Democrat Presidential Debate

[Hurlshort]

 

So...you just want to hold these people indefinitely without a trial?

 

Beats them going back to kill some more Americans, doesn't it?

 

 

So you just trust the government to lock up people indefinitely because they have identified them as a danger?  Ok comrade.

[Wrath of Dagon]

They captured them on the battlefield. I also trust the government to actually shoot the people that are shooting at them. The courts ordered that there has to be a review and appeals process in case someone is unjustly held btw.

[Calax]

They captured them on the battlefield. I also trust the government to actually shoot the people that are shooting at them. The courts ordered that there has to be a review and appeals process in case someone is unjustly held btw.

They were captured on the battlefield, meaning they'd be covered by the Geneva Conventions regarding the detainment of prisoners during a war time. And before you spout "But we're not at war!" technically we are, which is why during screening for Boot camp, they pound into your head that false enlistment can land you in prison for up to 5 years (a provision which is only active during times of war).

 

You can't say "We're in a state of war... officially!" to your own people, and then state that the members of the opposing faction are not "at war" with you.

 

Although to be fair, America has suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus one other time... Lincoln suspended it for prisoners of the Civil War.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Illegal enemy combatants are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, at least by none that we've signed. Only legal soldiers of another state that also signed the Geneva Conventions would be covered. Look it up. And Geneva conventions actually do allow you to hold enemy prisoners for as long as the war continues, so you're actually arguing against your own point, although I'm not sure what your point is. In fact you're wrong, we're not legally in a state of war, only Congress can declare war and it hasn't done so.

[Calax]

Illegal enemy combatants are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, at least by none that we've signed. Only legal soldiers of another state that also signed the Geneva Conventions would be covered. Look it up. And Geneva conventions actually do allow you to hold enemy prisoners for as long as the war continues, so you're actually arguing against your own point, although I'm not sure what your point is. In fact you're wrong, we're not legally in a state of war, only Congress can declare war and it hasn't done so.

Tell that to the US military (Or specifically, the recruiting arm of the US Navy in 2008) who are quite clear that we are "In a time of war". And, technically Bush had full authority given to him to declare war (as he did) in 2003 by the Iraq resolution and Doe V Bush.

 

And Geneva declares that unlawful combatants (as you refer to them) are subject to domestic law of the pertaining state. Basically, in the view of Geneva, If they aren't subject to international law, they're subject to national law.

 

And on top of that there's the Boumediene v Bush ruling in 2008 that the detainees at Gitmo were entitled to access to the US justice System, and as such, were subject to US law regarding trial, and Habeus Corpus.

 

 

So WoD, if they're officially soldiers, they can be held until the end of the war they were involved in. If they aren't officially soldiers they must be given a proper trial in accordance to the US Constitution and the Justice system that has developed over the past 200 years.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Again, President can not declare war or be given authority by Congress to declare war, only Congress can declare war. Geneva conventions are not binding on illegal combatants, don't invent things which aren't there. The court decision you refer to (which I already mentioned) does give them access to appeal to the courts, but not Habeas Corpus or the right to a trial. What you're claiming is that illegal combatants have to be treated better than legal combatants, which is ridiculous.

[Calax]

The courts stated in Doe V Bush that Bush had been given that authority by the MUF congress drafted in 2003 for the Iraq war.

 

And what I'm stating about enemy combatants in the view of Geneva is that they are subject to US domestic law as we are the pertaining country (Either US or the Nation of Iraq). Which means that they'd be given the same rights as an illegal immigrant who shot up a shopping mall. And while I'm not sure on the legal specifics I'm pretty sure that "Speedy Trial" is covered for even illegal immigrants.

 

And it should be noted that as recently as 2010, an illegal immigrant had a case overturned because he wasn't given a speedy trial. Meaning that even if you're not here legally you still get the same protections.

[Hurlshort]

First you let the government hold onto people indefinitely to keep people safe, then you close the borders to keep out potential trouble, then you give up your guns because the government knows best.  Why do you hate freedom WoD?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Being under surveillance is freedom.

[BruceVC]

Being under surveillance is freedom.

