Really Liz Cheney? Really???

[downunder]

I think my position on capital punishment is clear.


So yes, we either have to hold them indefinitely or execute them.

What a shining beacon of hope and christian values.

Hasn't your country invaded others for less bloodthirsty violations of human rights?

[Inquartata]

This post is simply laughable.

New here, huh?

You know how people who hate gays are usually thought to do so because of the latent homosexual feelings they recognize and are repulsed by in themselves?

Maybe it's the same with people who accuse others of being doctrinaire thinkers and easy dupes.

[kalivor]

So...Hermann Goering, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Keitel, Masaharu Homma...they weren't POWs?

Or are you saying that we "had no intention" to hang them when we hung them?

I don't think that distinction really holds up...

Goering, Jodl, Keitel and Homma were arrested after their respective countries surrendered, and charged with war crimes. They were never POWs -- they were arrested after the cessation of hostilities.

[phillipmj]

This post is simply laughable.

I rather enjoyed it. And it did make me laugh. But I suspect that's not what you meant.

[Bayou Bum]

It's not meant as a personal attack. I'm sure you're a lovely fellow. It's a pity that you are such a sucker, ...it is. It breaks my heart to have to tell you this.

I just feel like the son who asks the dottering senior father that maybe after this latest 5 car pile-up, it's time to turn in your car keys.

Same situation. If you voted for Bush the first time, you made a mistake (car wreck #1), but frankly, if you voted for that criminal for re-election (car wreck #16), it's really time to re-think voting. Obviously you can't handle the responsibility and I think we'd all be better off if you just stopped participating in our democracy.

Again, if you were under the delusion that the prisoners in Cuba were mostly justly apprehended terrorists, that it "strains the fabric of credulity" to think that the Bush administration could aptly distinguish a combatant from a civilian, or cared to try, then you just shouldn't express your political preferences at a voting booth.

I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm saying you are easily manipulated.

Seriously, keep going the way you are going, and if the Hindu's are right, your next life you're coming back as a cockroach or something. Karma can be a real *****. I'm just trying to help you.

So how do you feel about how PresBO is handling all the innocent, peace loving Muslims at Gitmo? Are you happy with the way he kept his promise and closed it? And what about his promise to try them in civilian courts? I haven't heard any of his worshipers make any comment on that.

[Hauptman]

So...Hermann Goering, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Keitel, Masaharu Homma...they weren't POWs?

Or are you saying that we "had no intention" to hang them when we hung them?

I don't think that distinction really holds up...

Wow, talk about quoting out of context; try reading the complete paragraph next time.

POW's are just as the name implies; prisoners of war. When the war is over they are released UNLESS they are also accused of crimes. Being guilty of crimes makes them a criminal, and so they are tried to establish that guilt against a legal standard.

So yes, they can be a POW and a criminal, but they are only tried, and possibly punished, as a criminal.

The rest of your condescending post follows from your initial flawed reading, so I'll just stop here and give you a chance to catch up.

[I_luv_saber]

I rather enjoyed it. And it did make me laugh. But I suspect that's not what you meant.

Nah, I'm not generally down with blatant disrespect, down-talking, and rabid partisan ranting. Call me crazy.

FWIW though, it was so poor it did actually make me chuckle in disbelief.

[fencerchica]

Nah, I'm not generally down with blatant disrespect, down-talking, and rabid partisan ranting. Call me crazy.

FWIW though, it was so poor it did actually make me chuckle in disbelief.

I thought it was pretty commeasurate with what it was commenting upon. Being expected to accord a veneer of respectability to what is actually wild-eyed radicalism gets a little tiring after a while.

[I_luv_saber]

Sorry, I generally like civility. Shoot me.

How was most of what was in that post really any less disrespectful than chase-esque rantings? Because it's on the other wing?

[fencerchica]

Sorry, I generally like civility. Shoot me.

How was most of what was in that post really any less disrespectful than chase-esque rantings? Because it's on the other wing?

