



Actually yes we have done all that and more. It's pretty damn fucked up too. At least in my opinion anyway.
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.









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.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.




Nope, actually the equivalent is a POW camp. Yes, Germany still had 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.
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.





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.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
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.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 12-04-2008 at 01:13 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.





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.
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.
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 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.
Pick your treaty, and which Governments ratified the treaty. It is yes and No
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.
One internet pontificator to another. The world at large doesn't care.
^ 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.
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.
^ dude, argumentative much or what?![]()





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.




^ Nice. Way to follow the debate rules posted at the top of this site section
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.


















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...ion=2008120815
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
Bookmarks