View Full Version : Bush administration ignored clear warnings of mortgage meltdown...
glambman
12-03-2008, 09:47 PM
OK, then substitute think for feel. Actually I don't feel much.
Think, feel.........::)
So the 'terrorists' trying to take back Vichy France were just shot. No one questioned if they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Why would you have expected Vichy France to question it?
Lucy in the Sky
12-03-2008, 09:56 PM
we didn't torture them, murder them, etc.
Actually yes we have done all that and more. It's pretty damn fucked up too. At least in my opinion anyway.
Reasonable debate? You say all terrorists should be given GC protection. We disagree.
You know what, let's just leave it at that, shall we?
I think I've done more than my fair share of threadjacking here. It's probably time to allow the topic turn back to mortgage meltdown.
glambman
12-03-2008, 09:57 PM
That was before the 54 GC. I guess the last "Gentleman's War" was WW1.
But the GC (POW treatment) goes back to 1929.
Gentleman's War. lolol I guess next, you're going to tell me Cecil Rhodes (who set up the Rhodes Scholars and Clinton was one of) was a great gentleman who happened to fight in a just war while he was in S. Africa.. :-\
threlayer
12-03-2008, 11:56 PM
Well, they could have been taken back to Germany and put in concentration camps for 'interrogation.' This would be equivalent. I know Germany/Vichy just shot them or 'interrogated' them before shooting them.
The Gentleman's War was a concept about how wars were fought and regarded by some of the populace. Dont grin at me; look it up.
I wont tell you about Rhodes if you don't divert the OP yet again.
glambman
12-04-2008, 08:26 AM
Well, they could have been taken back to Germany and put in concentration camps for 'interrogation.' This would be equivalent.
Nope, actually the equivalent is a POW camp. Yes, Germany still had them.
I know Germany/Vichy just shot them or 'interrogated' them before shooting them.
Yes, and for various reasons in that regime, it made sense. How would they get them to a POW camp when they didn't have necessary infrastructure, or couldn't afford to lose their men for babysitting duties.
The Gentleman's War was a concept about how wars were fought and regarded by some of the populace. Dont grin at me; look it up.
I know all about concepts, I was being a little sarcastic. Anyone can call anything anything, but it doesn't make it so. Just look at the flawed view we have about the royalty, knights, and such from europe. Reality is different.
threlayer
12-04-2008, 08:54 AM
I wasn't literally discussing Germany, just that terrorists transport to USA affecting their status, possibly.
Refresher....
USA decapitated the Iraqi government, let things go to hell for awhile and then took over administering until Iraq developed an interim government. While this was going on, the USA captured some people and decided to transport some of them to other 'camps' where they would be 'interrogated.' The quality of these captures have been questioned, as well as their status as POWs or not POWs. There are questions about that arguable status, as well as whether those captured should be investigated as to whether they were actually enemy combatants. THe fact that there are questions likely has determined that they still live. If they were POWs the USA would be obligated to release them after the War is over, but the fact that some of them likely are terrorists means that they will never be released or wil be shot. The point we're discussing is that a few of them may have been innocents at capture time, but they will never be investigated or given an opportunity to prove themselves. And we never will be able to filter out the true combatants. That's the essential point we're debating. Even though it is in the WRONG THREAD.
IMO all of them are now so pissed off that they probably ALL will act like terrorists if any were freed. Also a lot of the evidence for their guilt has probably been destroyed. This all could have been settled better long ago, but those hard-heads stopped the whole process. There is not much point in keeping these people in Gitmo anymore. Send em back to an Iraqi prison and let them figure it out because we surely royally botched it up.
Eric Stoner
12-04-2008, 10:36 AM
Because Eric likes tangible facts so much here are a few to consider for those of you who defend either the right or supposed merits of torture and or refusal to apply other provisions of The Geneva to detainees.
105 deaths of people detained by the U.S.
37 of the above deaths that have been OFFICALY declared homicides by the Army
2.5 is the number of years that lawyers fought for the right to even just go LOOK at the prisoners at Gitmo
Only 1 military commissions completed for terrorism suspects.
Only 7% of Gitmo detainees were actually captured by U.S. and coalition forces according to an analysis of declassified government documents
93% of detainees were turned over to the U.S. by warlords for cash payments of thousands of dollars, according to an analysis of declassified government documents
Only 8% of detainees in U.S. custody are even accused of being al Qaeda, according to studies of U.S. government documents.
Now after considering those facts do you STILL want to claim that The Geneva should not apply to the detainees?
Do me a favor. Actually READ what I've posted and then opine. From a strictly LEGAL standpoint, not moral, ethical or even practical , but just LEGAL, Al Queda prisoners who were NOT native Afghans fall outside the Geneva Convention. They do not fall under ANY provision of its protections except, as has been pointed out, under Article 5 where their actual status is in doubt or undetermined.
