Pedro Martínez:

Yes. The fundamental principles of legal certainty and prohibition of retroactivity is something I am not willing to give up on.

If I was a lawyer, and you had me classified as POW, I would argue that you had me classified wrongly, and argue for their release.... if you had me classified as a "common criminal" I would argue against thatas well, for their release!!

Its really a no win situation... except if they dont get a lawyer as POW.... but like you said, then they cant torture them!!!! ;)

I guess we basically have to agree that what we disagree on if it is okay to make a new classification or not.... we are arguing yes, you say no, simple as that.

Pedro Martínez:

Now they're floating in the middle of nowhere, as nobody knows what their legal status is.


That is true, they are somewhere that has never existed before, terrorists showing up on a battlefield in a conflict they have nothing to do with.... any blame should be on them for any problems they encounter.... dont blame the US for having to come up with a new way to deal with these idiots!

I mean, should we expect that these terrorists should be saying to each other, hey, dont worry, we can do what we want, if we get captured, they will have to take us into court and prove we did something wrong.... we will be threaded like kings for a few months, then released on no evidence...

Artful Dodger:

Right, the point that seems to allude pedro in this case is that most of these GITMO cases these guys would get away in a court of law... mostly because there is a huge burden on the prosecution... you need witnesses and DNA evidence and blah blah blah.... and you just dont have that luxury to collect evidence when you are capturing people on the battlefield.

In a US court of law these guys would walk away innocent!

Pedro Martínez:

I have just sort of read 85 new posts, and i want to give a quick point of view...

First, there is a middle ground between a POW and an American civilian criminal destined for a normal trial afforded to American citizens.

Also, given the battle field circumstances, there is hardly the time and resources to give a thorough criminal investigation for every person detained on the battlefield.

It makes no sense to believe that in a traditional court of law you could actually convict anyone held in GTMO based on current rules of law in the US.

But they are also not traditional POWs, since they are not fighting under any countries army.... these are individual terrorists, placing themselves on a battlefield in a conflict they have no interest in, except in their terrorists activities.

Is your world really so static that you dont think it is okay to ever have anyone who doesnt fit into the traditional categories or either POW or normal civilian trial material???

Artful Dodger:

is Obama more concerned with the reputation of the US (closing Gitmo will go a long way in improving our image) or about keeping our country safe?


I think it is both....I think he announced the closing to make everyone feel good about the US, but he left himself some wiggle room by stating that it would be done in accordance with national security and other concerns....

coan.net: Well, the Bush administration has already released many of the gitmo prisoners, the ones who were the least threats, and many of them have gone back to their old ways already...

also, why would they release some, and then still keep others who were "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"????

Anyway, I dont buy that either, really, just in the wrong place at the wrong time??? You mean like accidentally going into Iraq during a war????

Artful Dodger:

Do people really think that putting terrorists into the general population is a good idea?


I dont think that is ever going to happen....

But what is going to happen is a good question? If they are brought into this country, from what I hear, they will suddenly gain all the rights that every citizen has? That means a trial, and from what I have heard again, it seems like we do not have much in the way of actual courtroom type evidence against most of them.... so they end up just being released and exported????

Vikings:

remember what it was like before globs?)


hahhhah, yeah it was really fun .....

Vikings: WOW!!! Third most read board??? And those losers on gen chat said we would be a dead board... hahahah


Anywho, just dont start to over moderate, and I dont care, i see the point so far, but you know me.. I will protect free speech to thew hilt, but right now i dont see anybody getting victimized to the point where globals need to... but anyway, i think the message has been load and clear..

Vikings: well, my first inclination.. is yes, but then i remember that i forgot that you are a global now too!!!

So now I wonder why Rod had to upsatge you???

hhahahah just kidding!!!!

Point is, even though this is a public board, there is a very small percentage of people here who actaully read here, much less post, so who is being protected, isnt that the real reason to moderate?

rod03801: Rod, I know you dont need to be invited, but I would personally feel better if you were an active member here.... do you really read every single message here?

