TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Friday, July 15, 2005

    Another Win For The Good People


    A federal appeals court has upheld the use of military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay resort. Earlier a Clinton-appointed (liberal) Judge had halted the military trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan (we'll just call him Dick Breath for short) was in violation of federal and international law. The federal appeals court - three judges in a unanimous vote - ruled that claim was wrong and the government had the right to try Dick Breath in a military trial. Dick Breath is a bad person - charged with conspiracy (as an al Qaeda member) to commit war crimes, including attacking civilians and civilian targets, murder, destroying property and terrorism.
    The appeals court ruled that Congress allowed military tribunals when it gave authority to use force after the Sept. 11 attacks and through two laws it enacted. In upholding President George W. Bush's decision to use the panels to try terrorism suspects, the appeals court also said the Geneva Convention, which governs treatment of prisoners in wars between nations, doesn't apply to members of bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. (Bloomberg)
    It's about time we get some rational thought processes involved instead of following some socialist agenda and letting these Jihad-o-thugs free. Personally I'd rather these Jihad-O-Thugs be in a prison in Afghanistan instead of the nice air conditioned resort they are in now (and take away their cartoon books!). It's such a joke when these Jihad-o-thugs, hating America and Americans, suddenly cry to use the American justice system like a get-out-of-jail free card. Too bad Dick Breath - looks like your Jihad days are numbered.
    BTW - just heard that those involved in the London terrorist attacks have a potential link to the USA - some being educated in biochemistry - during the Clinton years, of course.

    22 comments:

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    we'll just call him Dick Breath for short

    You have claimed several times that you are not motivated by hate, just the facts. Since you already KNOW the defendant's name is Salim Ahmed Hamdan (the fact), what other Karl Rove-like explanation do you have for referring to him by a vulgar moniker?

    : JustaDog said...

    A lure - to see who would focus on the name and not on the evil this person has been responsible for. I find what this worthless scum does and his objections to be vulgar - you don't?

    BTW - many people in the world are named "Dick" - so do you really think it is nice of you to refer to their given names as "vulgar"? Also, there is nothing vulgar about "Breath". I do believe that the Tao religion speaks of breath - of breathing - often to relax.

    Perhaps you see something vulgar (a Ted Kennedyish mentality) that my innocent mind does not see. Names are not vulgar but some people's actions are.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    I find what this worthless scum does and his objections to be vulgar - you don't?

    Remember this person is a "suspect". Under US principles, a SUSPECT is innocent until proven guilty!

    Perhaps you see something vulgar (a Ted Kennedyish mentality) that my innocent mind does not see.

    You MUST have loved Clinton's idiotic argument concerning the definition of the word "is". Your pathetic defense would make both Clinton and Karl Rove proud. It's about as convincing as Trent Lott trying to explain he isn't a racist.

    : JustaDog said...

    Perhaps you don't watch the news but under the US principles the court has found this murderer and terrorist to be guilty and subject to a military trial. I know you hate when terrorist go free, and your recent comment to a previous post of mine protecting J.E. Duncan - a murderer and child molester - makes me wonder if all Taoists think as you do?

    pathetic defense - I still don't know what words or concepts you are trying to accuse me of - but you do seem to be desperately trying.

    If you post again on this topic how about enlightening my readers about this Dick Breath - do you support his ideology? Do you support the al Qaeda ideology and their goals?

    A Taoist Priest said...

    This is an evil man, no argument there.

    I see nothing wrong with your shortened name. Trey, please find your peace of soul.

    反射

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    If you post again on this topic how about enlightening my readers about this Dick Breath - do you support his ideology? Do you support the al Qaeda ideology and their goals?

    That's an idiotic question. I've stated before that I'm a pacifist. I don't condone violence by zealot Muslims nor quasi-elected [P]residents.

    your recent comment to a previous post of mine protecting J.E. Duncan

    Don't know which one you're referring to as you DELETED most of them, particularly the one which stated you & I are in agreement re pedophilia except for the issue of the death penalty. You think he should be fried; I think he should be locked up forever and ever.

    To a Taoist Priest: Love your website and blogger profile. Both are SO informative.

    : JustaDog said...

    Just ignore him everyone - trey is mad at the world. He blames the world for his poor choices in life. He recently posted he is without a job, so maybe he's getting desperate - desperate people say and do desperate things. He purports to be a Taoist yet slams a priest of his own religion. Again, just ignore this sick psychopath.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    yet slams a priest of his own religion.

    I'm NOT a religious Taoist. Religious Taoism was founded 700 years AFTER philosophical Taoism, the belief system I'm a member of. It's far closer to Secular Humanism than it is to a religion.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    BTW, I think you meant a SOCIOPATH, not a psychopath. The uneducated often get these two mixed up.

    Pundit said...

    All of this raises some serious issues, however, with respect to the Geneva Conventions which George Bush himself has said we are affording the detainees at GITMO. Military tribunals are for prisoners of war, which are protected under the Geneva Conventions. Between what George Bush has said, and the appeals court ruling, the concept of prisoners has been turned on its head. Bush has said we are affording them treatment under the Geneva Conventions. Fox News carried a speech he made, and I saw and heard him say that. However, the techniques we are using that everybody defends violate both the Third And Fourth Conventions. Those conventions prohibit an occupying power from removing and imprisoning detainees away from the conquered land. That makes GITMO itself a violation. The conventions also prohibit the extraction of information through phsical, psychological, or moral torture, or even physical or moral coercion. Article 33 of the Fourth Convention prohibits the punishment of any for crimes not committed, so the idea of rounding up supspects, and sending them to GITMO strictly for the dual purposes of preventing possible future terrorist acts or to extract information are violations as well. One of the problems that plagues this administration is a lack of coherent policy and uniform applications of whatever policy it seems to choose.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Pundit,
    You raise some great points. Thanks for doing the necessary research on the Geneva Conventions. For others who'd like to read the conventions, you can go here.