Personally I don't feel that Inq has been terribly civil himself lately. I think it's interesting that you waited until someone went after him to start in with calls for civility. Also, the signal to noise ratio of the posts in question isn't remotely comparable to Chase's.

[I_luv_saber]

Where was the major uncivility? Maybe from BB, I don't know I stopped paying attention a long time ago...

EDIT: If it makes it any better: I disagree with and think BB is generally uncivil. Ok? Was this not known?

But did you really read that post?

can establish you're not a sociopath. Let's work on that thought. Maybe you can start to make ammends. Here's what I suggest: You (Inquartata) and maybe BayouBum and any other Republican reading this, and feeling rightfully ashamed, ought to burn your voter ID card, ASAP.

You're a sucker. PT Barnum knew you well, let's just say.

Better you stay out of the public decisions than be always on the side of evil. Zero really is greater than a negetive.

That alone is fantastically horrible and I would say on par with chase's liberal-bashing. Are you really going to equate something Inq said to that mess? I don't agree with his position at all in this case, but please don't try and equate someone taking a position you don't like with disrespect and partisan blathering.

I find it interesting you jump to the defense of a horrible post because it happens to be on your side of the spectrum.

[badpenny]

Sorry, I generally like civility. Shoot me.

How was most of what was in that post really any less disrespectful than chase-esque rantings? Because it's on the other wing?

Ouch! My ears are burning.

Disrespectful?!?! Nothing could be further from my mind good sir. I am merely in despair.

I despair because I was always under the assumption that the "other" side could be reasoned with. You know, you have a difference of opinion (are the Guantanemo prisoners fit for trial or not?), you point out what you think is pretty good supporting evidence (the former Sec. of State's chief of staff goes into a press conference and states that the White House knew that most of these men were innocent but kept them illegally detained/tortured to hide its incompetence), but instead of an expected reply (you're right Badpenny, GWB was a douche), I instead get a defensive blowoff (ohh, stop calling me names Badpenny, you're hurting my feewings ).

I despair because in essence I think I realize that you can't argue logically with people that didn't come to their own conclusions through logic. It's sad, but that's what it is.

So then I'm left to wonder. Are you wingnuts inheritely evil? or stupid? (both?) I choose to believe that you're just stupid because I would rather believe you were manipulated into support for these criminals, else many of my countrymen really are monsters. So far, I_Luv_Saber, you haven't let me down in my first presumption and for that, I thank you.

[Inquartata]

What a shining beacon of hope and christian values.

My status as avowed cynic relieves me of the burden of hope; and I am not a Christian.

Hasn't your country invaded others for less bloodthirsty violations of human rights?

Than the execution of convicted criminals? I don't believe so.

[I_luv_saber]

Ouch! My ears are burning.

Disrespectful?!?! Nothing could be further from my mind good sir. I am merely in despair.

Um... yes, you were extremely disrespectful. The emotion you were feeling at the time does not disqualify dis-respectfulness somehow.

I despair because I was always under the assumption that the "other" side could be reasoned with. {snip out irrelevant blather for brevity}

Yes, they can be. One person does not "represent the other side", and I'm not sure why you think this is the case.

{snip} but instead of an expected reply (you're right Badpenny, GWB was a douche), I instead get a defensive blowoff (ohh, stop calling me names Badpenny, you're hurting my feewings ).

I don't like either side acting like a douche and posting nonsense. I've scolded chase, an infamous right wing nutjob troll in the past. I've even called BB out for being a douche. That doesn't mean you can't be a douche as well for posting nonsensical partisan BS.

So then I'm left to wonder. Are you wingnuts inheritely evil? or stupid? (both?)

I find the notion you think I'm a wingnut honestly very funny. And seeing some of the positions I've taken against him, I think Inq would find it funny as well.

Do yourself a favor and maybe actually read through some threads. Hell, go crazy, maybe even use the search function. I take a right wing stance on some subjects on others I take a left wing stance. But you wouldn't know that since you are assuming my damning of your idiotic statements are equivalent to me supporting Inq's. And you are bashing the right for not using logic?

I choose to believe that you're just stupid because I would rather believe you were manipulated into support for these criminals, else many of my countrymen really are monsters. So far, I_Luv_Saber, you haven't let me down in my first presumption and for that, I thank you.

SEE? Loooook everyone!!! He's not disrespectful at all! He uses well-thought out arguments coupled with civil argument?! A true beacon enlightenment!

I still find it hilarious you think I'm a right wing nut when I have, in this very thread, damned the actions at Gitmo, etc.

Amateur. You aren't worth by time. I dub thee the anti-chase. Continue as you were, you can continue your schizophrenic rants on your own.

[fencerchica]

But, seeing how Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and quite especially George Bush lied us into a war (WMD anyone?), I guess I'm going with the convential wisdom crowd and going with Larry on this one.

In fairness to W, I'm doubtful as to how much deliberate lying he was really involved in. It doesn't really seem to me as though he was an evil man or had an intent to go out and lie to the American people in order to start -- and then completely arse up -- an unjust war. I think his failing was just mind-boggling, lazy fecklessness as he let Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Addington take the reins and go on the rampage, while he sat back and dispensed imprimaturs -- when anybody even bothered to get permission from him at all.

[badpenny]

...Continue as you were, you can continue your schizophrenic rants on your own.

Yes, I_luv_saber, but are you willing to defend, to the death, your right to ignore me?

[Inquartata]

POW's are just as the name implies; prisoners of war. When the war is over they are released UNLESS they are also accused of crimes. Being guilty of crimes makes them a criminal, and so they are tried to establish that guilt against a legal standard.

So yes, they can be a POW and a criminal, but they are only tried, and possibly punished, as a criminal.

Excellent! I was unsure whether you would step into the trap or not. Thank you.

So---they were not POWs. This makes them, acccording to your dichotomy, just criminals.

But criminals, again according to your model, are to be tried by their own governments---not by those of their former adversaries. Not even by extraordinary tribunals overseen by judges selected by their former adversaries from their own citizenry.

So apparently we have a third category of malefactor, neither POW nor criminal, by the tenets of your own model...

Which is precisely what I have been saying all along.

( I will be interested in seeing how you wriggle out of this one. )

The rest of your condescending post follows from your initial flawed reading, so I'll just stop here and give you a chance to catch up.

As perhaps you can now see, you were wrong on all three counts here.

[I_luv_saber]

Yes, I_luv_saber, but are you willing to defend, to the death, your right to ignore me?

Yes. I'm willing to defend your right to being an idiot and my right to ignore you being an idiot. Isn't liberalism great?

[Inquartata]

Where was the major uncivility?

It was a second lieutenant incivility at worst.

Anyway, with certain...ah...persons fervently committed to a way of seeing the world, a certain ideological bent if you will, disagreeing with them is in itself incivility. Doing so at all effectively greatly compounds the crime.

I hasten to add that these persons are to be found on both the left and the right, although it is a symptom of the malady that each believes it only afflicts the other...

[fencerchica]

So apparently we have a third category of malefactor, neither POW nor criminal, by the tenets of your own model...

Are we to understand, then, that your thesis is the following? "Because these detainees fall into a third category, neither criminal nor POW, we have the right to punish them without according them any procedural rights."

Just to raise the stakes a little here, are you aware of S. 3081, the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010"? It proposes to empower the President to imprison anyone, including American citizens arrested in the US, on his sole discretion, and says that they "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

Nice little throw from the Republicans. If Obama supports it, the bottom line is that if it passes he probably won't use it much (though supporting it at all is bad enough) and they'll have it in their back pocket if and when they recapture the executive. If Obama opposes it, he's a muslosocialinazicommunist who eats babies and hates Amur'ca. And Republican supporters are, as badpenny (accurately) points out, either too dumb or too wicked to care about this kind of stuff. So, it's a win-win-win scenario for the Right.