Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/11/08 05:17 PM, Coherent wrote:

At 7/9/08 08:19 PM, TheMason wrote: ... to out do Clinton's screwed-up education policy.

Sarcasm?

no, really?

At 7/11/08 05:17 PM, Coherent wrote:

At 7/9/08 08:19 PM, TheMason wrote: so Bush came up with the great idea "No Child Left Behind" to out do Clinton's screwed-up education policy.

Sarcasm? You really think "No Child Left Behind" was "great"?

Let me try and and state it more simply:

1) Clinton's policies towards education made things worse.
2) Bush's policies towards education takes a very bad situation (post-Clinton education) and makes it worse.

At 7/11/08 09:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Let me try and and state it more simply:

1) Clinton's policies towards education made things worse.
2) Bush's policies towards education takes a very bad situation (post-Clinton education) and makes it worse.

Alright, I'm sorry I jumped on you like that. It's hard to read tones. I really don't feel like dissecting your post to nitpick at everything I disagree with. But, I do have one more question. You said in your other post, that the prisoners are getting trials from the military courts ,which isn't necessarily true, many of them were being held without even being charged before the recent supreme court ruling. But more importantly, do you think it's alright that the prisoners are being tried in military courts when legally they're civilians (they don't qualify as prisoners of war for a number of reasons)?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything, but that just seemed to be the tone of your message, that it's alright to try them in military court (even though few recieved even that luxury).

At 7/11/08 09:38 PM, Coherent wrote:

At 7/11/08 09:16 PM, TheMason wrote:

Alright, I'm sorry I jumped on you like that. It's hard to read tones. I really don't feel like dissecting your post to nitpick at everything I disagree with. But, I do have one more question. You said in your other post, that the prisoners are getting trials from the military courts ,which isn't necessarily true, many of them were being held without even being charged before the recent supreme court ruling. But more importantly, do you think it's alright that the prisoners are being tried in military courts when legally they're civilians (they don't qualify as prisoners of war for a number of reasons)?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything, but that just seemed to be the tone of your message, that it's alright to try them in military court (even though few recieved even that luxury).

I have a different perspective on this topic. I have no problem with either them NOT getting a trial or them recieving a MILITARY trial under the UCMJ. But rather than respond to this statement, respond to my reasons.

1) NOT Receiving trials: I do not look at these people as either civilians or criminals. Instead I look at them as combantants and therefore they should be treated as Prisoners Of War. One of the things about POW status is that enemy combantants should not be put on trial under what passes for international "law". Instead, POWs are held until the war is over or a prisoner exchange occurs between the combantants. Now I can guess what your objection will be: "But Mason, the GWOT is like the war on drugs...it can never be won...it is not like wars between states."

It may surprise you that I agree with you on that point, but at the same time I think its irrelevent. These combantants have choosen to declare an asymetrical war on the US that includes targeting civilians (from a diverse selection of nationalities) for terrorism and torture. Therefore, they made the decision to participate in a war that is ambiguous and that will not come to a decisive conclusion...so now they must reap the consequences.

Besides, the "abuses" are largely overblown and refer to the ad hoc nature of the hastily constructed facilities early on. Now the prisoners at GitMo are treated at a level comensurate with their status as combantants. And far better than their commrades treat our prisoners.

2) Military Trial: A civilian court runs the risk of making classified information unclassified and available to the public...which in turn means lives lost. In a military court they receive defense lawyers who are working on their behalf. While these lawyers are military officers...they are making the same argument you are that they should be tried in civilian courts. This shows that they really are giving these guys the best defense possible. All without compromising operational security and quite probably saving lives.

Furthermore, military courts are not draconian. Their basis is rooted in the same legal tradition as civilian courts. Furthermore, these are people who have decided to take up arms and fight. So what kind of jury would be their peers? Civilians who have never been part of a profession of arms...or a group of combantants?

In conclusion: You read my tone correctly. In my opinion these people are combantants and therefore should be treated as such. I do not think they should be tortured or abused unless there is every reason to suspect that the person had information that could stop a terrorist act thereby saving lives. But I do not think they are entitled to the same rights as US citizens...or any other type of civilian.

At 7/7/08 09:48 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: and like liberals are any fucking better

I agree

At 7/11/08 11:37 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) NOT Receiving trials: I do not look at these people as either civilians or criminals. Instead I look at them as combantants and therefore they should be treated as Prisoners Of War.