If yes, then I dont have any problem with you being the strong arm.... my main concern is if you read one small portion and then try to moderate based on that, but if you are a regular reader, I have no problem accepting your judgment!

rod03801: Rod, i totally respect you and I kind of understand where you are coming from.... but to be honest, this is something that will work itself out and will blow over, and even though you are a global, you are not a moderator here, and for that matter, you have posted once or twice at the most before?

Unless someone has contacted you in a pm and requested you to step in here.... I would personally want you to let this play its course.. we are all adults, and like I said, if nobody has requested your intervention, then dont assume we need you...

Artful Dodger: Hardly... but if we have to split hairs, you and i are closer than jews and the Holocaust...

anastasia:

chuckie boy

??????

Jim Dandy: Its kinda like these bailout efforts we are paying for right now... its supposed to be loans with interest etc, but I fear some point down the road we will let them off the hook for all that as well!

Jim Dandy:
Where's the Iraq oil money that was supposed to help in the operation? Think of all the billions spent in Iraq that would be so valuable now


I have always thought there would be some sort of "war dividend" and maybe we still will, out of everything, it would be the lack of repayment from their oil revenues that would piss me off more than any WMD or anything like that ever could. I always assumed that would be a given, that after we liberate them, at some point when they are back on their feet, they would repay us (at least monetarily) for our efforts? hahah, if they dont want to pay us back for giving them their freedom, then I would be in favor of blowing them back to dictatorship status!!!

Jim Dandy:I think some thought like that...

But once we were already there, and had toppled saddam and his regime, then leaving would have meant way more headaches...

I can see where people would not want to have our troops fight unless there is some imminent danger to our country, but once we have made that decision, and we are voted in there and we topple the existing government, then what, just pull out?

anastasia: You are still not completely understanding what happened.... Nobody ever lied... we had no idea that Saddam had destroyed all his WMDs until we went in there and found that out... we asked him over and over to show us some sort of evidence that he didnt have any anymore and he refused!

I personally didnt need any WMD card to support our going in there, but I know for many that was the actual tipping point... but why once we are already there would you prefer failure over victory just because you hate Bush, it is beyond me, and why you can now complain that Rush doesnt want Obamas plan for socialism to succeed????

Jim Dandy:

Democrats supported the war,but only based on what they were fed as facts.

I can agree there is a bit of a difference in the two situations..... but the fact remains that we were voted into going to war, and there were many who could not get past the reasons, and for them failure was the only option.

What good could come from failing in Iraq except to make Bush look bad? There is absolutely no other upside, so why fight it so hard, unless your only agenda is to see Bush fail?

Bernice:

: I see where your troops will hopefully be out of Iraq within 16 months and into Afghanistan...

I think that was the plan decided upon under Bush as directed by the Iraqi government... we have always mantained that we were at their mercy how long they wanted/needed us, if they said leave tomorrow we would be gone, no matter the president.

Jim Dandy:

Yes,so basically he only hopes he succeeds by implimenting a Republican agenda.It seems he'd be unhappy with a flourishing USA if it is achieved by a liberal agenda

He would not be unhappy with a flourishing America, its just he doesnt believe that socializing America will make us flourish.... neither do I, but I would like to see it tried, otherwise we will never get the idea out of our system... so i say give it our best shot, and when it produces another mediocre country, then we can always say been there done that....

Jim Dandy: You have forgotten already that liberals hated Bush so much that, even though their elected representatives voted to send us into Iraq, they hoped for our failure there, and fought actively to help make failure there, just to make Bush look bad... so you have very little standing to now complain about conservatives who hope for Obamas failures!

Jim Dandy:

Rush holds the belief that the country will be worse off if Obama succeeds in implementing the liberal agenda he has laid out. That is the sole reason he hopes Obama fails.