I have said repeatedly that from a practical pov we ought to treat Al Queda prisoners as either POW's or criminal defendants and that we should NOT torture them. Afaic- waterboarding, beatings, electric shock are clearly torture and should NOT be used. Imposed discomfort is NOT torture unless it's of an indefinite term or repeatedly used. From a strictly practical and efficacious pov we are much better off getting chummy with those we want info from. It worked very well with Saddam and many other prisoners. We ought to apply the Army Field Manual to treatment of all prisoners and that includes stopping the CIA from using rendition and "black site" prisons.
Likewise, we are holding a good number of men at Guantanamo whom we ought to let go. Many were "sold" to us and the evidence against them is shaky, at best.
There are a few whom we can't prosecute because we don't have the evidence.
We can hold them indefinitely as POW's, let them go ( and most will take up arms against us as many freed from Gitmo already have done ) or we can just shoot them.
As for those who were killed in custody, we ought to prosecute those that killed them.
Lucy in the Sky
12-04-2008, 10:55 AM
I have said repeatedly that from a practical pov we ought to treat Al Queda prisoners as either POW's or criminal defendants and that we should NOT torture them. Afaic- waterboarding, beatings, electric shock are clearly torture and should NOT be used. Imposed discomfort is NOT torture unless it's of an indefinite term or repeatedly used. From a strictly practical and efficacious pov we are much better off getting chummy with those we want info from. It worked very well with Saddam and many other prisoners. We ought to apply the Army Field Manual to treatment of all prisoners and that includes stopping the CIA from using rendition and "black site" prisons.
Likewise, we are holding a good number of men at Guantanamo whom we ought to let go. Many were "sold" to us and the evidence against them is shaky, at best.
There are a few whom we can't prosecute because we don't have the evidence.
We can hold them indefinitely as POW's, let them go ( and most will take up arms against us as many freed from Gitmo already have done ) or we can just shoot them.
As for those who were killed in custody, we ought to prosecute those that killed them.
That sounds much different (and much better) than your post to which I was responding to yesterday. I'm glad to see the change of heart or clarification of position whichever one it may be. Thus I will return to ending my part of the threadjack and leave well enough alone.
Eric Stoner
12-04-2008, 01:19 PM
That sounds much different (and much better) than your post to which I was responding to yesterday. I'm glad to see the change of heart or clarification of position whichever one it may be. Thus I will return to ending my part of the threadjack and leave well enough alone.
I'm so glad you approve. It was keeping me up nights.
I did not "change" anything. The Geneva Convention , except arguably Article 5, does NOT apply to non-Afghan Al Queda prisoners. Legality and practicality are two totally different things.
ArmySGT.
12-04-2008, 03:20 PM
Having stated and proved my case regarding article 5 already I will refrain from beating a dead horse and instead move on to the topic which you just raised of international law. You have stated repeatedly, and claimed repeatedly that you have "proved" your case, despite repeatedly being shown otherwise. A claim is now sufficient "proof" You watch to much maddow and olberman.
Since when did it become acceptable under international law to torture people? Congress has to ratify the Law, the President has to sign it into Law, and the Supreme Court has to rule whether said Law is Constitutional when confronted with the Law. If no the Law does not apply.
Does the following not apply to the many persons which are being detained by Bush?
Again if they can be proved to be acting on behalf of a Government then the Conventions apply. If they are deemed Terrorists or Criminals then most definitely the answer is NO.
I also think it is important to note here that many of the detainees have not been even charged with a crime. How can a person not even charged with a crime be classified as a terrorist? I leave that for the Courts, however it should be noted in the US criminal court system persons are routinely help on suspicion of a crime.
Is it acceptable under international law to hold someone for years without formally charging them with a crime? Pick your treaty, and which Governments ratified the treaty. It is yes and No
Is it acceptable under international law to deny a detained person legal counsel? Again pick your treaty, the US legal system is still pretty unique with "innocent until proven guilty", "right to a fair and speedy trial". and a "right to counsel.
I think not. One internet pontificator to another. The world at large doesn't care.
Lucy in the Sky
12-04-2008, 03:49 PM
if they can be proved to be acting on behalf of a Government then the Conventions apply. If they are deemed Terrorists or Criminals then most definitely the answer is NO.
^ Le sigh. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree even though Supreme Court decisions are on my side. I will just refer to the second quote in my siggy and be done with you.
Now as I have suggested more than once- how about we all get back to the OP topic? I'm sure Paris would appreciate it. K? Thanks!
ArmySGT.
12-04-2008, 04:16 PM
^ Le sigh. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree even though Supreme Court decisions are on my side. I will just refer to the second quote in my siggy and be done with you.
Now as I have suggested more than once- how about we all get back to the OP topic? I'm sure Paris would appreciate it. K? Thanks!
Ha ha. Paris may or may not. I don't presume to speak for her.
Do you promise to be done with me? Really, really, really promise? Because that would be super.
