Bush and war crimes

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

So.....

When are the libs going to go after the Al Queda folks in Iraq that captured the two U.S. Soldiers 2 weeks ago and brutally tortured them before killing them?

I forgot....Geneva convention applies only to us.


Here is my philosophy....

If our enemy abides by it, then I feel we should also.

If they don't? Kill em.

They play this game because they know that media/dems/libs wont allow us.

Who is saying we shouldn't capture those individuals other than you? Saying we shouldn't TORTURE them is a far cry from saying we shouldn't PUNISH them.

I find it sad that people think our only duty to not torture people stems from a treaty rather than a higher moral order.

Also, if you believe the government is not trying to capture those individuals, you can blame conservatives for that issue. The President would be the one to ask about that, not the minority party.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe illegal aliens possess the same level of rights and face deportation proceedings, but correct me if I err oh immigration expert.

I simply do not believe that aliens abroad, unaligned by nations, deserve any rights if they use aggression against our citizens.

Congrats, you are helping convert me to anarchy, and you might even convert a man to loss of faith in God.

Consider yourself corrected.

Illegal aliens DO have rights. You alluded to them yourself when you noted they go through deportation PROCEEDINGS. If they had no rights, there would be no proceeding.

Are you under the impression the government can enter an illegal aliens house and conduct a search without a warrant? If arrested for a crime, are they not afforded a trial and counsel?

Again, your argument flows from a belief that the government grants rights and therefore can give those rights to whom it pleases. Our nation was built on the premise that we are born with rights and the government existed to help us maintain those rights.

You would say that certain people in our country have no rights. How could that be if they are given rights by virtue of their mere existence? No matter how morally repugnant a person or group may be, we should never claim they have no rights. To do so tears at the very fabric this nation was founded upon- the belief in inalienable, God-given rights.

[The_Tick]

I wasn't the least bit concerned if Zarq. (however you spell it) died. I would have loved to bitch slap him myself right before he crossed over and found and that he was wrong.

I am a big believer that you have to do what you have to do to win a war.

If I know someone may have some info to help stop this, I am going to get the info.

No offense to you lawyers on the board, but what law is today isn't what I believe the founding fathers intended it to be.

There would be alot less crime/war if we were a little more heavy handed in the way we treated terrorists/criminals.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

I wasn't the least bit concerned if Zarq. (however you spell it) died. I would have loved to bitch slap him myself right before he crossed over and found and that he was wrong.

I am a big believer that you have to do what you have to do to win a war.

If I know someone may have some info to help stop this, I am going to get the info.

No offense to you lawyers on the board, but what law is today isn't what I believe the founding fathers intended it to be.

There would be alot less crime/war if we were a little more heavy handed in the way we treated terrorists/criminals.

If the founding fathers didn't care about being heavy handed to criminals (I doubt they thought about terrorists since it wasn't really a term used back then) they wouldn't have devoted so much time to protecting the rights of criminals in the Constitution.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You would say that certain people in our country have no rights. How could that be if they are given rights by virtue of their mere existence? No matter how morally repugnant a person or group may be, we should never claim they have no rights. To do so tears at the very fabric this nation was founded upon- the belief in inalienable, God-given rights.

For you to invoke the name of God is heresy as your words are faith disaffirming. If you and your complete hubris, lack of humility, represent the young in the Church, then we have no faith left, and the Church will be no more. Please do not invoke God, as faith is not the question here. No need to respond as you are too good for us old folks.

Existence does NOT confer rights. That may be an argument but it's far from being proved.

Do I recognize that the courts bestow rights upon aliens? Of course. But I don't agree.

Why should a person who has no investment of time, loyalty, or money receive the benefits others have fought, died or paid for, unless one does it by virtue of parentage?

Be that as it may, a nonresident alien SHOULD not enjoy the benefits of protections of laws, especially not to the same extent as lawful citizens and aliens.

Just so you as our diminuitive demagogue here doesn't distort it more, that doesn't mean we should mindlessly kill or harm anybody, even unlawful aliens. We shouldn't enter homes of unlawful aliens. How unlawful aliens have homes is another question; they shouldn't. You should have to have a SSN in order to buy or rent.

However, when legitimate military sources fight aliens abroad, they should NOT be afforded constitutional privileges. They haven't earned them or contracted with the group. We are a Republic, not a democracy.

Nowhere have I ever used the word taxpayer. It is possible to pay for something without paying taxes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For you to invoke the name of God is heresy as your words are faith disaffirming. If you and your complete hubris, lack of humility, represent the young in the Church, then we have no faith left, and the Church will be no more. Please do not invoke God, as faith is not the question here. No need to respond as you are too good for us old folks.

You know, I haven't followed this debate that closely, but tossing out a comment this shrill means you automatically lose.

Lighten up, Archea.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For you to invoke the name of God is heresy as your words are faith disaffirming. If you and your complete hubris, lack of humility, represent the young in the Church, then we have no faith left, and the Church will be no more. Please do not invoke God, as faith is not the question here. No need to respond as you are too good for us old folks.

lol! Put this into my favorites. I am the Godless heretic, hear me roar. How you ever construe my claims that a civilized society shouldn't torture people as being heresy is beyond me. This is the ultimate of all ad hominems I have ever come across. Very enjoyable!

