PDA

View Full Version : Powell: Close Guantanamo Now, Restore Habeas (video)



jetdawgg
06-10-07, 02:02 PM
This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Gen. Colin Powell strongly condemned the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, calling it “a major problem for America’s perception” and charging, “if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo — not tomorrow, this afternoon.”
He also called for an end to the military commission system the Bush administration has created to try Guantanamo detainees. “I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system,” Powell said. He scoffed at criticism that the detainees would have access to lawyers and the writ of habeas corpus: “So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about?”
“[E]very morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds,” Powell said. “[W]e have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open… We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.”
Watch it:

<OBJECT class=inlineimg id=em-flvpowellcol61032024013789 title="Big Grin" height=260 alt="" width=320 data=data:application/x-oleobject;base64,IGkzJfkDzxGP0ACqAGhvEzwhRE9DVFlQR SBIVE1MIFBVQkxJQyAiLS8vVzNDLy9EVEQgSFRNTCA0LjAgVHJ hbnNpdGlvbmFsLy9FTiI+DQo8SFRNTD48SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBI Gh0dHAtZXF1aXY9Q29udGVudC1UeXBlIGNvbnRlbnQ9InRleHQ vaHRtbDsgY2hhcnNldD13aW5kb3dzLTEyNTIiPg0KPE1FVEEgY 29udGVudD0iTVNIVE1MIDYuMDAuMjkwMC4zMDg2IiBuYW1lPUd FTkVSQVRPUj48L0hFQUQ+DQo8Qk9EWT4NCjxQPiZuYnNwOzwvU D48L0JPRFk+PC9IVE1MPg0K border=0 classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000>
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
</OBJECT>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var flvpowellcol61032024013789 = new SWFObject('/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://images2.americanprogressaction.org/ThinkProgress/flv/2007/06/powellcol610.320.240.flv&autoStart=false', 'em-flvpowellcol61032024013789', '320', '260', '6', '#ffffff'); flvpowellcol61032024013789.addParam('quality', 'high'); flvpowellcol61032024013789.addParam('wmode', 'transparent'); flvpowellcol61032024013789.write('flvpowellcol6103 2024013789'); </SCRIPT>
Powell also sounded off on conservatives, including Vice President Cheney, who oppose diplomacy with Syria and Iran, calling their view “short-sighted.” Powell endorsed direct talks “not to solve a particular problem or crisis of the moment or the day, but just to have dialogue with people who are involved in this region in so many ways.”
Digg It! (http://digg.com/politics/Video_Colin_Powell_Close_Guantanamo_Now_Restore_Ha beas)

Transcript:
POWELL: But in this arc, which is centered now in Iraq, we have serious difficulties. Serious difficulties that have to be resolved, one, by getting this civil war resolved, and it’s going to take the Iraqis to do that. Two, I believe we should be talking to all of Iraq’s neighbors. I think we should be talking to Iran, we should be talking to Syria, not to solve a particular problem or crisis of the moment or the day, but just to have dialogue with people who are involved in this region in so many ways. And so I think it is short-sighted not to talk to Syria and Iran and everybody else in the region, and not just for the purpose of making a demand on them, and “I’ll only talk to you if you meet the demand I want to talk to you about.” That’s not the way to have a dialogue in my judgment.
RUSSERT: Guantanamo. Torture. When John McCain was seeking ways to deal with the issue of torture, you wrote him a letter and said this: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”
POWELL: Right.
RUSSERT: What do you mean?
POWELL: They are. Guantanamo has become a major, a major problem for America’s perception — as it’s seen, the way the world perceives America. And if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo — not tomorrow, this afternoon. I’d close it. And I’d not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system. And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I’d get rid of the military commissions system, and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts martial. I would do that because it’s more equatable and it’s more understandable in constitutional terms. But I’d also do it because every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. So essentially we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it. But remember what I started this discussion saying, don’t let any of them go. Put them in a different system, a system that is experienced, that knows how to handle people like this.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/10/powell-gitmo/

jetdawgg
06-12-07, 10:55 AM
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell condemned the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay yesterday, calling it “a major problem for America’s perception” and charging, “if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo — not tomorrow, this afternoon (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/10/powell-gitmo/).”

Later, on CNN’s Late Edition, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) expressed his disagreement with Powell about closing Guantanamo, saying “most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo and less like the state prisons that people are in in the United States.”

Pressed by host Wolf Blitzer to address the fact that “detainees are being held, by and large, without charges, without any evidence,” which is “causing a smear on the U.S. reputation,” Huckabee said it didn’t matter because hypothetically, “if we let somebody out” they could “come and fly an airliner into one of our skyscrapers.” Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/11/huckabee-gitmo/

Huckabee’s fearmongering over the prospect of closing Guantanamo is ignorant of the facts. Critics of the current military commission system are not arguing (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/01/05/usdom14974.htm) we should let the prisoners go. Instead, the criticism is aimed at creating a constitutional legal system that would provide for the conviction of terrorists (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/usls/2007/statement/304/index.htm).

