Sick of Politics

Dr. Hess wrote: bunch of stuff

My belief is that if we profess one thing and then do another with certain select people.. you have still opened the door to doing that bad thing..

It is not acceptable period. we must stop being hypocrites and outwardly practice the values that are ingrained in our culture. No expections...

A quick google search for "U.S. Citizen detained" revealed cases of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil arrested and detained without charge, representation, or the rights of habeas.

Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen who was picked up on U.S. soil.

There was also Mike Hawash who was held for several days. He was eventually released. But he was not given due process.

Should we let them vote in our elections? That's a right of a U.S. Citizen. Or just give the rest of the world some of our rights, but not all of them?

When someone picks up an RPG7 and tries to kill Americans with it, he's lost all rights to exist. Anything we do to him after that point, including killing him or giving him a bath to encourage him to tell us where his friends are is fair. He's pwned.

booyakasha...

The detainees include at least one U.S. citizen and some are from Canada, Sweden and France, according to a list compiled by a Kenyan Muslim rights group and flight manifests obtained by AP.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/terror/main2647027.shtml

Found one in a prison in Ethiopia... Don't say it can't and won't happen..

Dr. Hess wrote: Should we let them vote in our elections? That's a right of a U.S. Citizen. Or just give the rest of the world _some_ of our rights, but not all of them? When someone picks up an RPG7 and tries to kill Americans with it, he's lost all rights to exist. Anything we do to him after that point, including killing him or giving him a bath to encourage him to tell us where his friends are is fair. He's pwned.

Yes, we should give the rest of the world some of our rights. When in our country, all of our laws should still apply to them. They should either be deported to their country, or tried under our laws with the same level of due process. They should be free from search and seizure of property. They do not have the full rights of citizens. They also do not have a right to bare arms, because a non-citizen can't reasonably be a part of any U.S. militia.

The enemy soldier with an RPG7 is attacking U.S. soldiers on foreign soil. There is international law that our country voluntarily subscribes to that should guide our actions on how to deal with people in these situations. An insurgent in Iraq who believes they should oppose U.S. occupation of their country is not the same as a Taliban terrorist performing suicide bombings on civilians on u.s. soil.

If our country devolved into civil war, and Russia came over and occupied us, would you take up arms against them? If Canada devolved into civil war and China occupied them, would you take up arms against the Chinese?

Dr. Hess wrote: When someone picks up an RPG7 and tries to kill Americans with it, he's lost all rights to exist. Anything we do to him after that point, including killing him or giving him a bath to encourage him to tell us where his friends are is fair. He's pwned.

The problem with this is that it's the American equivalent of:

Terr'ist wrote: When someone picks up an RPG7 and tries to kill Al Quaeda members with it, he's lost all rights to exist. Anything we do to him after that point, including killing him or giving him a bath to encourage him to tell us where his friends are is fair. He's pwned.

Do you want to sink all the way down to their level?

Dr. Hess wrote: When someone picks up an RPG7 and tries to kill Americans with it, he's lost all rights to exist.

Dude, you're not reading very well today.

Maher Arar never picked up an RPG. Neither did any of the Japanese-Americans we detained in camps during WWII.

If I did, I would (seriously) suggest The Parking Lot Treatment (PLT) for the Middle East. Parking lots are the one thing we do better than anyone else in the world.

However, being nice to people trying to kill you somehow or other never works out.

Let's go back to the 1984 reference:

For the government cement power they just need to generate an outside threat to unite the people against that's more dangerous than the government. Then the government needs the power to "do whatever is necessary" to "protect" the people.

We are in a war against "terror". WTF? Because it is a "war" our leaders "need" exceptions to the rules.

CM, I wasn't speaking of Arar specifically, just someone with an RPG. I'm not familiar with Arar, but something doesn't add up from the above description: It costs money to detain people, it isn't done just for the hell of it. Syria is not our friend. Actually Syria is sending people to Iraq to kill us. Why would we send some innocent Canadian to Syria for no reason at all? Doesn't add up.

The Japanese Americans that were detained by a DEMOCRATIC administration is a whole other subject.

Dr. Hess wrote: However, being nice to people trying to kill you somehow or other never works out.

Civil rights movement. Passive resistance. Dr. Martin Luther King.

Oh, that's not what you meant. But do you get to shoot people in the head for thinking they might be wanting to hurt you? I believe that was one of the issues with Vietnam.

Re: Civil Rights Movement. Yeah, and how has that worked out for them?

As far as Viet Nam, lots of bad things happend on both sides, starting at the top of both sides and working its way down.

Again: Let's differentiate between individuals trying to kill civilians on U.S. soil, and military personnel on foreign soil. Big difference.

Dr. Hess wrote: Re: Civil Rights Movement. Yeah, and how has that worked out for them? As far as Viet Nam, lots of bad things happend on both sides, starting at the top of both sides and working its way down.

I'd say things have improved significantly.

And did all of those "bad things" that happened improve the situation or serve to make it devolve further?

If you don't care about the the middle east and would be fine nuking it, but want to prevent our citizens from being killed, the most prudent action would be to withdraw entirely, and let them all kill themselves.

If you think we should remain an occupying force in Iraq, what are your reasons?

Dr. Hess wrote: I'm not familiar with Arar, but something doesn't add up from the above description

He's a Syrian born, Canadian citizen. He became a "person of interest" (to both the US and Canadian governments) when he had the misfortune of having social ties to another "person of interest" (forget the guy's name, but he wasn't suspected of actual terrorism either).

So, at some point Arar flies into JFK Airport for a layover. The US government arrests him, detains him, and "deports" him to Syria, despite the fact he's traveling on Canadian papers. Whether or not the Canadian government was complicit in this is unknown. The US claims is was a standard deportation - except it was on a government small jet and Arar was immediately taken to a Syrian prison, where he was tortured.