So far has Bush has blown the hell out of the middle east, has destroyed American credit, has ravaged the military, has run up historically high debt and deficits, has presided over not one, not two but three recessions, has seen the stock market crash and crash again, allowed the American infrastructure to fall into serious disrepair, ignored the health care crisis resulting in 47 million Americans with out health care, has effectively undermined public education, outsourced just about every decent blue collar job, incarcerated the largest number of people on the planet of any nation, scrapped the Geneva convention (used torture), and now-
Of the few remaining industries we have left in the US (finance, auto manufacturing and construction) he has managed to just about destroy as well, with poor policy decisions (or ignoring the problems completely!).
I suppose he is trying to go for utter destruction of the United States by allowing strip mining in our national parks, as well as rolling back pollution standards to the 1970's levels for many very dirty industries like mining and energy production.
Who the hell elected this jerk?
Seems we were still discussing the OP in at least part. Since I am not a teacher, a lawyer, a union member, or a drug dealer; I will continue to discuss which parts I feel most qualified to discuss. Uberpartisan red book leftists be damned.
Lucy in the Sky
12-04-2008, 05:57 PM
^ dude, argumentative much or what? :tired:
ArmySGT.
12-04-2008, 07:10 PM
^ dude, argumentative much or what? :tired:
Classic just classic.
The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or "philotrolls," fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.
When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude. Philotrolls consider anyone with whom they do not agree to be "immature," and are fond of quoting that old saw that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
When cornered they are quick to resort to personal attacks. A philotroll's bag of rhetorical tricks includes a variety of transparent ploys, such as willfully misinterpreting the opponent's words, committing Straw Man fallacies, accusing his or her opponents of engaging in the very tactics used by the philotroll, and so forth.
When engaging in their sophistry, philotrolls are among the most hypocritical and aggravating of trollkind.
glambman
12-04-2008, 07:17 PM
Classic just classic.
The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or "philotrolls," fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.
When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude. Philotrolls consider anyone with whom they do not agree to be "immature," and are fond of quoting that old saw that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
When cornered they are quick to resort to personal attacks. A philotroll's bag of rhetorical tricks includes a variety of transparent ploys, such as willfully misinterpreting the opponent's words, committing Straw Man fallacies, accusing his or her opponents of engaging in the very tactics used by the philotroll, and so forth.
When engaging in their sophistry, philotrolls are among the most hypocritical and aggravating of trollkind.
I'm surprised she hasn't invoked Godwin's Law yet. But then again, you have to know a little something about history. ;D
Lucy in the Sky
12-04-2008, 07:39 PM
Classic just classic.
The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or "philotrolls," fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.
When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude.
Dude, seriously do you not see you just described yourself? Unlike you, I was and am still more than willing to agree to disagree. Care to give that another try?
Lucy in the Sky
12-04-2008, 07:40 PM
I'm surprised she hasn't invoked Godwin's Law yet. But then again, you have to know a little something about history. ;D
^ Nice. Way to follow the debate rules posted at the top of this site section :sarcastic
Oh well. I'll have to be the bigger person here and take the high road and not respond in kind. Someone has to do it if we are ever going to get this discussion back on track so it might as well be me.
flickad
12-04-2008, 09:34 PM
Again pick your treaty, the US legal system is still pretty unique with "innocent until proven guilty", "right to a fair and speedy trial". and a "right to counsel.
Actually, it isn't. You'll find those rights in a lot of other common law countries.
glambman
12-04-2008, 09:45 PM
Actually, it isn't. You'll find those rights in a lot of other common law countries.
Especially those of a British descent.
flickad
12-04-2008, 09:51 PM
Especially those of a British descent.
Well, the common law in its original form derives from Britain, though of course the former colonies have now all developed their own common law.
glambman
12-04-2008, 09:58 PM
Well, the common law in its original form derives from Britain, though of course the former colonies have now all developed their own common law.
I know. It was not meant as a derogatory post, just to show our heritage..
flickad
12-05-2008, 09:32 AM
I know. It was not meant as a derogatory post, just to show our heritage..
Oh, I didn't take it as derogatory, I just meant to point out that all common law systems derive originally from Britain.
ArmySGT.
12-05-2008, 01:07 PM
Actually, it isn't. You'll find those rights in a lot of other common law countries.
Really I was commenting on the enforcement of these principals. So many places have them on the books smile and say they do. Then comes reality, in third world cess pools. If you want to stick to Commonwealth countries predominately, then I agree.
flickad
12-05-2008, 08:06 PM
Really I was commenting on the enforcement of these principals. So many places have them on the books smile and say they do. Then comes reality, in third world cess pools. If you want to stick to Commonwealth countries predominately, then I agree.
Yep, I was mostly referring to Commonwealth countries.
threlayer
12-08-2008, 02:33 PM
BACK to mortgages (the OP). Here's something to consider.....
53% of rescued borrowers default anyway
Top federal regulator says many mortgages that are modified end up in default within 6 months.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/08/news/economy/mortgage_summit/?postversion=2008120815