The lawless environment (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng) at Guantanamo has dangerously tarnished the reputation of the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801414.html) abroad. As Powell noted, bad actors and “authoritarian figures” around the world are “using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/10/powell-gitmo/).”

The Center for American Progress has urged shifting detainee operations to Fort Leavenworth, KS, and prosecuting the remaining detainees in general courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Digg It! (http://digg.com/politics/Huckabee_Most_Prisoners_In_The_U_S_Would_Love_To_B e_In_Guantanamo)

Transcript:

BLITZER: Let’s talk a little bit about what the former secretary of state General Colin Powell said earlier today on “Meet the Press” when asked about the status of the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, whether suspected terrorists should be housed there. Listen to what General Powell said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL: If it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo. Not tomorrow, but this afternoon. Every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. And so essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Governor Huckabee, you agree with Secretary Powell?
HUCKABEE: I know it’s become a symbol of what’s wrong. I visited Guantanamo just about a year ago. My sense was, because I visited every single prison in the Arkansas prison system, and I can tell you most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo and less like the state prisons that people are in in the United States.

It’s more symbolic than it is a substantive issue, because people perceive of mistreatment when, in fact, there are extraordinary means being taken to make sure these detainees are being given, really, every consideration.

BLITZER: But the argument isn’t so much the physical condition as to the legal system that they face. These suspected terrorists, these detainees are being held, by and large, without charges, without any evidence. They’re just being kept there indefinitely. And that’s causing a smear on the U.S. reputation.
HUCKABEE: I understand that. But I’ll tell you, if we let somebody out and it turns out that they come and fly an airliner into one of our skyscrapers, we’re going to be asking, how come we didn’t stop them? We had them detained.

There’s not a perfect solution. The perfect solution is to get people to quit being terrorists. And that’s not something we can easily control. If we’re going to make a mistake right now, let’s make it on the side of protecting the American people. That’s the number one role and responsibility that an American president has right now.

drumcorpssnare
06-12-07, 01:29 PM
Yada, yada, yada...we already know that the lefties think all the Guantanamo detainees are innocent victims of a cruel US conspiracy.
So, let's just let them all go. Give them a 1st Class ticket to the destination of their choice (Iran, Syria, Palestine, etc.)
Maybe we'll be fortunate....when these crazies crash another jet in America, hopefully only "lefties" will be killed.:evilgrin:
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

...or maybe the whiners will settle for just closing the prison. Doesn't mean they have to let the prisoners out of their cells before we walk away, and lock the front gate!:D

jetdawgg
06-12-07, 01:44 PM
Mr. Huckabee has taken a rather simplistic approach to a very complex issue.

The republicans are once again showing how shallow they are when it comes to terms regarding Foreign Policy.

I agree with Mr Powell, close GTMO and send the detainees to US prisons who are surely better equipped to deal with prisoners. These are not even POW's (hence the name detainee).

Clearly the majority of Americans want terrorists stopped even by war if necessary (not like the UN-necessary war in Iraq). No American wants the USA to be attacked. Holding these detainees is making people around the world more hostile to the actions of the USA (creating more terrorists).

Huckabee reminds me of the other republican simpleton from Ark that stated we need another attack on American soil. And he is the republican leader (shaking head):usmc:

Ignition
06-13-07, 02:49 AM
Mr. Huckabee has taken a rather simplistic approach to a very complex issue.

The republicans are once again showing how shallow they are when it comes to terms regarding Foreign Policy.

I agree with Mr Powell, close GTMO and send the detainees to US prisons who are surely better equipped to deal with prisoners. These are not even POW's (hence the name detainee).

Clearly the majority of Americans want terrorists stopped even by war if necessary (not like the UN-necessary war in Iraq). No American wants the USA to be attacked. Holding these detainees is making people around the world more hostile to the actions of the USA (creating more terrorists).

Huckabee reminds me of the other republican simpleton from Ark that stated we need another attack on American soil. And he is the republican leader (shaking head):usmc:

so do you want them all released or brought over to our system and be treated and tried like american citizens?

which is it.

jetdawgg
06-13-07, 08:55 AM
How about giving a fair trial and a fair chance at legal assistance for starters?

Some of those individuals are not guilty at all.

erased
06-13-07, 10:09 AM
Yada, yada, yada...we already know that the lefties think all the Guantanamo detainees are innocent victims of a cruel US conspiracy.:D
If we had a reason to keep most of them there, don't you think we would have charged them with something? It's not really that hard: If I think you're guilty, I tell you what it is you're guilty of and what evidence I have. If I just hog-tie you and tell you you're guilty, but refuse to tell you anything further, it's a sure bet that I'm doing something illegal.

Seriously... how can people who have sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States turn a blind eye when it is clearly being ****ed on?

As for doing away with "lefties": since (from what I've read here) anything to the left of Bill O'Reilley is a tree-hugging hippie to most of you, you'd only be left with about 10 people.

jetdawgg
06-13-07, 10:23 AM
If we had a reason to keep most of them there, don't you think we would have charged them with something? It's not really that hard: If I think you're guilty, I tell you what it is you're guilty of and what evidence I have. If I just hog-tie you and tell you you're guilty, but refuse to tell you anything further, it's a sure bet that I'm doing something illegal.

Seriously... how can people who have sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States turn a blind eye when it is clearly being ****ed on?

As for doing away with "lefties": since (from what I've read here) anything to the left of Bill O'Reilley is a tree-hugging hippie to most of you, you'd only be left with about 10 people.

The FOX Noise Channel has propelled the nation into an extremist position. Anything to the left of Bill O is just like you stated.

A lot of folks can't even see that most people don't burn flags
or spit on veterans. Yet that is what you will see presented as the norm on FOX

jetdawgg
06-14-07, 09:31 AM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=200 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20070613/alarahimi20070613123625125.jpg Mr Marri, indefinately detained for four years in a US prison
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Bush cannot order the indefinite military detention of a Qatari man accused of being an al-Qaeda agent, a US appeals court has ruled.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, the only person being held on US soil as an "enemy combatant", was seized three months after the 9/11 terror attacks.

He has been held without charge in a navy prison for almost four years.

The ruling is seen as a setback for the Bush administration over its policies on the detention of so-called terror suspects.

Marri, who entered the US legally on September 10, 2001 to study at a US university, was arrested in December that year following investigations into the 9/11 attacks.

A civilian court in Illinois charged him with offenses including credit card fraud and lying to FBI agents.

While the criminal proceedings were progressing, he was transferred on the orders of the president to the military authorities, who have held him in South Carolina since 2003.

However, the appeals court in Virginia ruled on Monday that Marri has habeus corpus rights, entitling him to challenge his detention in court, and has ordered his release from military custody.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the president calls them 'enemy combatants', would have disastrous consequences for the constitution, and the country," the court opinion said.

The judges stated Marri could face civilian criminal charges or be deported but the government cannot subject him to indefinite military detention.

The government had urged the court to reject Marri's case on the grounds that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which strips detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of their habeus corpus rights, applied also to him.

Under that law, detainees must be judged by a military tribunal before they can challenge their detention in a civil court.

It is not yet clear whether the appeals court's decision will have implications for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

It comes a week after military judges threw out charges against two of those detained there because military authorities had failed to designate the men as "unlawful" enemy combatants.

FBA/BGH

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=13046&sectionid=3510203

Think this is making friends around the globe?

drumcorpssnare
06-14-07, 12:33 PM
The freakin' Libs need to quit beating around the bush and just admit it...
"These poor innocent victims need to be released....it's not their fault they're terrorist jihadists. It's George Bush's fault!"

That's pretty much what the left wants, and how they see things.

And then, when these murdering animals re-group and reorganize...and topple the Transamerica building, the Space Needle, Sears Tower, the St. Louis Arch, the Alamo, and the Statue of Liberty....all on the same day...these Lefty idiots will claim, "But we didn't know! It's not our fault! It's Bush's fault!!!"

And, as far as Constitutional rights go...those rights are, or "should be" for American citizens, not some rag-headed crazy from Syria or Arabia! Jeez!!!

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

HOLM
06-14-07, 02:23 PM
Clearly the majority of Americans want terrorists stopped even by war if necessary (not like the UN-necessary war in Iraq). No American wants the USA to be attacked. Holding these detainees is making people around the world more hostile to the actions of the USA (creating more terrorists).



Did you mean the necessary United Nations War...???


:D


You should be more clear on these things JET...:banana:

erased
06-14-07, 02:54 PM
The freakin' Libs need to quit beating around the bush and just admit it...
"These poor innocent victims need to be released....it's not their fault they're terrorist jihadists. It's George Bush's fault!"

That's pretty much what the left wants, and how they see things.

And then, when these murdering animals re-group and reorganize...and topple the Transamerica building, the Space Needle, Sears Tower, the St. Louis Arch, the Alamo, and the Statue of Liberty....all on the same day...these Lefty idiots will claim, "But we didn't know! It's not our fault! It's Bush's fault!!!"

And, as far as Constitutional rights go...those rights are, or "should be" for American citizens, not some rag-headed crazy from Syria or Arabia! Jeez!!!

drumcorpssnare:usmc:
How do you even manage to breathe when you are so seriously mentally lacking? No one is saying they're all innocent. People are just saying that maybe we should follow our own laws and find out if they are innocent or not, do what we will with the guilty, and let the innocent go. The fact that you take it upon yourself to speak for an entire section of the US population speaks volumes of your ignorance. This is the reason people hate the US. Ignorant people perpetuating failed policies because they think they know what everyone wants. If they hated us for our freedom, they'd go after Holland long before us. I just can't get over how you decide to judge a very large portion of the US population by what Billy O' tells you they think. Do you even know how most of those people ended up in GTMO? I'm certain you don't. I'll let you look it up for your self, but since you're likely terrified of knowledge, you probably won't. If that's the case, I'll let you in on the big secret after you reply to this with the eloquence of a ****ed-off rhino on meth.

jetdawgg
06-14-07, 04:05 PM
'Libs" don't want the Sears Tower destroyed or any of the other public stations that you named.

Most Americans want justice for those in captivity. Why should we be on par with barbaric nations like Iran when it comes to prisoner policy. Moreover, Iran just disgraced us by letting the Brits go a few months ago.

This posturing by the admin is creating more terrorists for us to fight. There is no way on earth to fight that many people without destroying the rest of humanity.

That is not an answer in my book. Diplomacy is required here and elsewhere to alleviate the problems. Sabre rattling has run it's course.:usmc:

HOLM
06-14-07, 04:10 PM
. Ignorant people perpetuating failed policies because they think they know what everyone wants.
Yes I agree with that statement... If you take it out of the context of the rest of your paragraph




If they hated us for our freedom, they'd go after Holland long before us. I just can't get over how you decide to judge a very large portion of the US population by what Billy O' tells you they think. Do you even know how most of those people ended up in GTMO? I'm certain you don't. I'll let you look it up for your self, but since you're likely terrified of knowledge, you probably won't. If that's the case, I'll let you in on the big secret after you reply to this with the eloquence of a ****ed-off rhino on meth.
But right here you start going just a little crazy... you are talking to US Marines here...

Do you really think that everyone that thinks your position on this issue is hogwash gets that opinion from talk radio... and That all that tune into talk radio just do so as mind numbed robots seeking an opinion.. You need to stop and have a little reality check here.. I mean here you are claiming to be this brilliant all encompassing thinker.. and BAM there ya go throwing all those that don't see things your way right into one big group of mind numbed robots... Now I admit to being guilty of that from time to time...

But damnit.. You are talking about a policy that has been established in damn near every war in every country since the institution of war was dreamed up..

You tell me MR smarty pants. just how the Japs ended up in ...humm what was the word then... concentration.. no that was the Germans.. Gulags.. No.. That was the Russians.. Ummm Maybe the word was relocation .. or detention centers... No now I remember.. It was internment camps ......


The best historical parallel to "Gitmo" was the civil War... That was when some 13,000 or so ANTI WAR democrats were locked up.. There was this huge ordeal about the destruction of the constitution and suspension of habeas rights... Blah Blah Blah...



Is that the Knowledge you are suggesting that I am terrified of?

OLE SARG
06-14-07, 04:11 PM
Any of you lefties have an empty room at your place??? - We'll just bring those turds from Gitmo and let them stay at your place. See how ****ing fast you can start pulling a jane fonda kerry and start flip-flopping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys give me a pain right between my back pockets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

drumcorpssnare
06-14-07, 04:12 PM
erased- Calm down...take a deep breath...no need to be irate!
First of all, we (America) didn't round up these detainees on a random basis.
These people are either known terrorists, or are known to associate with terrorists. It's not like the FBI went out and just chose 50 people of the streets, on a whim!
All the lefty's are saying these detainees should be afforded the protection of the US Constitution. Well, I would agree completely if these detainees were US citizens. But they are not.
And here's what's gonna happen if they are given the right to "our" judicial system....
Some ACLU bone-smoker will waltz in to the proceedings, claim his client was unfairly treated, and wrangle a loop-hole, that gets the guy released. Free !
Whence he shall return to the Middle East, and pick up where he left off...plotting harm to America.
Not to mention...if these detainees do "go through the process" of American law, and are found guilty...legitimately...the whiny cry-babies will cry, "Foul!" and claim the trial was "rigged" from the start.
I'm so sick of all the PC crap! These people are our enemies! You can't treat the enemy "nicely" and expect to win.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

OLE SARG
06-14-07, 04:13 PM
Oh and erased, let us in on that big ****ing secret!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

OLE SARG
06-14-07, 04:14 PM
10-4 on the "SICK OF THE PC CRAP"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

HOLM
06-14-07, 04:21 PM
Hey Erased... When the Erased your knowledge... Did they forget to put back in what this little picture is cut out of...


As much as the parties are the same today... One of them has not changed very much in the last 150 years....


http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery-pictures/beating-slaves-750.jpg


Resolved, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States.


Resolved, that the direct interference of the military authorities of the United States in the recent elections held in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, was a shameful violation of the Constitution, and a repetition of such acts in the approaching election will be held as revolutionary, and resisted with all the means and power under our control.


Resolved, that the aim and object of the Democratic party are to preserve the federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired ; and they hereby declare that they consider the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the subversion of the civil by the military laws in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.


Resolved, that the shameful disregard by the administration of its duty in respect to our fellow-citizens who are now and have long been prisoners of war in a suffering condition, deserves the severest reprobation on the score alike of public policy and common humanity.


Resolved, that the sympathy of the Democratic party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiers of our army and the seamen of our navy, who are and have been in the field under the flag of their country; and, in the event of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the republic have so nobly earned.

HOLM
06-14-07, 04:24 PM
Hold On I think I need to say this louder... This is McClellan's Platform... 1864... Does this sound familar to anyone else...



Resolved, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, t hat after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States.

ggyoung
06-14-07, 04:25 PM
ME. I say killem all but 6 and save them for polbears. That said now do it.

jetdawgg
06-14-07, 04:29 PM
HOLM the issue is that Lincoln presided over the US civil war and Mr. Bush is not president of Iraq.

Tough to compare our civil war when we are in the middle of theirs. The fight for power over there will go on with or with out us. It needs to be resolved not at the expense of US Marines and Soldiers.

That is an unsustainable policy causing more terrorists to appear on the scene. Also it is emboldening folks like Chavez and Putin to flex their muscles a bit.

Those hostages in GTMO need proper trials. When Iran had our citizens and Marines hostage for 444 days I am sure that you gave Mr. Carter hell. It has been quite longer for a few of those detainees

HOLM
06-14-07, 04:30 PM
GGyoung... The Dems seem real worried about the polar bear population that is increasing ......


I think you might have found a solution that would suit both parties though...

HOLM
06-14-07, 04:37 PM
Jet ... I am not a damn stinking ass Iranian... CArter was a world class POS.. I Am not going to justify what the damn Nazi's did either.. and you had better not start quoting NYT articles that compare MY country to the soviets or you are going to really **** me off...



. Why is it so hard for you lib's to understand that the "war in Iraq" had everything to do with Iraq when it started... But now it is a strategic piece of grouind in the War against AQ and now against Iran and Russia...


A full on war with Iran and you would see that BS in Iraq go our direction in a damn hurry... The only thing those guys hate more than each other is now AQ and a close 2nd to that is the damn persians..

Look at the bigger picture..


And the civil war has more in common than you are giving it credit for.. When the democrat platform from 1864 and the one from 2008 sound INDENTICAL... You would think it would give you some kind of a damn clue...

HOLM
06-14-07, 04:42 PM
Please tell me Jet... Which part of this does NOT exactly parallel the democratic platform of 2008


Resolved, that the aim and object of the Democratic party are to preserve the federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired ; and they hereby declare that they consider the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the subversion of the civil by the military laws in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.




Oh wait I know... The part about "bearing arms".. But look that up.. it is not what it sounds in that short piece either...

Some things never change..

HOLM
06-14-07, 04:44 PM
Hey.... IS THIS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT JET


Resolved, that the shameful disregard by the administration of its duty in respect to our fellow-citizens who are now and have long been prisoners of war in a suffering condition, deserves the severest reprobation on the score alike of public policy and common humanity.



But no need to worry..... They end it with... "support the troops"

jetdawgg
06-14-07, 04:53 PM
It is the attitude like this that make people around the world dislike Americans.

This is why there is a call for war crimes against this admin inside and outside of the nation. It is good for others to run thier nation. That country Iraq did not have terrorists until after Saddam got ousted by us.

"Mistakes have been made" The mantra of this admin and now the democrats have joined them in this endless sand trap

erased
06-14-07, 04:53 PM
Is that the Knowledge you are suggesting that I am terrified of?

No, because I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Drumcorpssnare. I'm sure you're disappointed, sorry. It might just be that I'm not paying attention to you, but it seems that the first resolution you quoted says basically "The civil war has failed, let's end it". Is that really so horrible?



To Drum: This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with following our own laws. Most of the people in GTMO were nabbed because we paid people to rat out others. People would just name people they didn't like and collect the money. I'll say this again hoping it'll sink in: If they are guilty, why don't we charge them with something? Are we afraid that since we have zero evidence against (most of) them, we won't have a case? How are we supposed to claim moral high-ground here when we're holding people prisoner for years without charges, evidence, or anything else afforded by our own laws? Those in GTMO that are innocent are now infinitely more likely to want to do something to hurt the US than they were a few years ago. Failed policies create terrorists, not freedom.

To Ole Sarg: That's cute. I guess if you don't have a point, it's easier to make broad assumptions and ludicrous statements. I understand that you have to call us "libs" because that makes it seem like we're on the "other team" and makes it easier to dismiss facts. I promise you though, libertarians are more conservative than most of those who claim to be conservative and nowhere near the democrats.

HOLM
06-14-07, 04:55 PM
That country Iraq did not have terrorists until after Saddam got ousted by us.


Sorry 'bout the name calling here...


But what about Saddam ya big jackass....


Even Clinton counted his ass as a "terrorist" Do ya really need to see the quote on that... I can get it for you if you would like...

erased
06-14-07, 04:57 PM
Please tell me Jet... Which part of this does NOT exactly parallel the democratic platform of 2008


Resolved, that the aim and object of the Democratic party are to preserve the federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired ; and they hereby declare that they consider the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the subversion of the civil by the military laws in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.




Oh wait I know... The part about "bearing arms".. But look that up.. it is not what it sounds in that short piece either...

Some things never change..

It's funny that you keep posting that. Do you even know what it says? I'd like it in your own words if you don't mind, please.

jetdawgg
06-14-07, 04:58 PM
erased, I like your style Marine. The FOX Noise Channel talking points (name calling) is killing the debate.

Maybe if we did that to the terrorists we would win. Imagine the FOX Noise Channel as our WMD:D

It would make the terrorists as brainless as the republicans:D

HOLM
06-14-07, 05:00 PM
No, because I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Drumcorpssnare. I'm sure you're disappointed, sorry. It might just be that I'm not paying attention to you, but it seems that the first resolution you quoted says basically "The civil war has failed, let's end it". Is that really so horrible?

.
Yes it is really that horrible... Because the Civil war was not lost at that point... Now was it...


Google.. the "peace democrats of 1864" Or "copperheads 1864"


I'll do my homework if you do yours.. Lincoln did not take any chit.. But he was served it all the time...

Had the election of 1864 been any earlier or any later Lincoln would have lost it.. The Anti War movement was huge.. Sherman Marching through Altanta when he did was the only thing that presevered the Lincoln Presidency and the union for that matter...


One of the biggest issues of the time was Lincoln suspending Habeas rights for 13,000 Democrats... Ya'll are only worried about a handful of Arabs...

What gives...


Is that enough of my own words for ya.. Or should I go on...

HOLM
06-14-07, 05:03 PM
No, because I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Drumcorpssnare.

BS...


Do we need to Quote the rest of what you said...

jetdawgg
06-14-07, 05:04 PM
Yes it is really that horrible...


Google.. the "peace democrats of 1864" Or "copperheads 1864"


I'll do my homework if you do yours.. Lincoln did not take any chit.. But he was served it all the time...

Had the election of 1864 been any earlier or any later Lincoln would have lost it.. The Anti War movement was huge.. Sherman Marching through Altanta when he did was the only thing that presevered the Lincoln Presidency and the union for that matter...


One of the biggest issues of the time was Lincoln suspending Habeas rights for 13,000 Democrats... Ya'll are only worried about a handful of Arabs...

What gives...


Is that enough of my own words for ya.. Or should I go on...

Lincoln R Ill

HOLM
06-14-07, 05:07 PM
Maybe if we did that to the terrorists we would win. Imagine the FOX Noise Channel as our WMD


FDR had no problem with that... Have you ever seen the childrens cartoons from WW2...


I read something once... About the pen is stronger than the sword... or some BS like that

erased
06-14-07, 05:09 PM
BS...


Do we need to Quote the rest of what you said...
If you really want to draw more attention to the fact that you're wrong, by all means. And by homework, was that a no to my last request?

Also "One of the biggest issues of the time was Lincoln suspending Habeas rights for 13,000 Democrats... Ya'll are only worried about a handful of Arabs... What gives..."

We're supposed to be better now than we were back then, but I suppose that's problem for some. Another note, given the suspension of habeus, that hanful of Arabs could easily turn into 13,000 demorats and a bunch of republicans.

HOLM
06-14-07, 05:16 PM
We're supposed to be better now than we were back then, but I suppose that's problem for some. Another note, given the suspension of habeus, that hanful of Arabs could easily turn into 13,000 demorats and a bunch of republicans.
Oh please...


what about the Japs in 1941...


and yes... Drums said exactly what I was thinking before I did... If that makes us mind numbed kool aid drinking robots ... So be it..


Locking up TRAITORS was also a key factor in winning the war.. Would you like more of the History... OK here we go..


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/38/%7Eabe2.jpg/180px-%7Eabe2.jpg




Although the Democratic party had broken apart in 1860, during the secession crisis Democrats in the North were generally more conciliatory toward the South than were Republicans. They called themselves Peace Democrats; their opponents called them Copperheads because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges.

A majority of Peace Democrats supported war to save the Union, but a strong and active minority asserted that the Republicans had provoked the South into secession; that the Republicans were waging the war in order to establish their own domination, suppress civil and states rights, and impose "racial equality"; and that military means had failed and would never restore the Union.

Peace Democrats were most numerous in the Midwest, a region that had traditionally distrusted the Northeast, where the Republican party was strongest, and that had economic and cultural ties with the South. The Lincoln administration's arbitrary treatment of dissenters caused great bitterness there. Above all, anti-abolitionist Midwesterners feared that emancipation would result in a great migration of blacks into their states.
As was true of the Democratic party as a whole, the influence of Peace Democrats varied with the fortunes of war. When things were going badly for the Union on the battlefield, larger numbers of people were willing to entertain the notion of making peace with the Confederacy. When things were going well, Peace Democrats could more easily be dismissed as defeatists. But no matter how the war progressed, Peace Democrats constantly had to defend themselves against charges of disloyalty. Revelations that a few had ties with secret organizations such as the Knights of the Golden Circle helped smear the rest.
The most prominent Copperhead leader was Clement L. Valladigham of Ohio, who headed the secret antiwar organization known as the Sons of Liberty. At the Democratic convention of 1864, where the influence of Peace Democrats reached its high point, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform branding the war a failure, and some extreme Copperheads plotted armed uprisings. However, the Democratic presidential candidate, George B. McClellan, repudiated the Vallandigham platform, victories by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman and Phillip H. Sheridan assured Lincoln's reelection, and the plots came to nothing.
With the conclusion of the war in 1865 the Peace Democrats were thoroughly discredited. Most Northerners believed, not without reason, that Peace Democrats had prolonged war by encouraging the South to continue fighting in the hope thatthe North would abandon the struggle.

jetdawgg
06-14-07, 05:19 PM
If you really want to draw more attention to the fact that you're wrong, by all means. And by homework, was that a no to my last request?

Also "One of the biggest issues of the time was Lincoln suspending Habeas rights for 13,000 Democrats... Ya'll are only worried about a handful of Arabs... What gives..."

We're supposed to be better now than we were back then, but I suppose that's problem for some. Another note, given the suspension of habeus, that hanful of Arabs could easily turn into 13,000 demorats and a bunch of republicans.

That's worth 2 Scooby snacks............:D

http://www.redkid.net/generator/scooby/scooby.jpg

erased
06-14-07, 05:28 PM
@holm: " what about the Japs in 1941..."

That was wrong too. What do you want from me? You can post what you want about civil war democrats. As much as it may sound like current events, it is vastly different.

@jet: Thanks for pointing out that I left a D out of "handful" and C out of "democrats". I quite like "demorats", if only I could think of a good one for republicans.

jetdawgg
06-14-07, 05:40 PM
@holm: " what about the Japs in 1941..."

That was wrong too. What do you want from me? You can post what you want about civil war democrats. As much as it may sound like current events, it is vastly different.

@jet: Thanks for pointing out that I left a D out of "handful" and C out of "democrats". I quite like "demorats", if only I could think of a good one for republicans.

Sheepublican

http://www.rusthompson.com/sheeple.gif

FistFu68
06-14-07, 06:10 PM
:evilgrin: POWELL,HAS A'LWAY'S BEEN AN UNCLE TOM;MUTHA FUC'ER.ASK SOME OF THE MEN WHO SERVED WITH HIS AZZ,IN THE AMERICAL DIVISON???:evilgrin:

HOLM
06-14-07, 06:39 PM
That was wrong too. What do you want from me? You can post what you want about civil war democrats. As much as it may sound like current events, it is vastly different.
I say Bullchit... Explain just how it is vastly different...

A hard fought war with emotions running high on both sides... Pretend you are looking at sports teams and that you don't care who wins.. Through that lens you would see that the conflict is politically damn near the same..


The war was claimed by many to have been fought Directly and solely about Slavery (oil) It WAS not... It was a States Rights issue.. that ran much deeper than just slavery.... The start of the war was highly contested.. The war had been in the works for years.. Talks back and forth... Blah blah... Part of the Huge oppostion to the war was in large part due to Polks little war with Mexico... and.... Never mind.. pick up a damn history book....



After the war the rebuilding effort was a very hard and difficult road. The rebuilding effort was Plagued by insurgencies.. There was all kinds of folks that wanted to see all kinds of things happening.. Jackson after winning the war wanted to nullify the Emancipation Proclamation.. He faced strong republican opposition on this one... The south was a huge mess.. The North was sending bags full of money to the south to assist rebuilding efforts.. Well guess what... Corruption and scandals ran rampant... The bigest deal was the rail lines... Tons and tons of money was wasted and stolen from that project... Then the "insurgency" (read kkk this time) ran rampant... Killing innocent folks... This compounded with other "insurgent" groups that didn't care about slavery so much as the other issues... They blew chit up all over the place...


Ya don't think the Civil War has anything in Common with Iraq... Read this paper talking about the post civil war Southern "insurgency" This paper does not go into detail about the "northern sympathizer insurgency" You can find those on your own if you want to find them...


http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA314288

Abstract : This monograph examines the insurgency conducted by the Southern States during the last part of the American Civil War and the early period of Reconstruction, specifically from the time period of Sherman's march to March 1867. The paper proposes that the development of the Southern insurgency is a good example of what future insurgencies might be like




Sheeple My ass...




I want ya'll to quote the Iraqi Leadership to back up your points... Start with these sites...

http://na-iraqi.com/index.php

http://www.coriraq.net/ara/default.aspx


And erased... About the DemoRATs... Lol... or DEMONcrats.. Whatever you want to call them... The best RepubliKKKan misspellings I have seen looked like this .... RepubliCAN'Ts...