He was finally released back to Canada. The Canadian government has since published several reports indicating some level of complicity complicity and apoligized. The US government refuses to acknowledge any wrong-doing.

He's not a US citizen, but he isn't an RPG-wielding lunatic either. And he wasn't found on a battlefield, but arrested on American soil, where he had legally landed for a lay-over. At worst, he has minor ties to some shady Syrian characters, but those seem to be more social in nature than economic or political.

Personally, I think we should put a nuclear reactor in every town across America and give the electricity away at cost or even free. Our energy crisis would be over shortly. As for the Middle East, having been there, I can tell you that The PLT would most likely be a major improvement. They do truely hate us for not being them and are insanely jellous of what we have created. Go spend some time there and tell me otherwise. I think pulling out totally and letting the Israelies do whatever they want would be an option, but us being there is actually saving millions of their lives, from each other and from the Israelies. As for Iraq, we will be an occupying force there from now on. That's just the way it is. Even if Obama wins, we'll still be there. Nothing will change. Should we? Well, if you want to save millions of lives, then yes, we probably should. If you don't care if they blow themselves up and launch a few nukes our way in the process, then we should pack up and go home. The need for oil as our primary energy source and limiting our utilization of our own resources is how the Democrats keep us in the Middle East. If you don't want to be there, then write your Democrat and tell him to get his fingers our of the US Energy business and let the market correct itself. Remove barriers to entry so new oil companies and refineries can start up. Remove barriers to exploration. Put one of those double 18 wheeler truck sized nuclear reactors in every town and hook it to the grid. Problem solved.

I have no doubt that we'll remain an occupying force in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

I'm just trying to find where you position is. You mentioned earlier about nuking the place into a parking lot. Now, you're talking about saving lives there. So... do you just care about lives as numbers, or about elevating their situation? If you want to elevate the situation and have them embrace us, our tactics need to be well above the level of atrocities we're trying to prevent.

Or do you only care about being there in order to rape the country for resources? In which case, it's reasonable to torture and use fear tactics. But it doesn't sound like that's what you're suggesting we do.

I can't figure out what sort of policy you're advocating. So far, the only clear stance you seem to have is to "Use any means necessary to protect U.S. citizens." What policy do you advocate to achieve that goal?

Dr. Hess wrote: Personally,They do truely hate us for not being them and are insanely jellous of what we have created.

http://www.rit.edu/news/index.php?p=experts&action=viewexpert&id=62 <-- you need to take a class from this guy..

Hate us for what we created... Thats right.. A system that puts up puppets who oppress them because we like cheap oil.. YAY U.S.

Dr. Hess wrote: When someone picks up an RPG7 and tries to kill Americans with it, he's lost all rights to exist. Anything we do to him after that point, including killing him or giving him a bath to encourage him to tell us where his friends are is fair. He's pwned.

Thats fine. Lets rewrite the law to define "Enemy Combatant" as "Someone who picks up an RPG7 and tries to kill Americans." At least then we'd HAVE A BERKELEYING DEFINITION.

No one is arguing that terrorists actively trying to kill American civilians shouldn't be detained. We are arguing that there has to be a god damned definition of "Enemy Combatant" because eventually down the line someone is going to play fast and loose with the law and use it to lock up someone who isn't a terrorist at all, and they will never recieve due process.

EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GWB IS ABOVE ABUSING THIS LOOPHOLE, HE WILL NOT BE THE PRESIDENT FOREVER.

Wow, haven't been on this thread most of the day, but it's really taken an interesting direction.

Nascho, I agree completely. You summarized my exact opinion. It just seemed that they took Crichton's book from 30 years ago and just made it into a Bush-bashing piece. It was really annoying. The endless references to the DHS were way over the top.

Anyway, glad I wasn't alone in my opinion of the movie. Continue with the arguments over the middle east.

Back to movies, I like how short and sweet the jab at Bush was in transformers. Nothing repedetive, elaborate, or overly politiclal, he just likes his snack cakes

I was under the impression that the civil rights movement worked out pretty well.

Clay wrote: Wow, haven't been on this thread most of the day, but it's really taken an interesting direction. Nascho, I agree completely. You summarized my exact opinion. It just seemed that they took Crichton's book from 30 years ago and just made it into a Bush-bashing piece. It was really annoying. The endless references to the DHS were way over the top. Anyway, glad I wasn't alone in my opinion of the movie. Continue with the arguments over the middle east.

To be fair I thought the simpsons movie included too much of that political spin stuff as well.

Yeah... back on topic. I think we may have had this argument before. I think it may have even been between the same group of people. I think the arguments may even have been the same.

So... what about the role of politics in literature and art? I did not see the version of Andromeda Strain mentioned, btw. I do think expressing a political viewpoint is a key roll of art. There is always a danger in making your political point too current though, and loosing the value of a message. The good messages continue past the moment.

I mean, the comparison of presidential candidates to a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich spans all elections.

Salanis wrote: If we're talking WWII Japanese. How about internment camps? Virtually none of the people detained actually had any desire to hurt this country. And the fact we committed an atrocity once should not give us the right to do it in the future. It should serve as a lesson to never do again. /blockquote> While the Japanese internment camps weren't our best moment, those people were treated a lot better than the civilians the Japanese took in the Phillapines and other countries. We did what we thought we needed to. The Japanese had spies in Pearl Harbor before and during the attack. Why wouldn't you expect them to be on the mainland too? If you have a problem with that, you need to go bash Roosevelt, since it happened under his watch. Its amazing that when the left wing attacks Bush, they totally forget history, like LBJ and the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident. If I ever need another term paper, I'm going to hire or bribe Salanis to write it.