Should they? They're not Prisoners of War under the Geneva Conventions. They don't wear uniform or carry their arms openly. In my opinion (which in this case happens to be what is supposed to be legally binding), they are civilians, and should be treated as civilians.

One of the things about POW status is that enemy combantants should not be put on trial under what passes for international "law". Instead, POWs are held until the war is over or a prisoner exchange occurs between the combantants. Now I can guess what your objection will be: "But Mason, the GWOT is like the war on drugs...it can never be won...it is not like wars between states."

It may surprise you that I agree with you on that point, but at the same time I think its irrelevent. These combantants have choosen to declare an asymetrical war on the US that includes targeting civilians (from a diverse selection of nationalities) for terrorism and torture. Therefore, they made the decision to participate in a war that is ambiguous and that will not come to a decisive conclusion...so now they must reap the consequences.

First off, I don't see at all how it's "irrelevant" that the War on Terror can never end. It's extremely relevant... if you had your way, these prisoners could be held forever by the military, completely unchecked, without the right to a trial. Furthermore, everything seems hunky dory in your plan until you consider that one of these prisoners could be falsely accused. What then? You end up holding a completely innocent civilian for 3+ years because there's no place for an appeal to his imprisonment.

In the US we have system set up like that, even after you're found guilty and incarcerated in the US you're able to make an appeal because the Justice System isn't perfect. And let me tell you, the Justice System is much more refined in it's judgment than the Military. And if you don't think the military can make mistakes, then you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on at Gitmo.

When Bush and the Military were finally forced to review the prisoners they had locked up at Guantanamo Bay, 35 of them were found to have been falsely accused of being enemy combatants. Afterwards they were released of course, but some of these men spent 3-4 behind bars... for not doing anything. (here's the list if you're interested)

Besides, the "abuses" are largely overblown and refer to the ad hoc nature of the hastily constructed facilities early on. Now the prisoners at GitMo are treated at a level comensurate with their status as combantants. And far better than their commrades treat our prisoners.

I wouldn't set the standard at how our "comrades" treat their prisoners. I'm not sure what makes you think the torture has stopped (except for waterboarding, which has been banned). All the evidence I've seen has suggested torture sponsored by the prison itself, and not rogue prison guards... So I don't see why it would have stopped unless you know something I don't.

2) Military Trial: A civilian court runs the risk of making classified information unclassified and available to the public...which in turn means lives lost. In a military court they receive defense lawyers who are working on their behalf. While these lawyers are military officers...they are making the same argument you are that they should be tried in civilian courts. This shows that they really are giving these guys the best defense possible. All without compromising operational security and quite probably saving lives.

Unfortunately they still don't belong there. The Military Courts are for military prisoners, as Civilian Courts are civilians. Legally, the Military Commisions act of 06 did overwrite that for a while, but it was overwritten by a recent Supreme Court ruling.

Furthermore, military courts are not draconian.

Heh.

Their basis is rooted in the same legal tradition as civilian courts.

The operative word there is "basis". It's no secret that those who stand in military court enjoy fewer rights than those in civilian court. To give an example: although you say that they recieve a lawyer to defend their case, the military isn't obligated to provide them with a lawyer... and if they really want to get a guilty verdict, they most likely wont.

Furthermore, these are people who have decided to take up arms and fight. So what kind of jury would be their peers? Civilians who have never been part of a profession of arms...or a group of combantants?

Once again, you're assuming their guilt. Besides, civilian Jurys preside over murder cases despite the fact they've likely never killed anyone. It's not like they'd need to be G.I. Joe to be able to examine the evidence and declare a verdict.

But I do not think they are entitled to the same rights as US citizens...or any other type of civilian.

Why exactly is that? What about homegrown terrorists? We handle them in civilian courts, and that seems to work just fine. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they declared in them what they believed to be inalienable rights. Do you honestly believe that someone doesn't deserve those rights simply because they're from a different country? What about all men are created equal? If that's they case shouldn't we all deserve these inalienable rights? Consider it.

At 7/11/08 11:37 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) NOT Receiving trials: I do not look at these people as either civilians or criminals. Instead I look at them as combantants and therefore they should be treated as Prisoners Of War. One of the things about POW status is that enemy combantants should not be put on trial under what passes for international "law". Instead, POWs are held until the war is over or a prisoner exchange occurs between the combantants. Now I can guess what your objection will be: "But Mason, the GWOT is like the war on drugs...it can never be won...it is not like wars between states."

Prisoner of War status comes with a lot of rights and regulations though. If we grant unlawful combatants POW status, then there is no incentive for individuals to obey the laws of war.

People accused of being unlawful combatants should, at the very least, have their cases reviewed before being subjected to indefinite detention to determine whether or not they really are combatants.

The Republican's had their shining beauty over a hundred and fifty years ago when they fought slavery.

A century and a half ago...

Nowadays they're mostly the fiscally conservative (SAVING money for when its needed, although Bush is one of a newer line of exceptions)

And religious conservatives.... They want to "conserve" old ideals.

I agree, the party is a heavily mixed bag. To me their best man is Arnold Scwarnegger -I CANT SPELL IT.
Who is for civil liberties (gay marriage, emergency contraception for teens, being easier on immigrants) abut doesn't waste money like a noob in Halo wastes ammo.

Amen.

At 7/7/08 09:48 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: and like liberals are any fucking bette

I meant to say amen to this post

At 7/11/08 11:37 PM, TheMason wrote:

In conclusion: You read my tone correctly. In my opinion these people are combantants and therefore should be treated as such. I do not think they should be tortured or abused unless there is every reason to suspect that the person had information that could stop a terrorist act thereby saving lives. But I do not think they are entitled to the same rights as US citizens...or any other type of civilian.

Yeah right, look at this. We must pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan before they get pregnant and give all their POWs full spa treatment because I know in my heart they will do the same to our soldiers. Oh yeah, and the government should give everyone flowers to promote love not war.

Someone shot me with a WSWS article in PM, it's gotta be turned into the new rick roll of the BBS.

At 7/12/08 01:50 AM, Coherent wrote:

At 7/11/08 11:37 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) NOT Receiving trials: I do not look at these people as either civilians or criminals. Instead I look at them as combantants and therefore they should be treated as Prisoners Of War.

Should they? They're not Prisoners of War under the Geneva Conventions. They don't wear uniform or carry their arms openly. In my opinion (which in this case happens to be what is supposed to be legally binding), they are civilians, and should be treated as civilians.

Actually the Geneva Conventions are only binding so long as all of the signatories decide it should be binding. Just like any treaty...which is why the term "International Law" is a misnomer.

Actually, they would not be treated as civilians under the Geneva Conventions in that they are carrying out military operations against US forces. Your reading would actually strip away rights less than POWs...not more like you think. In fact, such behavior pretty much means we could just shoot them w/o trial...as spies.

It may surprise you that I agree with you on that point, but at the same time I think its irrelevent.

First off, I don't see at all how it's "irrelevant" that the War on Terror can never end. It's extremely relevant... if you had your way, these prisoners could be held forever by the military, completely unchecked, without the right to a trial. Furthermore, everything seems hunky dory in your plan until you consider that one of these prisoners could be falsely accused. What then? You end up holding a completely innocent civilian for 3+ years because there's no place for an appeal to his imprisonment.

It is irrelevant. Like I said, they should be treated like POWs which means they are held for the duration. The type of warfare they fight is repugnant and as such the penalty for not dying in battle should be a lifetime of incarceration until their mates decide not to plant IEDs or fly planes into buildings. So let them rot.

There are a few things in your post that indicates you are not as familiar with this topic as you think. The first is that you think there is no place for an appeal. There is...if there was not then SCOTUS would not have heard a case on this.

In the US we have system set up like that, even after you're found guilty and incarcerated in the US you're able to make an appeal because the Justice System isn't perfect. And let me tell you, the Justice System is much more refined in it's judgment than the Military. And if you don't think the military can make mistakes, then you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on at Gitmo.

This is another place that you show your weak grasp of the issues involved. In many ways the military legal system is better than the civilian legal system. I've studied both systems. I've dealt with civil courts and they are not about justice...but rather providing job security for the overcrowded attorney market.

Furthermore, I probably know more about what is going on at Gitmo than you do. Like I've said in previous posts...I know people who have been assigned there. Pretty much what you see on the news is sensationalism and people who don't know what they're talking about...but they stayed in a Holiday Inn Express...

When Bush and the Military were finally forced to review the prisoners they had locked up at Guantanamo Bay, 35 of them were found to have been falsely accused of being enemy combatants. Afterwards they were released of course, but some of these men spent 3-4 behind bars... for not doing anything. (here's the list if you're interested)

I wouldn't set the standard at how our "comrades" treat their prisoners. I'm not sure what makes you think the torture has stopped (except for waterboarding, which has been banned). All the evidence I've seen has suggested torture sponsored by the prison itself, and not rogue prison guards... So I don't see why it would have stopped unless you know something I don't.

I wasn't talking about "our" comrades...I was talking about the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Truthfully, I know alot more about this than you. I know Air Force cops who have transported these prisoners. I know other people who have been assigned to Gitmo to assist the interrogaters. What "evidence" you have seen on the news or on biased websites...unreliable.

Unfortunately they still don't belong there. The Military Courts are for military prisoners, as Civilian Courts are civilians. Legally, the Military Commisions act of 06 did overwrite that for a while, but it was overwritten by a recent Supreme Court ruling.

These people are not civilians. Sure they do not wear uniforms...but that opens them up to more risk and a legally less certain status than if they wore uniforms.

Furthermore, military courts are not draconian.

Heh.

You're basis for your opinion?

Their basis is rooted in the same legal tradition as civilian courts.

The operative word there is "basis". It's no secret that those who stand in military court enjoy fewer rights than those in civilian court. To give an example: although you say that they recieve a lawyer to defend their case, the military isn't obligated to provide them with a lawyer... and if they really want to get a guilty verdict, they most likely wont.

Actually they enjoy the same amount of rights as those in a civilian court. They do have a right to lawyers...and the military is assigning them lawyers who are working with all due diligence on their defense. This is very telling of your lack of knowledge about this topic. You make a prediction...that is proven to be wrong based upon what is happening now.

Furthermore, these are people who have decided to take up arms and fight. So what kind of jury would be their peers? Civilians who have never been part of a profession of arms...or a group of combantants?

Once again, you're assuming their guilt. Besides, civilian Jurys preside over murder cases despite the fact they've likely never killed anyone. It's not like they'd need to be G.I. Joe to be able to examine the evidence and declare a verdict.

There is nothing in there that assumes guilt. Military jurors are much better equipped to understand the issues/law involved as well as cleared to handle pertinent evidence that may be classified. By presenting classified evidence in open court...you put lives at risk.

But I do not think they are entitled to the same rights as US citizens...or any other type of civilian.

Why exactly is that? What about homegrown terrorists? We handle them in civilian courts, and that seems to work just fine. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they declared in them what they believed to be inalienable rights. Do you honestly believe that someone doesn't deserve those rights simply because they're from a different country? What about all men are created equal? If that's they case shouldn't we all deserve these inalienable rights? Consider it.

Bringing domestic terrorists into the discussion is a conflation.

The difference is we are talking about people who have not stepped foot within our borders, who more often than not are engaged in combat against our forces. Furthermore, these people are planning to conduct grotesque and immoral (not to mention illegal) military operations against civilian targets. By their actions they are not civilians, and Gitmo provides an environment that is more humane and just than what the Convention guidelines allow.

Furthermore, I've been following the Taliban well before 9/11. They do not respect human rights. Women are routinely executed for such horrible crimes as attempting to work to feed their children. Then there are the often trumped-up "prostitution" charges.

At 7/14/08 10:06 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/11/08 11:37 PM, TheMason wrote:

People accused of being unlawful combatants should, at the very least, have their cases reviewed before being subjected to indefinite detention to determine whether or not they really are combatants.

I agree, we should make sure we have combatants and/or leaders. Once that is established...either extract the information and give them a bullet in the brain pan or let them fester and rot at Gitmo.

yea...because liberals are so smart.

Democrat 1: O hey! The rich already pay 80% of the taxes in this country!
Democrat 2: O hey! Let's tax them more! They have money! Let's raise their taxes even higher and get more of it! Wealth distribution yaaaaaayyy!

Typical democrats...despite the fact that when taxes are lower government revenues go up, and despite the fact that when taxes are lower, the rich pay more in taxes because they're making more money that is taxable. But those historical trends are completely irrelevant because the republicans aren't logical.

At 7/15/08 08:32 PM, random8982 wrote:

Typical democrats...despite the fact that when taxes are lower government revenues go up,

you are going have to explain how less taxes, the source of government revenue, make revenue go up.

and despite the fact that when taxes are lower, the rich pay more in taxes because they're making more money that is taxable.

Yes but taxes are lower so even if they make more taxable money they are still paying less. Also taxes or no the rich still make the same amount of money taxes just decide the amount the government gets.