    : JustaDog said...

    Sorry Pundit, but the terrorists are not playing by the rules that you think we should be following. Now if you can get them to play by some set of rules then I suppose we could have a fair game huh?

    What rules have terrorists followed/break when they kidnap innocent people then behead them? What rules do terrorists follow/break when they trick little children to come near - then blow up their little bodies?

    I find it rather sad the real evil is not addressed by those that find attacking the morals of our country an easier target.

    KaptainKeen said...

    Actually Trey, I think Justadog meant to say "psychopath", not SOCIOPATH as you hoped for. From what I've read from your comments it is obvious who the uneducated one is!

    KU43 said...

    Pundit, what part of they want to kill us don't you understand

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Now if you can get them to play by some set of rules then I suppose we could have a fair game huh?

    The actions or behaviors of others never gives us permission for our own misconduct. For example, if someone is mad at you, you can CHOOSE to get mad in return OR not to be mad. Just because one side refuses to follow established rules and/or protocols, doesn't mean that this gives us a license to renounce the same rules and/or protocols. If we do, we lose the moral/ethical high ground and we're no better than they are.

    What's the point in having laws, treaties or agreements if NO ONE follows them?

    Pundit said...

    it doesn't make any difference what rules the terrorists or suspected terrorists are playing by. George Bush noted at a recent press conference that it is the policy of the United States to treat detainees, regardless of who they were, under the terms of the geneva convention. and we then vioate them at every turn. I just don't understand how that duplicity can be acceptable to people. why say one thing and do something else? One of the complaints heard from the muslim community is that many don't trust the United States because of this type of thing. How can we expect support from the Muslim community when we are that inconsistent?

    Pundit said...

    And for KU43 I make this response: so what is your point? I understand they want to kill us very well. they understand we want to kill them. We are at war. the way to wage war is to get the support of the enemies civilian structure, to weaken their own base. We are the invaders. We need all the help we can get. We can't very well promote democracy when we act the same way their former dictator did. Even though democracy may suffer in the short run, if we are going to promote those principles and expect another culture that has existed for tens of thousands of years to accept our way of doing things, we need to show how our way is better. One of the reasons we are losing on the "hearts and minds" issue is because our enemy is more consistent---he says what he believes, and conducts himself accordingly. He is consistent. We are not. that is why things like communisim, socialism, and religious fanatacism reigns in the majority of the world. True democratic states are few and far between. we are the minority. even though somebody in a totalitarian state may hate the government and the ruler, fear is not the only thing that makes them obey. they also know they have consistency, and they know what is going to happen. weterners have lived in free societies for so long that we take individual liberty for granted and don't understand how important consistency and predictability are to people. not everybody is interested in the chaos that democratic change brings.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Pundit,
    That was very well put! I agree that consistency in the application of principles is of paramount importance. I often criticize my own side of the fence (the left side) for NOT understanding this KEY point. Regardless of one's perspective, if you're going to talk the talk, you damn well need to walk the talk too.

    simoncat said...

    Pundit: what you and Trey seem to overlook is that the actions at Gitmo were not government sanctioned. They were the actions of a few rogue soldiers. The Bush administration did not instigate this, nor applaud it when the wrongdoings were revealed. I agree that we cannot sink to the level of the terrorists, but at the same time, do understand that the playing field is not level, and while the rest of us armchair philosophers argy bargy about the niceties of the Geneva Convention, the soldiers actually dealing with this scum might have a slightly different view. Not to say that this should be publicly tolerated...as it was not.


    Cat

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    They were the actions of a few rogue soldiers.

    There's a nice paper trail that would indicate otherwise. I actually feel sorry for the soldiers taking the rap. From my perspective, they found themselves in a horrible bind. Not follow orders (explicit or implicit) and face internal disciplinary action OR follow orders and then get labeled a "rogue" soldier.

    Pundit said...

    Simoncat: I realize that the problems within gitmo are the efforts of a few. I see no excuse for what they did. It was even more stupid to photograph it if they thought they had to do that. My point is that the Bush Administration reminds everybody we are abiding by the Geneva Convention, but we violate it wholesale in where we place the center and how we detain people. Something else not give wide shrift on the mainstream media is that much of the interrogation is supervised and conducted not by the military, nor even the CIA. It has been turned over to PMCs --Private Military Corporations. That also consitutes a problem because by contract those firms are not answerable either to the public nor to the military commanders in the area. This also gives the administration a safety zone in what happens. The point is that my whole criticism is the conduct of the war from start to finish is not being done according to what the administration says it is doing, and it is not the fault of the troops who have been sent there. There is inconsistency and unaccountability throughout. We damage our national security by not being stable in our allies eyes. Someday, we could find ourselves without allies when we really need them.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    BTW - just heard that those involved in the London terrorist attacks have a potential link to the USA - some being educated in biochemistry - during the Clinton years, of course.

    If a later terroist attack is committed by suspects educated in the U.S. during the Bush years, please be sure to point out and underscore THAT point in a later post!