| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| US Supreme Court declares Guantanamo Bay illegal. http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8951 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | sb_enail.com [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
EDIT: Crap, just saw Ramrod's warning about not bringing up the whole rigged election argument. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sb_enail.com wrote: Why can't you just accept that Bush actually won? And why don't you stop talking about this. I've already stated that this thread is to talk about the Supreme Court's decision. Anything else will be considered Spam. Got it?
*EDIT* Thank you for editing your post Snail. No hard feeling and what not. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sb_enail.com wrote: EDIT: Crap, just saw Ramrod's warning about not bringing up the whole rigged election argument.
Yeah... Thanks for not stirring up that hornets nest again
|
|
| Author: | Sarge [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's one of the reasons that Cheeney was selected to be Bush's VP: He's so scary that you're afraid to get rid of Bush lest Cheeney take over. (Now THAT'S scary). Seriously, though: If Bush was impeached and forced to resign. I don't think Cheeny would be in a position to do much of anything in terms of new policy. He'd be in a worse position than Gerald Ford was, really, since he'd have lost the support of both the House and the Senate at that point (well, before that point actualy, but that's certainly close enough). <For those of you who don't know your history, Gerald Ford took over after Nixon resigned in discrace following the the Watergate scandal.> |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sarge wrote: That's one of the reasons that Cheeney was selected to be Bush's VP: He's so scary that you're afraid to get rid of Bush lest Cheeney take over. That's a good strategy. Clinton did that, too. Too bad for Bill, he never took advantage of it. If I had Al Gore standing in line to replace me, I'd do everything I felt like doing.
The same can be said for Cheney. When's the last good VP we had? Bush Sr? LBJ? |
|
| Author: | sb_enail.com [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cheney is pretty scary. First he was always adressing the public from "an undisclosed location" which could be right behind you. Then there was the single VP debate, where he smoked Edwards on his Senatorial attendance. Then he shoots a guy in the face. I can just imagine Cheney and a couple of Secret Service guys busting down the door of some crack-den and pointing a Desert Eagle at the dealer's face. Cheney: Where's my cut? Dealer: I, uh, um- Cheney: (to Secret Service guys) I think this guy is looking like a quail to me. (to Dealer) Do you want me to think you look like a quail? Dealer: B-but I- what? Cheney: DO YOU WANT ME TO SHOOT YOU IN THE @$%!^%^ FACE?!? Dealer: NO! NO! PLEASE DON'T KILL ME! Cheney: THEN GIVE ME MY CUT!!! Dealer: ALRIGHT! TAKE IT! TAKE IT ALL! JUST DON'T KILL ME! Cheney: Thank you for your cooperation. Dealer: Y-y-you're welco- (Cheney shoots him) BLAM! (Secret Service guys stare at Cheney) Cheney: Quail. And that is why the Democrats don't want Cheney as Prez. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Technically, sb_email, that was spam, as it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. However, I'm-a rule 1 and say ok this time... Just don't do it again. On a related note, that was pretty funny. It lightened the mood in here. Still... |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
o Gitmo isn't shutting down. The Court just says that trying detainees in Camp Delta by military tribunal, or commission, is illegal, and that W doesn't have the authority to create those tribunals. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
IantheGecko wrote: o Gitmo isn't shutting down. The Court just says that trying detainees in Camp Delta by military tribunal, or commission, is illegal, and that W doesn't have the authority to create those tribunals.
I have to admit, I'm a little confused by this ruling. It seems to contradict itsself. I thought that prisoners of war could be tried by military tribunal. If the prisoners there aren't prisoners of war, then they're not covered by the Geneva Conventions covering prisoner treatment. I've found some interesting reading on the subject of prisoner treatment. I'm going to read it a little later this evening, though. I've got tons of work/school stuff to do before then. |
|
| Author: | lahimatoa [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great article on how the Supreme Court blew this ruling: link Especially interesting for our Geneva-Convention argument: Quote: Let's look at the relevant Geneva Convention. First point - since when does a party that has NOT signed a treaty, and does not comply with a treaty, become a part of such a treaty? The Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war provides, at Article 4, that —
"A. Prisoners of war ... are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: "1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. "2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this terrirory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: "(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Do terrorists fall under this definition? No way. They work entirely outside of international law, therefore it does not apply to them. |
|
| Author: | What's Her Face [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lahimatoa wrote: Do terrorists fall under this definition? No way. They work entirely outside of international law, therefore it does not apply to them. But the burning question is: Are these men terrorists? If they are, for mercy's sake, charge them. If they aren't, there couldn't be any justification of keeping them imprisoned without charge. That's Democracy 101. Anyway, if international laws didn't apply to terrorists, then they would be prefectly entitled to break those laws. Of course, that's not, and shouldn't be, the case. |
|
| Author: | racerx_is_alive [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ruling summarized: 1) Bush doesn't currently have the authority to hold the tribunals the way he wants to right now. 2) No matter what happens, he needs to treat the incarcerated with the minimum standards defined by the geneva conventions. Response to #1: Bush has a couple of options here. First, he can go to Congress and demand that they give him authorization to do the tribunals his way. They explicitly said that he might be able to do them the way he wants, he just needs authorization from Congress to do so. His other option is just to try the enemy combatants using standard military trial rules, the type of trial they use for court martials and whatnot. This is actually a good thing for Bush. Say he goes to congress and demands authorization to do the tribunals. First, imagine that the republicans push it through and he gets his authority. Republicans and the president can say that they are working together to keep the US safe, people are happy. Now, imagine that the Democrats block it and he has to go with the 2nd option. The implication is now that the democrats don't care about the safety of the US in the public eye. A recent survey done by the WSJ and someone else showed that 60% of americans are in favor of letting the governement do what they need to do, including secret prisons and guantanamo, and only 30% think the government has gone too far. Response to #2: This is just decency. Even if every last one of the enemy combatants in the prisons and guantanamo are guilty america-hating scum, as a people who believe that "right makes might" and as a people that mostly claims to be christian, we should treat all people humanely and with decency. Show them what makes America great, and not lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists we fight. I found the nuances in this decision to be very interesting. The Supreme Court basically said "You can't do what you're doing the way you are doing it, but for heaven's sake don't let Hamdan out. The guy is evil." It's not like the Supreme Court wants gitmo shut down or anything. They want these guys to be punished for their crimes like anyone else. But there are just some things where the ends definately don't justify the means, especially when we aren't operating with urgency on a battlefield with these guys. These guys are already captured. Doing things the right way will not jeopardize our national security, and it will show that we are truly a great nation because we let freedom and individual rights rule over fear and revenge. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|