Democrats are never logical either

At 7/15/08 09:21 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 7/15/08 08:32 PM, random8982 wrote:

Typical democrats...despite the fact that when taxes are lower government revenues go up,

you are going have to explain how less taxes, the source of government revenue, make revenue go up.

and despite the fact that when taxes are lower, the rich pay more in taxes because they're making more money that is taxable.

Yes but taxes are lower so even if they make more taxable money they are still paying less. Also taxes or no the rich still make the same amount of money taxes just decide the amount the government gets.

Lower taxes=more money in our pockets which means we go out and spend more stimulating the economy. A better economy means the government has more to tax at a lower rate. They make more money by the new volume. Just go back and look at the 1920's, JFK's tax cuts, even Clinton in his 2nd term cut taxes to spur growth.

At 7/15/08 08:13 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually the Geneva Conventions are only binding so long as all of the signatories decide it should be binding. Just like any treaty...which is why the term "International Law" is a misnomer.

Yes, and by being a signatory you are binding yourself to that treaty. The US signed it, the US must abide by it.

Actually, they would not be treated as civilians under the Geneva Conventions in that they are carrying out military operations against US forces. Your reading would actually strip away rights less than POWs...not more like you think. In fact, such behavior pretty much means we could just shoot them w/o trial...as spies.

So you haven't read the Geneva Conventions. You seem to be misinformed, although civilians do not have the same kind of coverage as POWs they still have rights. For example, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions covers EVERYONE (POW/Civilian etc etc), and guarantees their basic rights.

It is irrelevant. Like I said, they should be treated like POWs which means they are held for the duration. The type of warfare they fight is repugnant and as such the penalty for not dying in battle should be a lifetime of incarceration until their mates decide not to plant IEDs or fly planes into buildings. So let them rot.

You still haven't responded to the fact that you cant be sure that everyone in Guantanamo is guilty. And if you acknowledge that, do you think it's alright to keep someone warehoused for 5 years when they didn't do anything?

There are a few things in your post that indicates you are not as familiar with this topic as you think. The first is that you think there is no place for an appeal. There is...if there was not then SCOTUS would not have heard a case on this.

Heh, let me explain this to you: The SCOTUS case wasn't a prisoner appealing his imprisonment, it was someone appealing Bush's decision to revoke Habeas Corpus on his behalf. None of the prisoners had the writ of Habeas Corpus... which means none of them were able to challenge their imprisonment.

This is another place that you show your weak grasp of the issues involved. In many ways the military legal system is better than the civilian legal system.

See, this is where I have to stop you because you obviously misread my post. I'm reffering to the people being held without charges, which of course means they haven't been processed by either military justice system or by the civilian justice system. They're simply being held.

Furthermore, I probably know more about what is going on at Gitmo than you do.

Sure doesn't seem like it. No offense.

Like I've said in previous posts...I know people who have been assigned there. Pretty much what you see on the news is sensationalism and people who don't know what they're talking about...but they stayed in a Holiday Inn Express...

How do you explain the Guantanamo employees who have come forward to report abuses that they've witnessed? Not only that, but they report that the abuses were ordered by the interrogators... how do you explain that? Do you think they're lying? Why is it then that medical examinations of prisoners and former prisoners from Gitmo prove that they've been tortured, and correlate exactly to what the employees described? There's a lot more hard evidence for torture at Gitmo then you're apparently aware of.

I wouldn't set the standard at how our "comrades" treat their prisoners. I'm not sure what makes you think the torture has stopped (except for waterboarding, which has been banned). All the evidence I've seen has suggested torture sponsored by the prison itself, and not rogue prison guards... So I don't see why it would have stopped unless you know something I don't.

I wasn't talking about "our" comrades...I was talking about the Taliban and al-Qaida.

I know, why should we set our standard at what they do?

Truthfully, I know alot more about this than you.

Well that's the second time you've made that claim, and I can assure you that you're mistaken. Besides, it really doesn't make in difference to say stuff like this. For one it's very arrogant, elitist even. Secondly you claiming to know more than me doesn't make a difference at all in the debate we're having. If you want to claim you know more than me, then you'll have to prove it. That means doing more than saying "I know more than you, I know people and they tell me things".

I know Air Force cops who have transported these prisoners. I know other people who have been assigned to Gitmo to assist the interrogaters. What "evidence" you have seen on the news or on biased websites...unreliable.

Medical exams don't lie my friend.

These people are not civilians.

Legally they are.

You're basis for your opinion?