I think mixing the two is best... ya know the basics... Like RepubLICKans.. opppss I had one more.. OK mix em... demicans republicrats...

erased
06-14-07, 06:57 PM
In my opinion, they are different because of Iraq as a whole. A parrallel could be drawn if, during our Civil War, France (for instance) set up bases all over the country and sold arms to both sides while making loose alliances, conducting raids and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Heh, out of all those, Republicrats is the only one I've heard. Good stuff.

HOLM
06-14-07, 07:03 PM
You should pick up Mike Savages book... The political zoo..

You would enjoy it...



There is more than a civil War going on in Iraq.... Iraq is just a battle in a much much bigger war...


And it is way to big of a battle to lose...


Ya have read all the Clinton history on Iraq I hope... He knew this.. He just didn't have the guts.. and created the problems.. and the eventual need for ground forced in Iraq...


and now that AQ has declared it a battle ground we must stay and fight..


Did you catch the news about Paki.. today... Iran has been busy... HUH...



You have seen the links to Iranian weapons in Afgan and Iraq right...


And WHO do ya think is funding Iran....

erased
06-14-07, 07:20 PM
Most (if not all) of the links between Iran and Al Qaeda (especially in Iraq) have been debunked; by the CIA, no less.

This'll probably be my last response for at least a few hours. I promised the wife I'd take her to a concert in Hollywood (ick)

HOLM
06-14-07, 08:34 PM
Most (if not all) of the links between Iran and Al Qaeda (especially in Iraq) have been debunked; by the CIA, no less.

This'll probably be my last response for at least a few hours. I promised the wife I'd take her to a concert in Hollywood (ick)


Be bunked My ass....



Now you are just being ****** silly...


Jun 12 01:34 PM US/Eastern
By JAMEY KEATEN
Associated Press Writer
PARIS (AP) - A senior U.S. diplomat accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan—the most direct comments yet on the issue by a ranking American official.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East—and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”
“It’s a country that’s trying to flex its muscles, but in a way that’s injurious to the interests of just about everybody else in the world,” he said. “I think it’s a major miscalculation.”
In Afghanistan last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of Taliban fighters, but stopped short of blaming the government itself.
Iran’s possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has long been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments charged that the Islamic government in Tehran is also secretly bolstering Taliban fighters.
In an interview with The Associated Press on Monday, U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill said Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to “an advanced Western military” in ambushes of U.S. Special Forces soldiers.

HOLM
06-14-07, 08:43 PM
April 17 2007

U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons intended for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday, suggesting wider Iranian war involvement in the region. It appeared to be the first publicly disclosed instance of Iranian arms entering Afghanistan, although it was not immediately clear whether the weapons came directly from Iran or were shipped through a third party.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that unlike in Iraq, where U.S. officials say they are certain that arms are being supplied to insurgents by Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Iranian link in Afghanistan is murky.
"It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Pace told a group of reporters over breakfast.
He said the weapons, including mortars and C-4 plastic explosives, were intercepted in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan within the past month. He did not describe the quantity of intercepted materials or say whether it was the first time American forces had found Iranian-made arms in that country.



Dissident: Iran Is Training Iraqis


Dissident Says Iran Is Training Iraqi Fighters to Wage War on U.S.-Led Coalition Forces


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2968501&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran


By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:05pm GMT 13/02/2007



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran313.xml

greensideout
06-14-07, 09:54 PM
Humm, someone explain to me why we are in Iraq to begin with? What crime did Iraq do to America to cause us to invade their country, kill their leaders and try to change their culture?

HOLM
06-14-07, 10:03 PM
Humm, someone explain to me why we are in Iraq to begin with? What crime did Iraq do to America to cause us to invade their country, kill their leaders and try to change their culture?
Ask Clinton... It was his Idea...



WMd's were the final straw.. Ya know.. the ones that even Chirac thought saddam had...


Secondary... it is a very stategic position to take to engage AlQueda..


With the chit in paki.. and Iran helping the Taliban.. It is a great place to be in the area if chit hit the fan..

greensideout
06-14-07, 11:25 PM
Ask Clinton... It was his Idea...



WMd's were the final straw.. Ya know.. the ones that even Chirac thought saddam had...


Secondary... it is a very stategic position to take to engage AlQueda..


With the chit in paki.. and Iran helping the Taliban.. It is a great place to be in the area if chit hit the fan..


Shouldn't we be in Saudi instead?

erased
06-15-07, 04:40 AM
Yeah, everyone has links: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38123

We can't go to Saudi Arabia because oil is 90% of their exports and they have a decent military. They're a pretty good ally of ours. Unfortunately for them, they have a dictator and they're our allies. We have a history of deciding our allies have to go. Just ask Osama or Saddam. The fact is, Iran doesn't like Pakistan, so they have to go.

HOLM
06-15-07, 09:14 AM
We are sitting and waiting for the more moderate Saudis to overthrow the Current regime..


Kinda like the Clinton Iraq thing.. Only without all the press coverage...