Yes it is if its objective is to ensure greater safety ....which is aligned to freedom

 

Isn't a safe society a free society?

 

But if you are referring to programs like Prism maybe you can give me one example around how you personal freedom has been impacted by Prism...for example do you know people who have been arrested due to Prism surveillance?  I keep hearing how " the Federal government under Obama has eroded our freedom " yet I don't see any tangible examples of this except for rhetoric and diatribe against Obama ? 

[Guard Dog]

I find it ironic that in the example of just this thread WoD who is the "arch conservative" is the one in favor of an all-seeing, all-powerful government while the ones arguing against that (Hurlshot, KP, et al) are the ones who tend to support candidates that are building the all-powerful all-seeing government.

 

Sounds like we are screwed either way.

 

And Bruce, would you really like me to feed you another link sandwich? I have a complete bookmark list in my browser dedicated to refuting you now.

[Namutree]

I find it ironic that in the example of just this thread WoD who is the "arch conservative" is the one in favor of an all-seeing, all-powerful government while the ones arguing against that (Hurlshot, KP, et al) are the ones who tend to support candidates that are building the all-powerful all-seeing government.

 

Sounds like we are screwed either way.

 

And Bruce, would you really like me to feed you another link sandwich? I have a complete bookmark list in my browser dedicated to refuting you now.

Isn't KP supporting Bernie Sanders. Wasn't that guy against such measures? Also when did WoD say he was in favor of an all-seeing all-powerful government?

[BruceVC]

I find it ironic that in the example of just this thread WoD who is the "arch conservative" is the one in favor of an all-seeing, all-powerful government while the ones arguing against that (Hurlshot, KP, et al) are the ones who tend to support candidates that are building the all-powerful all-seeing government.

 

Sounds like we are screwed either way.

 

And Bruce, would you really like me to feed you another link sandwich? I have a complete bookmark list in my browser dedicated to refuting you now.

 

You funny

 

Please post a link refuting what I am saying, I am keen to read it as long as its relatively credible....in other words I don't assume all right wing websites are automatically wrong but I would reject something from a white, supremacist website . But I don't  think you would post something from  that type of source 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I find it ironic that in the example of just this thread WoD who is the "arch conservative" is the one in favor of an all-seeing, all-powerful government while the ones arguing against that (Hurlshot, KP, et al) are the ones who tend to support candidates that are building the all-powerful all-seeing government.

 

Sounds like we are screwed either way.

 

And Bruce, would you really like me to feed you another link sandwich? I have a complete bookmark list in my browser dedicated to refuting you now.

 

Isn't KP supporting Bernie Sanders. Wasn't that guy against such measures? Also when did WoD say he was in favor of an all-seeing all-powerful government?

KP is supporting the Commie Tsunami because he wants to destroy the freedom to be watched by the all powerful government and shifts the overton window.

[Calax]

I find it ironic that in the example of just this thread WoD who is the "arch conservative" is the one in favor of an all-seeing, all-powerful government while the ones arguing against that (Hurlshot, KP, et al) are the ones who tend to support candidates that are building the all-powerful all-seeing government.

 

Sounds like we are screwed either way.

 

And Bruce, would you really like me to feed you another link sandwich? I have a complete bookmark list in my browser dedicated to refuting you now.

Not gonna lie, i don't think there is a single candidate who'd actively work to dismantle the NSA's spying program without something akin to John Oliver's "This is what happens to pictures of your junk" discussion happening to every single member of the voting community.

[Guard Dog]

WoD is advocating for more surveillance basically trusting the government today, or a future government not to use it against him. It's an odd position to take if you don't trust the government. Hurlshot & KP tent to support the democrats who have been working for years to usurp all political power in the US to the federal level and then do what with it? If you ask me it starts with gun control and ends in labor (death)  camps for anyone who is not down with their political leanings. But total surveillance is a crucial step because how do you know who your enemies are unless you are watching everyone. After all Barack Hussein Obama already declared me to be an enemy of the United States in 2009 because I'm a veteran of libertarian political leanings that believes in dangerous words like "sovereign citizen". Oh, an I have a guns, lot of guns, and a Gadsen Flag.