Like I said earlier, military courts give the same rights to its participants. In the military you lose a bunch of your rights. Further more, you're not being judged by your peers, you're being judged by a military panel, one which is much less likely to be forgiving of legitimate plights.

Actually they enjoy the same amount of rights as those in a civilian court.

You are very misinformed sir, you do NOT enjoy the same rights as a US civilian. Let me paint a picture for you. God forbid, you get wounded in combat and are taken to a doctor to be patched up. If the doctor fucks up and say... you lose the use of your left arm, there's nothing you can do about it. You're not a civilian anymore. You tossed a handful of your rights out the window.

Once again, you're assuming their guilt. Besides, civilian Jurys preside over murder cases despite the fact they've likely never killed anyone. It's not like they'd need to be G.I. Joe to be able to examine the evidence and declare a verdict.

There is nothing in there that assumes guilt.

"Furthermore, these are people who have decided to take up arms and fight."

Military jurors are much better equipped to understand the issues/law involved as well as cleared to handle pertinent evidence that may be classified. By presenting classified evidence in open court...you put lives at risk.

This is contrite. What do you think happens when the FBI has to present evidence it's gathered to a civilian court? Do you think they have to reveal details like the name and location of the agent that gathered that info? Do you think the military would really have to tell something that would seriously put lives at risk? Unlikely. Despite, we've already established that these are in fact civilians, and as such belong in civilian court.

Bringing domestic terrorists into the discussion is a conflation.

But it's not, that's the thing. They're commiting the exact same crime you're accusing the foreign civilians of committing. Only difference is that the foreigners are (gasp) foreign. The domestic terrorists are processed in the civilian courts and that seems to work fine for them, why not for foreigners too?

The difference is we are talking about people who have not stepped foot within our borders, who more often than not are engaged in combat against our forces.. By their actions they are not civilians, and Gitmo provides an environment that is more humane and just than what the Convention guidelines allow.

Furthermore, I've been following the Taliban well before 9/11. They do not respect human rights. Women are routinely executed for such horrible crimes as attempting to work to feed their children. Then there are the often trumped-up "prostitution" charges.

The problem once again is your presumption of guilt. You're making a emotional appeal by telling me about how the Taliban executes women and other terrible things like that. But I'm not fighting for the rights of Al Queada, I'm fighting for the rights of the falsely accused. You don't know if these people are guilty Mason, even you have to admit that. They deserve every basic right that we do. It's not like they're lesser people just for being foreign.

At 7/15/08 09:41 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Lower taxes=more money in our pockets which means we go out and spend more stimulating the economy. A better economy means the government has more to tax at a lower rate. They make more money by the new volume. Just go back and look at the 1920's, JFK's tax cuts, even Clinton in his 2nd term cut taxes to spur growth.

Bahahahahahahaha

You're using Clinton tax cuts as the reason for the economic growth in the 90s? Boy you have me sold! It had absolutely nothing to do with the setup left for him by Reagan and Bush, as well as the .com boom.

At 7/15/08 09:21 PM, aninjaman wrote: you are going have to explain how less taxes, the source of government revenue, make revenue go up.

Example 1
Example 2

Yes but taxes are lower so even if they make more taxable money they are still paying less. Also taxes or no the rich still make the same amount of money taxes just decide the amount the government gets.

Wow....just wow.

At 7/15/08 09:41 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

Lower taxes=more money in our pockets which means we go out and spend more stimulating the economy. A better economy means the government has more to tax at a lower rate. They make more money by the new volume. Just go back and look at the 1920's, JFK's tax cuts, even Clinton in his 2nd term cut taxes to spur growth.

I misread your post the first time lol. I thought you said tax increase for whatever reason. My bad =]

At 7/15/08 11:35 PM, random8982 wrote:

At 7/15/08 09:41 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Lower taxes=more money in our pockets which means we go out and spend more stimulating the economy. A better economy means the government has more to tax at a lower rate. They make more money by the new volume. Just go back and look at the 1920's, JFK's tax cuts, even Clinton in his 2nd term cut taxes to spur growth.

Bahahahahahahaha

You're using Clinton tax cuts as the reason for the economic growth in the 90s? Boy you have me sold! It had absolutely nothing to do with the setup left for him by Reagan and Bush, as well as the .com boom.

Actually I was speaking about his tax cuts in his 2nd term. You know when the .com bubble burst in 1999/2000 ish. While I don't like Clinton I was using his tax cut as an example that it works. I told you to look at those examples...which you didn't....I'm not surprised, facts seem to scare you.

