RE: Rendition

RE: Rendition (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 1:16:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle EVERYWHERE the US Government goes, THE US Government is BOUND by the Constitution. When it says ALL PERSONS, it means *ALL* *PERSONS*. Those of you suggesting that "Enemy Combatants" aren't "PERSONS" got some real problems. Fargle, how many times do you have to be told that the U.S. Constitution does not extend beyond our borders? Go up to Canada and try telling them about your "Constitutional rights." A US GOVERNMENT AGENT of any sort MUST OBEY THE CONSTITUTION regardless of whether he is in Canada or not. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the Constitution tells THE GOVERNMENT what they are PERMITTED TO DO, so since it DOES NOT SAY, "THOU SHALL TORTURE PRISONERS", then the Government cannot maintain it's mandate to rule AND CHOOSE to torture prisoners.

farglebargle -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 1:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 While the Iraq war is based on flawed intelligence, That's a hell of a way to attempt to excuse the intentional fraud committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, et. al. in violation of 18 USC 371. It was based on a well orchestrated series of intentional lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations.

popeye1250 -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 2:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle EVERYWHERE the US Government goes, THE US Government is BOUND by the Constitution. When it says ALL PERSONS, it means *ALL* *PERSONS. Those of you suggesting that "Enemy Combatants" aren't "PERSONS" got some real problems. Fargle, how many times do you have to be told that the U.S. Constitution does not extend beyond our borders? Go up to Canada and try telling them about your "Constitutional rights." A US GOVERNMENT AGENT of any sort MUST OBEY THE CONSTITUTION regardless of whether he is in Canada or not. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the Constitution tells THE GOVERNMENT what they are PERMITTED TO DO, so since it DOES NOT SAY, "THOU SHALL TORTURE PRISONERS", then the Government cannot maintain it's mandate to rule AND CHOOSE to torture prisoners. LOL, so now we have to "play nice" with the enemy? Fargle, the U.S. Constitution is not* enforcable in Canada or any other foreign country! And, a US AGENT must obey the laws of the foreign country that he or she is in. "When in Rome." You can't tell the police or military of a foreign country that you are going to obey the U.S. Constitution before their laws! What do they care about the U.S. Constitution anyway? It does not apply in their country. You can type in all caps if you want but that's not going to change anything. I was a U.S. Agent in the U.S. Coast Guard and they told us the exact opposite! It was the "When in Rome" rule. When we were in a foreign country (Bermuda, Jamaica,Aruba etc) we had NO jurisdiction whatsoever under the U.S. Constitution. We were told to, "obey the laws of the country and that the U.S. Constitution does not apply here so don't get arrested!" That was told to us by the XO (Executive Officer) a Commander. Again, as much as you may not like it the U.S. Constitution stops at our borders. "All Persons" means all U.S. Citizens. It doesn't nor could it mean everyone on the planet!

Politesub53 -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 2:22:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 While the Iraq war is based on flawed intelligence, That's a hell of a way to attempt to excuse the intentional fraud committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, et. al. in violation of 18 USC 371. It was based on a well orchestrated series of intentional lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations. Im not attempting to excuse anything, thank you very much.

philosophy -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 3:37:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Philosphy, Gitmo is indeed part of this issue. If Gitmo is closed (which you and others demand), the inmates would be sent back to thier home countries (which is rendition), where many/most would face legal sanction in places like Syria and Arabia, and if not torture, inhumane treatment (as that is the norm for prisioners). ...true i would like to see Gitmo closed. However, what i would like to see is the people there charged and given a fair trial. Because to do otherwise is to act in precisely the way that the terrorists act....denying the most basic of human rights. Nevertheless, rendition as practised by the US in recent years is a seperate issue. It concerns the apprehension of foreign nationals, not on the battlefield but in other countries.....then sending them to places like Syria while a US agent oversees their torture. These renditionees are not enemy combatents, they are suspected of criminal activity. As such they ought to be subject to extradition and trial as any other criminal. As i have clearly stated before, if the US wants to torture suspects then they ought to have the moral courage to do it on their own soil and have their own judiciary declare it legal......or if it is illegal under US law not to practise it at all. Btw, the important word in the last sentence is 'suspects'......these are not proven terrorists, and at least in one case it is known that they were innocent. It is simply appalling that the US will not apologise to an innocent whom they caused to be tortured... The war on terror will not be won by acting more like a terrorist than AQ. It will be won, if it can be won, by proving beyond all doubt that civilised behaviour is a better way to change the world than strapping a bomb to ones chest and finding a marketplace.

cloudboy -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 3:59:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...is the practise of rendition an abdication of moral responsibility or a sensible tactic? What happens if/when the renditionee turns out to be innocent? Should the US take responsibility? Yes, the problem with rendition is accountability and its total lack of due process. If we had infallible leaders and dead on intelligence, it would be a sensible tactic. Wrapped into the issue of rendition is torture. Typcially information obtained by torture is unreliable.

farglebargle -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 4:13:24 PM)
quote: "All Persons" means all U.S. Citizens. There's really no reason to respond to anything you've posted after that.