Existence does NOT confer rights. That may be an argument but it's far from being proved.

Not only is it an "argument," it is the basis of our government and the basis of our religion. If we aren't born with rights, how can we be held accountable for our actions? Doesn't our belief in agency mean that we believe we ARE born with certain rights?

Do I recognize that the courts bestow rights upon aliens? Of course. But I don't agree.

That is because you think rights flow from the government and the government can give them or withhold them as it pleases. Take a look at your earlier comment:

No, people who contract together reserve rights for those who also contract and for their offspring. Noncitizens have not contracted together, so the group may deny the outsiders rights once they enter into our realm and dominion. You knew that argument but sought out a red herring or a strawman.

Hmm, what would you call such a compact between people reserving rights for them and their offspring? Perhaps a government? If it is that contract (the government) which grants us rights, then our rights flow from that contract (government). An odd view for a libertarian/self-proclaimed soon to be anarchist. If you are in anarchy, can you have no rights? Hard to see how under your explanation.

Why should a person who has no investment of time, loyalty, or money receive the benefits others have fought, died or paid for, unless one does it by virtue of parentage?

Because the rights are inherent in our existence. I thought I had already covered this. Would you have us measure each individual's contributions before determining how many rights they should have? If so, who conducts the measuring? The government? If that is the case, haven't you given the government a blank check to abuse our rights?

Be that as it may, a nonresident alien SHOULD not enjoy the benefits of protections of laws, especially not to the same extent as lawful citizens and aliens.

Who said they enjoy the protection of the laws to the same extent as legal aliens? Only you have. As I mentioned before, the government has the power to restrict rights of lawbreakers in order to preserve the rights of others. This is not to say the government can ELIMINATE our rights.

Just so you as our diminuitive demagogue here doesn't distort it more, that doesn't mean we should mindlessly kill or harm anybody, even unlawful aliens. We shouldn't enter homes of unlawful aliens. How unlawful aliens have homes is another question; they shouldn't. You should have to have a SSN in order to buy or rent.

So very happy you aren't running the country.

However, when legitimate military sources fight aliens abroad, they should NOT be afforded constitutional privileges. They haven't earned them or contracted with the group. We are a Republic, not a democracy.

What in the world does being a Republic have to do with granting rights to aliens abroad??? Unfortunately for you, our society has determined that some rights are so fundamental, they are inherent and granted to everyone, regardless of where they live. Take Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, for example:

Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring inthe territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, certain provisions protecting persons . . . placed hors de combat by. . . detention," including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences . . . without previous judgment . . . by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable bycivilized peoples.”

Nowhere have I ever used the word taxpayer. It is possible to pay for something without paying taxes.

Who ever said it wasn't possible to pay for something without paying taxes? Stay on point here. You said:

Noncitizens who have not entered this country, who have not paid taxes should not receive the same protections as our citizens.

You expressly condition the ability to receive rights on the status of the person as a taxpayer. Those "who have not paid taxes" are not granted rights. Come back to me when you have sorted through your own arguments.

[El Guapo]

You two need to relax. I don't know about all of this legal crap, but I do know you both need to be nicer.

Especially you, Archaea. What is up with questioning a guy's faith and saying he represents everything wrong int he church?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For you to invoke the name of God is heresy as your words are faith disaffirming. If you and your complete hubris, lack of humility, represent the young in the Church, then we have no faith left, and the Church will be no more. Please do not invoke God, as faith is not the question here. No need to respond as you are too good for us old folks.

Existence does NOT confer rights. That may be an argument but it's far from being proved.

Do I recognize that the courts bestow rights upon aliens? Of course. But I don't agree.

Why should a person who has no investment of time, loyalty, or money receive the benefits others have fought, died or paid for, unless one does it by virtue of parentage?

Be that as it may, a nonresident alien SHOULD not enjoy the benefits of protections of laws, especially not to the same extent as lawful citizens and aliens.

Just so you as our diminuitive demagogue here doesn't distort it more, that doesn't mean we should mindlessly kill or harm anybody, even unlawful aliens. We shouldn't enter homes of unlawful aliens. How unlawful aliens have homes is another question; they shouldn't. You should have to have a SSN in order to buy or rent.

However, when legitimate military sources fight aliens abroad, they should NOT be afforded constitutional privileges. They haven't earned them or contracted with the group. We are a Republic, not a democracy.

Nowhere have I ever used the word taxpayer. It is possible to pay for something without paying taxes.

I have to agree with others. This is so over-the-top that I can't help but enjoy it as entertainment.

What kind of lawyer are you anyhow? Please tell me you are a tax lawyer and that you work for an evil corporation, because I like to see evil corporations bite the dust.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by El Guapo

You two need to relax. I don't know about all of this legal crap, but I do know you both need to be nicer.

Especially you, Archaea. What is up with questioning a guy's faith and saying he represents everything wrong int he church?

Things usually stay pretty civil around here, but a few of us have a tendency to fly off the handle from time to time... or fall off our rocker.