Print

[pug_ster]

Don't even know BCfosheezy is talking about but not about this topic at hand.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361740/

Looks like less than 10% of the people held in gitmo are going to get Military trials.  That leaves more than 90% of the others are held indefinately without getting a trial of some sort.  And thanks to the Military Commissions Act, it is legal to do so.  So when Bush says, “America will find you, and we will bring you to justice.”  I don't know where's the justice part for the 90% of the people held there.

FYI, I am not totally not against the Military Commissions Act, because I'm sure that some of the evidence that is not allowed in the US courts but is allowed by the Military Commissions Act.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 24 2006, 10:35 AM)

Don't even know BCfosheezy is talking about but not about this topic at hand.
 

 

I have definitely been talking about the topic at hand. You are simply not able to grasp onto what Vader and I were saying. Your feeble attempts at putdowns just make you look worse because you are demonstrating how much you lack in the comprehension department.

[pug_ster]

As far as I can tell, both you and Lordvader missed the point.  I said earlier the problem with this act is the suspension of Habeas Corpus.  Habeas Corpus is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment.

So when Lordvader said and idiot agreed on the quote "youre right, non-military insurgents who shoot at our soldiers all day shouldnt be arrested, detained or tried"  That's not Habeas Corpus.  I've said repeatly and repeatly (and idiot didn't respond) that these insurgents should get a trial if they are indeed guilty and shouldn't be held indefinately.

Idiot here didn't even bother to try to explain why 'I missed the point'.  Just look at his reply to see if it pertains to this issue at all, or Idiot just want to talk about me.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 24 2006, 01:51 PM)

As far as I can tell, both you and Lordvader missed the point. I said earlier the problem with this act is the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment.

So when Lordvader said and idiot agreed on the quote "youre right, non-military insurgents who shoot at our soldiers all day shouldnt be arrested, detained or tried" That's not Habeas Corpus. I've said repeatly and repeatly (and idiot didn't respond) that these insurgents should get a trial if they are indeed guilty and shouldn't be held indefinately.

Idiot here didn't even bother to try to explain why 'I missed the point'. Just look at his reply to see if it pertains to this issue at all, or Idiot just want to talk about me.

Well I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I'll speak up for whoever the alleged Mr. Kettle is and address Mr. Pot(pug ster). The statements you didn't understand were these people don't feel there is a need to detain anyone at all, so they shouldn't have to seek release. It's not hard to understand. It's all right there. Black and white. It was agreed that the issue at hand is silly.

 

I am a bit curious about this fact. The detainees in question were captured rather than killed. Why do you think that is? Also, how do you feel about that fact?

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 24 2006, 08:47 PM)

The statements you didn't understand were these people don't feel there is a need to detain anyone at all, so they shouldn't have to seek release. It's not hard to understand. It's all right there. Black and white. It was agreed that the issue at hand is silly.

If the detainee is guilty, the US government should bring the detainees to trial otherwise why would they keep those people there?  I have mentioned in the earlier article that over 90% kept in gitzmo are not going to a Military trials.

QUOTE

I am a bit curious about this fact. The detainees in question were captured rather than killed. Why do you think that is? Also, how do you feel about that fact?

I'm not the US government, maybe you should ask them.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 24 2006, 03:10 PM)

If the detainee is guilty, the US government should bring the detainees to trial otherwise why would they keep those people there? I have mentioned in the earlier article that over 90% kept in gitzmo are not going to a Military trials.

You obviously do not understand the purpose of a trial. It is to determine whether that individual is guilty or not. So if the person has to be guilty in order to be detained and tried, then why not skip straight to the punishment? Also, I hear everyone griping about the cost of the war. How much do you think trying each of these guilty individuals will cost? At whose expense?

QUOTE

I'm not the US government, maybe you should ask them.

 

If not being the U.S. government disqualifies you from stating your opinion on the U.S. government then I guess you have no right to post about it in these forums anymore. Answer the questions or stick by your rules and leave the forums clean of your U.S. political views. These are your rules... abide by them.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 24 2006, 09:28 PM)

You obviously do not understand the purpose of a trial. It is to determine whether that individual is guilty or not. So if the person has to be guilty in order to be detained and tried, then why not skip straight to the punishment?

If not being the U.S. government disqualifies you from stating your opinion on the U.S. government then I guess you have no right to post about it in these forums anymore. Answer the questions or stick by your rules and leave the forums clean of your U.S. political views. These are your rules... abide by them.

I talk about the topic at hand and you have to talk about me and take things out of context.

Since when did you became a moderator and tell me that I have no right to post in these forums or answer questions as you so wish.  And now you tell me to stick to 'your' rules?  Pathetic.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 24 2006, 04:52 PM)

I talk about the topic at hand and you have to talk about me and take things out of context.

Since when did you became a moderator and tell me that I have no right to post in these forums or answer questions as you so wish. And now you tell me to stick to 'your' rules? Pathetic.

 

I'm talking about the topic at hand and asked you a question and you will not answer it. I asked your opinion on something. You said you were not the U.S. government so you could not give your opinion. I simply remarked that you post about the u.s. government all the time and by doing so after stating what you stated was hypocritical. You said it all. Not me. I merely pointed out what you said. I never gave you any orders unlike YOU:

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 22 2006, 05:13 PM)

Now talk about this subject or don't say anything.