Your dumb ass still has yet to make a point.

At 7/16/08 12:23 AM, hrb5711 wrote: Actually I was speaking about his tax cuts in his 2nd term. You know when the .com bubble burst in 1999/2000 ish. While I don't like Clinton I was using his tax cut as an example that it works. I told you to look at those examples...which you didn't....I'm not surprised, facts seem to scare you.

Your dumb ass still has yet to make a point.

I already said I misread your post and I believe my point was "Historical trends show that lower taxes actually increase government revenue." Which I backed up with two links.

At 7/15/08 11:01 PM, Coherent wrote:

At 7/15/08 08:13 PM, TheMason wrote: ...too much for NG to let me reply w/quotes.

1) Even though you sign a treaty, you are only bound to it as long as you choose to. There is no external force that formally enforces the treaty. Therefore International Relations 501: there is no such thing as international law. The only thing that keeps nations adhereing to treaties would be their judgment of the other signatories' ability to punish defection.

2) Yes Article Three says stuff about basic human rights regardless of status of POW or civilian. But where you err is that this does not include rights to trial. In fact it is not in the best interest of POWs to be tried. This actually protects them from the kangaroo courts you seem to think the US will subject these people to. Furthermore, it also says that a country can hold combatants for the duration of the war. Therefore if a guy is captured in battle or with Taliban/al-Qaida fighters providing assistance (even if it is non-violent such as religious or medical aid) then I have no problem holding them indefinately and treating them as combatants rather than civilians.

3) You seem to think that the question as to whether or not these people are civilians or combatants has been definatively concluded. It has not. People caught during battle or raids on proven Taliban/al-Qaida strongholds...no doubt they are guilty of being combatants. Now the people caught through the Rendition program or the random sweeps in Iraq...there you have a case and I agree that something should be done to remove as much doubt as possible regarding their guilt/innocence. However, identified leaders of these groups should not be considered civilians.

4) As for our standards vs their standards. I do not think we should lower ourselves to their level. Which we have yet to do. What we consider torture over here is nothing compared to what they are capable of.

5) As for my arrogance, I guess I am but at least I have earned it. I am in the USAF with a security clearance and thus access to information that you do not have. I have a Masters in International Relations and I am currently working on my PhD in the same subject. I know what the Geneva conventions say (I'm back-up Law Of Armed Conflict instructor in my unit).

6) Military Courts: yes you have less rights in terms of civil cases. Military doctors cannot be sued. However, criminal cases are prosecuted much like in the civilian world. Yes mitigating circumstances are considered. And yes you are facing a jury of your peers...not a military "panel"...but a group of fellow military members. Thus the jury you face in the military court is much closer to being of your peers than in civilian courts. And again, being an actual military member for the past eight years...I highly doubt that I would be misinformed about the military judicial system.

7) Again there are some of the prisoners that we have detained that I am in perfect agreement with you on. The Rendition program has some serious flaws. The people housed in Abu Gharib...stupid. I totally agree with the FBI about how the Army was fucking that operation up. However, I do take exception to alot of the complaints coming out of Gitmo based upon the totality of information I've seen. More specifically, people who are caught as the result of combat and/or are known terrorists...I have no qualms about holding them indefinately and w/o trial.

@ Coherent:

Another point that I wanted to make earlier but could not is that your subtle attempts at playing the race card are not legit. I am not an isolationist nor am I someone who is suspicious/disdainful of anyone who is of European descent. I am a true classical liberal and a subscriber of the neoliberal theory in International Relations. My solution for Iran: engagement. Send a diplomatic delegation headed by a couple of Senators and Representatives to Tehran. Then accept their Foreign Minister in Washington. Let a few industries start to trade w/Iran. Finally, POTUS can travel to some neutral country and meet w/the Iranian president.

Furthermore, I actually have a great deal of respect for Islam. I have studied Middle Eastern history and even read parts of the Qur'an. While the Europeans were raping and pilaging the Muslims, Jews and Christians who lived in the Holy Land...the Muslims were treating the other faiths with tolerance. Furthermore, a close study of regional history provides an answer for the Israel/Palestine question. But I digress.

My opinions on this matter do not come from hate or a myopic worldview.

I look at it from two standpoints: military necessity and civilization/Enlightenment.

From a Military standpoint anyone taking up arms and engaging our forces in combat are not civilians, but combatants. Now the Geneva Conventions dictate the care and feeding of captured combatants. 1) They can be held for as long as the conflict continues and 2) they are immune from prosecution (which means they cannot/should not be tried). Point 1 is a no brainer, but a majority of people who have not served or studied what happened to POWs before Geneva (or the POW issue altogether) have trouble why it is a good thing NOT to have a right to a trial in a civil or military court.

It is good not to be tried when you are an enemy combatant because your chances of getting a fair trial are pretty slim...regardless of civilian criminal court or military tribunal. In fact as a servicemember, the idea of being tried by another country's civilian justice system scares me a helluva lot more than their military tribunals. A civilian juror is far less likely to care about my status as a combatant which allows me to basically engage in behavior to kill their soldiers and break their shit. A civilian is far more likely to seek revenge while a military member is more likely to understand when orders are appropriate or inappropriate and what duties a servicemember are expected to perform legitimately. Thus Geneva prohibits trials of captured combatants for their own protection because of the ease with which civilian population's passions can be manipulated.

As for the civilization/Enlightenment part; I believe our Founding Fathers crafted a government that is the ultimate achievement of the Enlightenment. And while the Constitution's ideals speak to equality for all mankind...there are limits to just who qualifies for this equality (and I'm not talking about the 3/5 Compromise). There is an implicit requisite for an acceptance of civilization. That is why I brought up the Taliban and their brutality. Quite simply, behavior such as that by a government should not be accepted nor dignified by the protection of civilization's sensibilities. Personally, I think the fanatics who executed those women (and thousands more) should be hunted down and executed with less humanity and dignity than a rabid dog was put down more than a century ago.

And my reason for that is not the color of their skin or their religious beliefs, but their rejection of civility.

Going back to one of my points earlier about how it seems that terrorists can be held without a trial, it seems that I was even making a conservative claim. The truth is that, not only can we do this to people on foreign soil, but we can even detain people in the US for conspiracy to commit terrorism and hold them without a trial for as long as we damned well please.

Ali al-Marri was arrested for credit card fraud and is being held in military custody because he's allegedly an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent who's mission is to bring down the US banking system. The evidence? A government official said so. Literally. A court tried to tell the government that they either need to bring up him on charges or release him, but it looks like that got shut down. Or, if you don't have bugmenot or an NYTimes account, you can check it out here. I'm not familiar with 'The Raw Story' so I figured NYTimes would add some legitimacy as an established paper.

When the fucking spokesman for the Justice Department makes a claim saying that al-Marri had "already received all the process he was due," added that the decision recognize the president's authority to "capture and detain [al-Qaeda] agents who, like the 9/11 hijackers, come to this country to commit or facilitate warlike acts against American civilians."

I don't give a shit what you're accused of. In AMERICA, you get a goddamn trial by a jury of your fucking peers.

At 7/7/08 10:43 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 7/7/08 10:34 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 7/7/08 10:27 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: drDAK, point out a change for the better and i'll tell you if it's worth it. it has to have been done before, it has to have been successful, and it has to have brought prosperity. it's not a lack of logic, it's really high standards

Did you notice that the US became a superpower in a mere 200 years and it took china a thousand? what makes America successful is what makes us unique. when you start screwing with that (like we have been doing in the last couple of decades) is when an overal decline starts to occur (like the kind you mentioned earlier).

Not to get into an arguement with you AB but China was a superpower, but Britian made it into one its colonies and got all the Chinese addicted to Opium, China has much less of an augment than we have had. Unlike the U.S. the Chinese lost the Opium war, by contrast, America should be much further ahead than it is.

At 7/16/08 12:17 PM, random8982 wrote:

At 7/16/08 12:23 AM, hrb5711 wrote: Actually I was speaking about his tax cuts in his 2nd term. You know when the .com bubble burst in 1999/2000 ish. While I don't like Clinton I was using his tax cut as an example that it works. I told you to look at those examples...which you didn't....I'm not surprised, facts seem to scare you.

Your dumb ass still has yet to make a point.

I already said I misread your post and I believe my point was "Historical trends show that lower taxes actually increase government revenue." Which I backed up with two links.

Because less money means more profit right?!?!?!?!?!??! It increases revenue because they have to cut spending money, optherwise it will be a deficit. I would like to instate a buissness tax, about 2% would be a nice bolster.

Like i said in another thread,
Eh, fuck you, buddy