Sanity -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 4:26:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...true i would like to see Gitmo closed. However, what i would like to see is the people there charged and given a fair trial. Because to do otherwise is to act in precisely the way that the terrorists act....denying the most basic of human rights. Why would we have to try them before returning them home (rendition)? Try them why, if we're releasing them. For show? There is no reason, absolutely none. If you mean, we should try them as a matter of holding them, you're wrong. They're not criminals, they're enemy combatants, and they'll be released when the war is done, or when they're deemed no threat to our forces in the field. As far as your comparison to how terrorists treat prisoners and how we treat prisoners, there is no comparison - because we let them keep their heads. quote: Nevertheless, rendition as practised by the US in recent years is a seperate issue. It concerns the apprehension of foreign nationals, not on the battlefield but in other countries.....then sending them to places like Syria while a US agent oversees their torture. These renditionees are not enemy combatents, they are suspected of criminal activity. As such they ought to be subject to extradition and trial as any other criminal. That's more... that's kidnapping, that's not rendition. Those are the spooks you're talking about there... the CIA. And they don't really exist... [sm=flying.gif] Even if they DID exist, just hypothetically, I'm sure they'd target only the worst of the worst, and I wouldn't want to handicap them so that they couldn't stop terrorist attacks. After 9/11 everyone screamed that the President should have been able to stop the attacks before they happened. Now, everyone's clamoring to take away all the tools he needs to stop such events. It's insane. quote: As i have clearly stated before, if the US wants to torture suspects then they ought to have the moral courage to do it on their own soil and have their own judiciary declare it legal......or if it is illegal under US law not to practise it at all. Again, torture itself is a whole nother thread. Go ahead and start it if you want, I don't have time to debate it now. I'll just say that no one is pro-torture, unless it's their own who are at risk, and leave it at that. quote: Btw, the important word in the last sentence is 'suspects'......these are not proven terrorists, and at least in one case it is known that they were innocent. It is simply appalling that the US will not apologise to an innocent whom they caused to be tortured... Right... apologize for something that doesn't exist. [sm=flying.gif] quote: The war on terror will not be won by acting more like a terrorist than AQ. It will be won, if it can be won, by proving beyond all doubt that civilised behaviour is a better way to change the world than strapping a bomb to ones chest and finding a marketplace. How can one possibly prove that civilized behavior is better than strapping a bomb to oneself and finding a marketplace. Can that even be done? [8\|]

popeye1250 -> RE: Rendition (10/25/2007 4:56:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Philosphy, Gitmo is indeed part of this issue. If Gitmo is closed (which you and others demand), the inmates would be sent back to thier home countries (which is rendition), where many/most would face legal sanction in places like Syria and Arabia, and if not torture, inhumane treatment (as that is the norm for prisioners). ...true i would like to see Gitmo closed. However, what i would like to see is the people there charged and given a fair trial. Because to do otherwise is to act in precisely the way that the terrorists act....denying the most basic of human rights. Nevertheless, rendition as practised by the US in recent years is a seperate issue. It concerns the apprehension of foreign nationals, not on the battlefield but in other countries.....then sending them to places like Syria while a US agent oversees their torture. These renditionees are not enemy combatents, they are suspected of criminal activity. As such they ought to be subject to extradition and trial as any other criminal. As i have clearly stated before, if the US wants to torture suspects then they ought to have the moral courage to do it on their own soil and have their own judiciary declare it legal......or if it is illegal under US law not to practise it at all. Btw, the important word in the last sentence is 'suspects'......these are not proven terrorists, and at least in one case it is known that they were innocent. It is simply appalling that the US will not apologise to an innocent whom they caused to be tortured... The war on terror will not be won by acting more like a terrorist than AQ. It will be won, if it can be won, by proving beyond all doubt that civilised behaviour is a better way to change the world than strapping a bomb to ones chest and finding a marketplace. Phil, suuure! Can I be on the jury?

philosophy -> RE: Rendition (10/26/2007 8:25:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity That's more... that's kidnapping, that's not rendition. Those are the spooks you're talking about there... the CIA. And they don't really exist... [sm=flying.gif] .....doesn't exist eh? http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/270588 ....then what was it exactly your Congress was talking about here? i can appreciate you not wanting your government to indulge in such practices, but sadly it does. Your apparently not knowing about it changes nothing.

popeye1250 -> RE: Rendition (10/26/2007 9:17:23 AM)
Hollywood has a movie out now about this. They say that it's bombing at the box office. Another Hollywood "hate America" movie.

philosophy -> RE: Rendition (10/26/2007 2:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Hollywood has a movie out now about this. They say that it's bombing at the box office. Another Hollywood "hate America" movie. ...according to this.. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rendition/numbers.php ...it's a top ten movie......

Level -> RE: Rendition (10/26/2007 2:32:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...is the practise of rendition an abdication of moral responsibility or a sensible tactic? It could be either. quote: What happens if/when the renditionee turns out to be innocent? Should the US take responsibility? Yes, if we're the nation doing the renditioning.

Raechard -> RE: Rendition (10/26/2007 2:40:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...is the practise of rendition an abdication of moral responsibility or a sensible tactic? What happens if/when the renditionee turns out to be innocent? Should the US take responsibility? Ahh the nice names we give to nasty things. Play it again Uncle Sam. Rendition, get it? I thought that was clever, dead impressed with myself I was. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2026

Terms of Service

0.03125