So how about you stop being a hypocrite and just answer the question? I mean we both know it's going to force you to say something that will immediately prove your whole argument wrong and that's why you won't state your opinion, but I really want to hear what you have to say.

[pug_ster]

At this point, I've got nothing to say to your rants.

It seems that you and LordVader'r take the Republican's stance of Terrorists is: 'If you don't vote for me, you are going to die by some terrorists in any day now.'  While funds and manpower are siphoned away to 'homeland security,' many Middle size cities are reporting higher crime rates because of increased gang activity.  In the mid 90's crime went down becase we put manpower and funds to crack down on crime, only to be taken away because of these so called terrorists threats.  More people die every year because of gang violence than 9/11.

So you can pick your poison on whether to die down the street or someday by some terrorist attack, I would choose the latter.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 30 2006, 10:24 AM)

At this point, I've got nothing to say to your rants.

It seems that you and LordVader'r take the Republican's stance of Terrorists is: 'If you don't vote for me, you are going to die by some terrorists in any day now.' While funds and manpower are siphoned away to 'homeland security,' many Middle size cities are reporting higher crime rates because of increased gang activity. In the mid 90's crime went down becase we put manpower and funds to crack down on crime, only to be taken away because of these so called terrorists threats. More people die every year because of gang violence than 9/11.

So you can pick your poison on whether to die down the street or someday by some terrorist attack, I would choose the latter.

You are the one who rants. Neither I nor Lordvader said anything about voting for us. We aren't trying to scare anyone, but these things have happened. The people responsible want it to happen again and have said so. You'd have to be stupid to ignore that.

 

I happen to be an administrator of 2 law enforcement agencies. You could not be any more wrong on this point. First let's look at the issue at a glance. You cannot protect your cities if you cannot even defend your borders. You won't have cities to protect. Homeland security is the #1 priority. Don't get that confused. #2 No money has been taken away from any law enforcement agencies. Your point is shot.

Also, law enforcement is a reactionary service. We respond once a crime has been committed. Our presence definitely deters some criminals because with out us you'd have chaos like you saw in New Orleans after Katrina, but that's a passive effect. We don't actively prevent crime, because we don't have the ability to predict the future.

If you think law enforcement can protect you on the street you're insane. We'll come take the report after they tied you up, raped you and robbed you IF they didn't kill you. We'll look for the guys after that, but it still happened. You're on your own no matter where you live.

 

[gronned]

Seriously mods, LOCK this. This is the most pathetic thread I've ever seen. And it'll go on and on, if no one locks this.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 30 2006, 06:28 PM)

You are the one who rants. Neither I nor Lordvader said anything about voting for us. We aren't trying to scare anyone, but these things have happened. The people responsible want it to happen again and have said so. You'd have to be stupid to ignore that.

I happen to be an administrator of 2 law enforcement agencies. You could not be any more wrong on this point. First let's look at the issue at a glance. You cannot protect your cities if you cannot even defend your borders. You won't have cities to protect. Homeland security is the #1 priority. Don't get that confused. #2 No money has been taken away from any law enforcement agencies. Your point is shot.

Also, law enforcement is a reactionary service. We respond once a crime has been committed. Our presence definitely deters some criminals because with out us you'd have chaos like you saw in New Orleans after Katrina, but that's a passive effect. We don't actively prevent crime, because we don't have the ability to predict the future.

If you think law enforcement can protect you on the street you're insane. We'll come take the report after they tied you up, raped you and robbed you IF they didn't kill you. We'll look for the guys after that, but it still happened. You're on your own no matter where you live.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137625/

Boy, as an administrator and if you have a 'reactionary view' towards crime is wrong.  True, that you can't stop every crime from happening, but you can take the proactive approach.  Take an example of William Bratton, he was the police Chief of NYC and later in LA crime went down in those cities.  With people like you working in Law enforcement, I know why crime is up.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 30 2006, 02:21 PM)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137625/

Boy, as an administrator and if you have a 'reactionary view' towards crime is wrong. True, that you can't stop every crime from happening, but you can take the proactive approach. Take an example of William Bratton, he was the police Chief of NYC and later in LA crime went down in those cities. With people like you working in Law enforcement, I know why crime is up.

 

Why do you think we have Call centers? We don't call people that are about to become victims. Instead, they call us. You can use the word proactive all day long but that doesn't counter my argument. Proactive is not prevent. Of course we're proactive. We do what we can but if someone wants to rob you, they are going to rob you no matter if you live here or in that guy's town. If you don't believe that, tell me what rock you live under and what you have to smoke down there. I am a realist. I have to be to do my job. If you ever met me in person, and actually had a real conversation with me and saw the community that my decisions impact, you would, without question have a different opinion. I take no offense because you know not of what you speak.

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 30 2006, 01:59 PM)

Seriously mods, LOCK this. This is the most pathetic thread I've ever seen. And it'll go on and on, if no one locks this.

You're not involved so why do you even care? You have nothing to add so basically you're just trolling. This forum is FOR discussion like this. Undoubtedly every thread you've ever participated in went back and forth just like this one. Although I will agree the topic was weak, you're not involved. Nobody is forcing you to read it, so calm down and troll in a different thread.

[gronned]

... LOCK THIS THREAD.....

[pug_ster]

At times I wonder why I reply as if this is an discussion thread or insult thread, especially from someone who considers him/herself as an expert Christian and Law Enforcer.