of line? Now lets disect what you said, Is that to say that Marines other than you two do not have the capacity to think? I see absolutely nothing in either of your profiles that would indicate that you were put in harms way. Please enlighten me, could it be harms way to you would mean the avoidance of police actions during civil disobedience at Cal Berkeley? I happen to know Mr Parrishs son, he was a Poolee member of this site before he became a Marine. He has been in harms way and tells a much different story of what is taking place than those of your ilk. I for one am tired of the endless leftest rants of those of you that would rather see the rest of us lock step with your defeatest reasoning. I believe that your beliefs and ideas would be much more welcomed at Move On.org or democratic underground but thats just my opinion.

;)

All Marines are in harms way, they are on call 24/7 to protect this country with their life and limb if necessary. Do not believe me, and then you must have been in the boy scouts and are on the wrong website now.
<O:p></O:p>
I do not know what you allegedly did so special in the air wing, motor transport, reserves, or <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><ST1:place>Vietnam</ST1:place></st1:country-region> that gives you the right to make a self-serving assertion that any Marine was never in harms way. That is disgraceful to the brotherhood and you owe an apology to all the Marines on this forum for being so thoughtless.
<O:p></O:p>
I will answer your ignorant question as to me never being in harms way: When you were approximately 10 years old and had not found your dick yet, I was in “The Cuban Missile Crisis”, one of the two medals I was awarded was the Marine Corps Expeditionary medal, enough said. Later I received a couple Medals for being with the very first contingent of Marines sent to <st1:country-region><ST1:place>Vietnam</ST1:place></st1:country-region> in the newly formed 9<SUP>th</SUP> MEB. Yes, I lucked out but even if I did not I would not of stooped so low as to belittle any Marines service as you have done.
<O:p></O:p>
Even boy scouts have a better sense of honor for their own
<O:p></O:p>
10th