I personally believe that Obamas planned changes will not benefit this country, but I also personally hope he succeeds in implimenting them, and then we can at least see for certain if they are all that some think they will be.... if they are then, well thats good, and I will be proven wrong, or if they lead us in a direction that is ultimately not so good, well then at least we will have tried the experiment, and we can then get back to the real world, with a proven track record of what America is not, and that is socialists!

anastasia: Its not about Obama failing... its about all the "well we bitched about Bush inauguration spending money that could be used to feed the homeless, but that was different then, because this is something very special, and its good for the country to spend money on a party, even though we could feed sooo many people with the money, its still a good thing here, its just so historic, and means so much for this country, we have finally reach such a great milestone, and its so historic...."

Millions of people feel like this, and they truly believe we have reached some great milestone, and we can now move forward with some great burden lifted off our backs..... but that is really a very naive sentiment, and it pisses me off when I hear some black leader dampen the whole thing, and people not realizing this, that to the black community this is nothing so historic at all, its just one small DOWN PAYMENT.... Im not trying to rain on your parade (well I am kinda) but all this giddy "we have finally done something great" crap is just that, all a bunch of crap! ... and some people voted for him just because he is black and they think it will change things, and it wont change anything... we have got to stoip feeling so guilty about our past and this is nothing more than affirmative action at work, it will make us all feel so good if we have a black president... well whooptie doo, now we have a black president, and it isnt going to change a damn thing.... Obama might end up a great president or not, but it will have absolutly nothing to do with the color of his skin.. the more we focus on skin color, the further we get from anything that is truly special!

... all the giddy liberals today.... just so excited that America is excited.... but just point out that Bush had a 93% popularity rating at one point or that Reagan had 5 million more viewers for his inauguration than Obama did.... all you get is blank stares!!!

Poor excited liberals.... they think they have something never achieved before.. how wrong they could be.... and remember.... it just a down payment!!!

Guess I got here too late for this one.... but I heard that the constitution actually stiupulates that the new president is in charge at high noon, and that even though the oath of office was actually taken about 5 minutes after noon, Obama was still in charge before then...


although it is a moot point now, it would be interesting to know the legalities... what if it was 1 minute after noon and before the oath was administered, and the secret service had to go to the president, who would it have been?

Foxy Lady:

Have you ever worked in a soup kitchen?

No I havent, but I guess you have some point in the question?

anastasia:

If I am ever homeless and need help I will turn to a local agency for it....

Druggies and alcoholics and mentally ill dont set up shop for months on the perfect highway off ramp and aggressively defend that area from others who come along and try to do the same thing!

These people arent looking for real help, have you ever offered on of them some food??? They get all pissed off, they arent hungry, they want money...


How exactly are you really helping someone anyway, when you give them some cash on the street corner????? Did you really help that mentally ill person???? Did you really help that alcoholic by throwing a couple of bucks his way???? If throwing some cash at these off ramp beggars is really helping them, then why are they still out there a year later???? It cant be doing them much good, all you are doing for them at best is giving them another day withotu any of the help that they really need!!!!

Tuesday:

Concerning the last sentence (in my link) by Beals, I agree with her about it being a gift for all America.


That is just so wrong on so many different levels, its not even worth the time to try and debate it....

But just remember, in the words of the black community leadership...... "this is just a down payment"....

Bernice:

WOW....25,000 strong police force to guard one man....do you think that will stop the white supremacists(sp) if they "rebel"?


...ever tried to stop a young kid strapped full of explosives from blowing up himself and everything around them????

anastasia: There is no way to prove that every single person begging on a hot street corner is a scammer.... but there is also no way to prove that every single star in the sky is really a star..... its called science, you take a representative sample population and you draw conclusions based on that sample.

I am not trying to say that I know the exact percentage of scammers, I do know that at least the people in this news report were all scammers, so I can say for certain that there are some scammers.

Anywho.. tuesday assets that it is likely these people are on the street corners because the local shelters are too full, and the local food bank ran out of food etc.... which I might be able to believe for a few and on a random basis, but when they are the same people out there month after month???

I just think it is a smarter bet to give your money to a local agency than to someone on a street corner. Its like feeding the bird in an open air restaurant.... if nobody does it, they will soon learn to not come around..... everytime you roll down your window and throw cash, you are only creating more of a problem, dumb liberals....

Jim Dandy:

It will be interesting to hear him tomorrow talking about ideals like personal responsibility, and see if he attacks and blames and presses for the achievers, or if he will be talking to the non achievers as well?

Jim Dandy: Got to admit the guy delivers a well written speech better than most.....

Jim Dandy: I think part of what you see from Fox is a reflection of the past 8 years, where there was a need to balance much of the mainstream news that was so heavily slanted.... that made them seem like they leaned conservative, and based mostly on their non news stuff they do.

But lets see where the next 8 years takes us with Fox. If the mainstream news continues to drool over everything Obama and they give him a pass IE inaugural spending, then we shall probably see more of the same from fox, out to try and give some balance. But if the mainstream media uses the same guile in reporting on Obama as they did with Bush, then you might even end up saying that Fox leans to the left a bit, because they will again try to balance what you might typically hear.


Point is... when 95% of news is biased to the left, or course anybody who brings some balance to that coverage is going to appear themselves to lean right. It doesnt mean that Fox does lean right, only that to give a balanced coverage in todays market place they will always appear to lean right, its just the circumstances of the way things have been the past 8 years.

anastasia: Also, I would say that the "homeless" who fight over the best traffic corners to beg for money are mostly 100% scammers. No, I have no actual proof, but you also dont have any proof that they are not scammers, so given that nobody has any proof here, except the local news who did hidden camera stories on many of them here in Florida, wouldnt you prefer to give your money to some local charity who has the time and resources to make sure that your money is going to people who really need it?


That gets me back to Tuesday and her "I dont mind giving my money to the government to let them do things for us"..... when you complain about Katrina and the many other things our government does badly..... I just dont understand how in one breath people can be so critical of the government, and then in the next think that their tax dollars are spent more frugally to help people than we could do spending the money ourselves more at the local level?????


It seems so basic to me...if I need my driveway paved, am I better off taking my money to a local contractor and getting er done? Or to give my money to the Feds and let them take care of it for me????

Its a no brainer really.... your money will always be spent better and more wisely and more efficiently when you spend it yourself over letting a bureaucratic nightmare or the government do it for you!

Conservatives dont want the homeless to get a job (well we do) but we just dont think that growing the government and increasing taxes is the best solution for solving our problems, and that the less we rely on government to solve our problems the better chance of having the problems resolved anyway!

anastasia:


The swearing in ceremony is about 1.2 million dollars, and the party budget is about 45 million or more..... the rest is security and porta potties

anastasia:

and if they slobbered all over Bush you would be all in favor of them

I dont think that is the point...if they didnt care about one inauguration price tag, then no complaints on this one either.... its about them not being biased... if I am a reporter, and I didnt make any reports about Bush spending too much, then i woulod be off the hook here too, but there are some reporters who made a stink about Bush at the time, who have all of a sudden lost their passion for frugal spending??????


Point is, they were Bush bashing, pure and simple, they didnt care about spending, it was just an excuse to bash.. they still dont give a crap about spending, and since there is no one they want to bash right now... there is no story.

anastasia: yes it isd more expensive than Bushs, by 4 times, hardly the cost of inflation or security, yes half is paid from private donations, but if this really is the start of a new day, why not just have an 80 million dollar ball and not use any tax payers money?

Jim Dandy:

Well thanks for that blog, and it is nice to see... I dont know if that stuff made it to air or was just part of his blog..... the thing is, when it was Bush, it was the AP circulating this stuff...there is not one news room in the US (radio, tv, news paper etc) that does not subscribe to the AP news wires... not this time though, and to read some of the reader comments after the blog, it seems just the same ol same ol... if its Bush its bad, if its Obama its just money well spent on a mental health day required from the last 8 years!

Tuesday:

Everything costs more since Bush has been in office. I wonder how much is security. Obama has a mess to clean up. He deserves a huge party. ;)


I know some of that was tongue in cheek, and you do empathize with what i am trying to point out...

But its really true, we like Obama so he gets a pass and we dont like Bush so he gets screwed... but in all truth and honesty, is that really what you want from your media outlets????

Tuesday: But its the government giving a license!!! Who else should decide then????

Should we get to write our own definition when it comes to drivers licenses too??? I dont like the definition of "speeding" , should that make it okay for the definition of speeding to be changed as well?

4 years ago the media were up in arms about Bush spending 40 million on his inauguration, listed all the better ways to spend the cash instead, this while the economy was doing well....


Anyone heard anything about that now when Obama is going to spend twice that amount, 80 million plus another 80 million in private funds, making the total 160 million dollar party????


Not a word (except for some pointing out the bias on conservative talk radio) but nobody is complaining, or even mentioning, in fact the media is falling all over itself, like proud parents!


No..... no , the main stream media has no left wing bias or agenda.... no, not at all....

anastasia: Marriage to me is a religious institution, anyone can have a religious based marriage ceremony, swap rings, do whatever they want to, the government doesnt really care.

But if the government is giving a legal document,IE a license to get married in the eyes of the government, of course they have the right to give rules and such.

There are some people who marry multiple partners, but the government will not sanction it. The government has always defined marriage as a whatever between 1 man and 1 woman, thats what marriage is, if its between 2 men or 2 women then it is not really marriage!

Then, you start to make changes to the actual definition of marriage, and you probably get into something more than you bargained for? If the courts rule that the definition can be changed to make same sex okay, then what would be your argument that the definition cannot be changed to make more than 2 people involved?????? What would stop the definition from including a woman and a dog? You think that is silly, but is silly a reason to not allow something???? You see where this is going, right?

Tuesday:

Do you think the government should determine who marries as long as they are of legal age and consenting?

Well, the government doesnt stop anyone from getting married.... but if you want a marriage sponsored by the government, well then they have to regulate it somehow, dont they? I mean, what about making it between two people only? That is a restriction, isnt it?

Tuesday: Freedom of expression doesnt give you the right to violate my rights, or to attack me....



..anyway, so as long as it is consenting adults, the federal government should not regulate it with laws?

Tuesday:

Is murder a moral issue or personal choice?

anastasia:

proof chuck...PROOF...back up your statements with hard facts

Okay, no facts, but proof enough for me, unless you happen to believe in coincidence, which I really dont... but you see them fighting over their "territory" on the good traffic corners... doesnt sound like a poor homeless person just trying to get by until the local shelter can get him a bed and some soup!

lol... I just heard some black leader on meet the press and he said that yes this is a historic election etc... but that this is only a small down payment!!!

The black leaders have no interest in moving on and getting past race related issues, they have more vested in keeping racism alive, and they are the biggest racists themselves!

Tuesday: These people fight over the good intersections and they are there all the time, if it was just some guy who couldnt get into the shelter today or this week or whatever, then they were gone later.... but they are not, they are mostly scammers who are making tons of money, they have no desire to be stuck in some homeless shelter eating soup, they have it made out on the streets, and they have physical fights with other scammers to protect their hot corners!!!

Tuesday:

These news stories didnt take months looking around for a fraud,,, they went to one major intersection and followed the people there, and they found what they make and they followed them to their homes and watched them drop of kids to their families.... it was either a stroke of huge coincidence, or it was an indication of the fraud that goes on is deeper than you believe!


There are many homeless shelters and other community resources available to the truly homeless, and I dont think if you show up at one of them, they are going to send you out to the highway intersection to beg for money! The reason they are on the intersection and not at the local community help center is because they are NOT really home less!!! They make more money than you and I together by dressing dirty and holding a sign on the corner, tax free too! Give me someone with that much ambition, I will put them to work doing something that is productive for society and helps with the tax burden!