 

I have no doubt they will come for those guns and some point in the future. and on that day I will die. I am perfectly comfortable with that. But I won't be the only one to go that day.

[Guard Dog]

/tounge-out-of -cheek now

[Calax]

GD, can I ask, does the idea of Britannia scare you? Because Britian seems to be doing quite a bit better than the US at the current point, and has "No gunz!" and "WATCH EVERYTHING" as two core tenants of their modern philosophy.

[Guard Dog]

GD, can I ask, does the idea of Britannia scare you? Because Britian seems to be doing quite a bit better than the US at the current point, and has "No gunz!" and "WATCH EVERYTHING" as two core tenants of their modern philosophy.

I'm happy they're happy. But I don't want to live in Great Britain and I don't want their politics here in my country. If you'd prefer that then by all means more there. I'll even pitch in for a plane ticket. And while you're there look Wals up and see how he's doing.  

 

As for here, my guns killed no one yesterday, or the day before, or ever. Leave them alone. It's no ones business who I converse with on the internet, or on my phone, or what I say, or who I vote for, or what books I read. countries that make that kind of thing their business have a history of mass-exterminating or just "disappearing" citizens who don't toe the "party" line. I'd rather not take the first steps to that ever happening here in our country.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I find it ironic that in the example of just this thread WoD who is the "arch conservative" is the one in favor of an all-seeing, all-powerful government while the ones arguing against that (Hurlshot, KP, et al) are the ones who tend to support candidates that are building the all-powerful all-seeing government.

 

Sounds like we are screwed either way.

 

And Bruce, would you really like me to feed you another link sandwich? I have a complete bookmark list in my browser dedicated to refuting you now.

Isn't KP supporting Bernie Sanders. Wasn't that guy against such measures? Also when did WoD say he was in favor of an all-seeing all-powerful government?

 

I didn't. Strawman arguments are all the rage on this forum.

 

 

WoD is advocating for more surveillance basically trusting the government today, or a future government not to use it against him. It's an odd position to take if you don't trust the government. Hurlshot & KP tent to support the democrats who have been working for years to usurp all political power in the US to the federal level and then do what with it? If you ask me it starts with gun control and ends in labor (death)  camps for anyone who is not down with their political leanings. But total surveillance is a crucial step because how do you know who your enemies are unless you are watching everyone. After all Barack Hussein Obama already declared me to be an enemy of the United States in 2009 because I'm a veteran of libertarian political leanings that believes in dangerous words like "sovereign citizen". Oh, an I have a guns, lot of guns, and a Gadsen Flag.

 

I have no doubt they will come for those guns and some point in the future. and on that day I will die. I am perfectly comfortable with that. But I won't be the only one to go that day.

I don't trust the government. That is why we have the Constitution which restricts the government to limited and enumerated powers. National security happens to be one of those legitimate powers. Sure the government will try to abuse whatever power you give it, that's why we have separation of powers to start with, and we have to be ever vigilant, but saying that does not mean we should just stop the government from perfoming its legitimate functions. The executive needs to be closely supervised by the Congress and the courts. Of course when you get a President as lawless as Obola it puts all our rights into danger, but elections have consequences, and we get the government we deserve.

 

 

GD, can I ask, does the idea of Britannia scare you? Because Britian seems to be doing quite a bit better than the US at the current point, and has "No gunz!" and "WATCH EVERYTHING" as two core tenants of their modern philosophy.

Quite a bit better in what way?

[Calax]

 

Quite a bit better in what way?

 

Economically for one thing, the pound is sitting at 1.5X the dollar as of right now (in the world according to Google) and has a lower poverty level than America (When using similar metrics rather than the different scales of the two governments)

[Wrath of Dagon]

The relative value of currencies is only an indication of economic performance when it changes relatively rapidly. The pound is about where it always sits relative to the dollar, it's been as high as around 2:1 in the past. The poverty rate would have to be examined for its significance, certainly for historical reasons US has much larger underclass than European countries.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon