usvi-on-line
DELETED
Oh, sorry that must have been lost in the shuffle.SJfromNJ wrote:
Flip - No comment from you yet on the habeas corpus issue. FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese AMERICANS by suspending habitués corpus.
Details:
Executive Order 9066, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, allowed authorized military commanders to designate "military areas" at their discretion, "from which any or all persons may be excluded." These "exclusion zones", unlike the "alien enemy" roundups, were applicable to anyone that an authorized military commander might choose, whether citizen or non-citizen. Eventually such zones would include parts of both the East and West Coasts totaling about 1/3 of the country by area. Unlike the subsequent detainment and internment programs that would come to be applied to large numbers of Japanese Americans, detentions and restrictions directly under this Individual Exclusion Program were placed primarily on individuals of German or Italian ancestry, including American citizens.
I think that was not a good moment in our history.
Also, I think it is pretty much universally accepted that the Japanese internment camps were a bad moment in our history?
Am I missing something? Are you saying its ok to suspend the habeous corpus rights of US citizens as well?
Last edited by flip-flop on Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ok, it looks like we are there. I am not talking for Sox . . . but when I saw that comment I took it differently than you. I saw it as more friendly than you did. I thought he was laughing at himself.flip-flop wrote:See above CG - you are right and I'll even admit Sox is right. I am ready to let it go. And I had, COMPLETELY, until the more recent "MulattoThere I said it girls" post unhinged me. I don't think the forum needed it beaten into them, but I do think he did. Promise, if I don't hear another reference along the lines that I outlined above, I will not mention it again.
just-sayin'; on a forum it is really hard to read a persons intent . . . no body language, not tone, so a lot of times we reach assumptions that aren't right.
Gotcha SJ. That was over on the other thread, and I had forgotten about it. My intention with the "what if americans were held without charges" hypothetical wasn't about whether or not it ever happened but more to make the point that we would find it reprehensible and we would ALL, rightfully so, be up in arms.
I know that the detainees do not have the rights of US citizens, but my point is that as the standard bearer of democratic ideals we have a responsiblity to be above reproach. It would help our case, not hurt it. I readily admit I don't know the answer and it doesn't seem to be easy, but I am hoping there is a better one that what has been going on for the last 7-8 years. I am grateful if the international community is more receptive to Obama and thus we can move forward and free the people that BUSH's people cleared for release and figure out what to do with the rest.
The detainees released who returned to the battlefields were on Bush's watch, so that seems to undermine the he's keeping us safe at all costs argument. We don't hear much about that, but I am sure the first one who boomerangs after being released under Obama will be big news.
The tactics of the Bush administration, some have argued, have kept us safe. My question is always at what cost?
A Bush appointee, shortly before his leaving office, for the first time admitted that we tortured and thus can't try one of the alleged plotters of 9/11. If I were a family member of a victim of 9/11 that would infuriate me. The official, Susan Crawford, is a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense.
"The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution."
More detail is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews
This is a Bush appointee saying this. Not me, not the media. When we torture or don't observe the Geneva conventions we lose credibility and we put our own troops in even graver danger. This is why Mccain and other more conservative thinkers have stepped up and said our tactics must change.
And remember the issue isn't whether this guy deserves fair treatment, but well .. in her words
"It did shock me," Crawford said. "I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it"....."There's an assumption out there that everybody was tortured. And everybody wasn't tortured. But unfortunately perception is reality." (Sox I think used that same phrase).
I am not trying to use this to attack Bush, but more to say going forward I hope we have learned from this and we will, under Obama, make the changes necessary to enable us to successfully try those who would do us harm.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I know that the detainees do not have the rights of US citizens, but my point is that as the standard bearer of democratic ideals we have a responsiblity to be above reproach. It would help our case, not hurt it. I readily admit I don't know the answer and it doesn't seem to be easy, but I am hoping there is a better one that what has been going on for the last 7-8 years. I am grateful if the international community is more receptive to Obama and thus we can move forward and free the people that BUSH's people cleared for release and figure out what to do with the rest.
The detainees released who returned to the battlefields were on Bush's watch, so that seems to undermine the he's keeping us safe at all costs argument. We don't hear much about that, but I am sure the first one who boomerangs after being released under Obama will be big news.
The tactics of the Bush administration, some have argued, have kept us safe. My question is always at what cost?
A Bush appointee, shortly before his leaving office, for the first time admitted that we tortured and thus can't try one of the alleged plotters of 9/11. If I were a family member of a victim of 9/11 that would infuriate me. The official, Susan Crawford, is a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense.
"The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution."
More detail is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews
This is a Bush appointee saying this. Not me, not the media. When we torture or don't observe the Geneva conventions we lose credibility and we put our own troops in even graver danger. This is why Mccain and other more conservative thinkers have stepped up and said our tactics must change.
And remember the issue isn't whether this guy deserves fair treatment, but well .. in her words
"It did shock me," Crawford said. "I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it"....."There's an assumption out there that everybody was tortured. And everybody wasn't tortured. But unfortunately perception is reality." (Sox I think used that same phrase).
I am not trying to use this to attack Bush, but more to say going forward I hope we have learned from this and we will, under Obama, make the changes necessary to enable us to successfully try those who would do us harm.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
sox fan on 1/20 - Or "mulato"...Ha! Yes girls, it is still an outdated term that I don't know how to spell!
Connie, this is the ultimate can of worms.
Flip on 1/20 - And Soxfan, as the mama to two biracial children, "Mulatto" is 1) not commonly used in the this country and 2) considered offensive by many who happen to be biracial. Why having been told this in past postings would you choose to continue to use the term. Right, to inflame.
Flip on 1/20 - And I let the "Ha Girls" slide. Clearly, not only does Mr. Soxfan have issues with our new president's skin but also with us gals having opinions and such. Such a class act all around, I'd say.
Flip on 1/21 - I think you are finally getting it. Dude, you are so worse than Bush. I am pretty damn sure even he knows that the use of Mulatto is inappropriate in any circumstance.
Flip on 1/21 - Maybe it went unnoticed but Soxfan has made his own bed here. Perhaps you were not around for his jews on the train to Auschwitz post or for the many times he called me things, Girl being the best amoung them.
Do you honestly think he had lofty intentions when he posted this "Or "mulato"...Ha! Yes girls, it is still an outdated term that I don't know how to spell!"
Flip on 1/21 - For reference some Soxfan quotes I've compiled along the way. You claim lofty goals but clearly never listen to anyone but yourself or those who agree with you 100%. You pick fights with EVERYONE, not just me or the other libs here. Even those trying to make some peace are open game.
1. (this is a quote from the fall, not 'recent')"You guys supporting Obama are akin to the Jews on the trains headed to Auschwitz. You think everything will be okay...You think you're "just going away for a bit"...You think you'll be going home soon...You think your house will still be there when you get there...All of this despite the obvious intentions of the leader leading you down the primrose path. There, I said it. A bunch of sheep, led by Keith Olbermann."
Flip on 1/23 - You've been remarkably silent about the myriad of references you made in the run up to the election of Obama = Hitler. I think your comments actually made Rush look timid. Further, your repeated use of the word Mulatto with no apology to...
Flip on 1/24 - I just happen to a strong distaste for bullies and people who hide behind fairly anonymous screennames (remember you don't post your picture in case you run into anyone at the beach bar) and spew hate that they would NEVER EVER IN public have the guts (I really want to use another word here) to share.
Flip on 1/24 - There are many appropriate metaphors you could have used to express your point - sheep, lemmings, etc. Nope you took it to the JEWS on the train. Say what you want but that does nothing but evoke if you vote for him we're all gonna DIE. It stokes hate in some and makes others just think you are insane
Sox on 1/24 - I AM SORRY I USED THE TERM. POOR TASTE ON MY PART.
Flip on 1/26 - You going off on your metaphorical Hilter train was flat out offensive and inappropriate (sorry I guess I have my forum police badge on again). Call it metaphor all you like, but comparing Obama to Hilter in any sense, metaphorical or otherwise is WAY UNCOOL, MAN. I called you on it. Repeatedly, yes.
Flip on 1/26 (obscure Internet "Law" again relating to Hitler/Nazi's) - My favorite new rule: Godwin's Law.
Google it if you want to know more. That's all I'll say.
Sox on 1/27 - Look Flip, we both said things we probably regret. I more than you. If you'd like to keep bringing this mindless BS up, then be my guest. I however, after numerous apologies, will not entertain your flames anymore.
Actually, the record shows senator that you are the one who continually has beaten this dead horse.Flip on 1/28 (today) - I don't like bullies and I was unable, despite my better judgement, to let the "OBAMA is a socialist, communist, hilter-like, supporter of infanticide" who is also a milano (in fairness he didn't mean the cookie but the pejorative term to describe someone with a parent who is black and a parent who is white), and all of us following him are lambs to the proverbial slaughter, sheep, and Jews on that train to the concentration camp BS slide. Metaphor or not, some of the stuff was so far out of line, I felt the need to offer and alternative perspective. And the Hitler and Mulatto references were repeated by Sox
Flip on 1/28 (today) - Well I was going to go add up the references to Obama that included socialist, friend to terrorists, milano/mulatto, hitler, or communist and use that as my baseline, but then I lost count.
I'd be happy to let it go if you think you can refrain from using such inflammatory and baseless language in the future.
Most recent? I said it on the 20th and apologized at least twice for the comment (even though as Gina pointed out, it was a little self-deprecating humor aimed at me)...At one point in the last week, I even said that I would NEVER say the word again, and I have not - but you have.Flip on 1/28 (today) - And I had, COMPLETELY, until the more recent "Mulatto There I said it girls" post unhinged me. I don't think the forum needed it beaten into them, but I do think he did. Promise, if I don't hear another reference along the lines that I outlined above, I will not mention it again.
As for the train...I didn't bring that up again...You did. Once you did, I felt I had to go back and try to explain the context of what I was trying to say metaphorically. But aginm you brought that one back to life, not me.
Since I again said the "M" word on the 20th, there have only been 3 days that you haven't re-entered it into discussion.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
Sox -
Guilty as charged. Note I have only been beating you up. No one else. I have managed to have respectful back-n-forth with many others - SJfromNJ, etc.
When you taunted with the reintroduction of the phrase, I called you on it. There were a few people who expressed (publicly and privately) they didn't get the context. Weren't around for the pre-election debates and didn't realize when you'd said it months ago, not only I, but also the grandmother of a child of mixed heritage had tried to let you know that it could be hurtful. You smiley face reintroduction was a stick in the eye. Maybe you didn't think it through, but you knew you what you were instigating.
Like I said in a post earlier tonight, I EVEN admitted you were right ... I have taken it too far in the interest of making that point.
Again, I'd be happy to let it go if you think you can refrain from using such inflammatory and baseless language in the future.
Guilty as charged. Note I have only been beating you up. No one else. I have managed to have respectful back-n-forth with many others - SJfromNJ, etc.
When you taunted with the reintroduction of the phrase, I called you on it. There were a few people who expressed (publicly and privately) they didn't get the context. Weren't around for the pre-election debates and didn't realize when you'd said it months ago, not only I, but also the grandmother of a child of mixed heritage had tried to let you know that it could be hurtful. You smiley face reintroduction was a stick in the eye. Maybe you didn't think it through, but you knew you what you were instigating.
Like I said in a post earlier tonight, I EVEN admitted you were right ... I have taken it too far in the interest of making that point.
Again, I'd be happy to let it go if you think you can refrain from using such inflammatory and baseless language in the future.
Honestly on one hand, SJ, my base/gut instinct is "I don't care what they do to these people I just don't want to know about it." I am even pragmatic enough to know that covert/black ops have protected us in the past and probably continue to do so now.
I agree with you that we have definitely garnered info that has helped us fight the terrorist threat. Unfortunately there are consequences to our actions that may, in turn, make us less safe.
There is no simple answer. Which is why I admire that Obama stated (paraphrasing here) we must do what is right and what aligns with our ideals even when it is excruciatingly hard. I hope that he can live up to that ideal. It will be harder said than done.
I think the majority of those around the world when they see a man decapitated or learn of the story of Daniel Pearl are repulsed. We should be able to capitalize on that repulsion, not give them counter examples to point to where we did terrible things ourselves.
I agree with you that we have definitely garnered info that has helped us fight the terrorist threat. Unfortunately there are consequences to our actions that may, in turn, make us less safe.
There is no simple answer. Which is why I admire that Obama stated (paraphrasing here) we must do what is right and what aligns with our ideals even when it is excruciatingly hard. I hope that he can live up to that ideal. It will be harder said than done.
I think the majority of those around the world when they see a man decapitated or learn of the story of Daniel Pearl are repulsed. We should be able to capitalize on that repulsion, not give them counter examples to point to where we did terrible things ourselves.
Not so much, Gina...For whatever reason, Flip still feels the need to say at the end of every post to me that she'd be "willing to let it go if Soxfan would promise not to use that language anymore...".
She refuses to acknowledge that many days ago, I stated that I would never use the term again...I'm really tired of this shit, to be honest. She has to continue to brow beat, continue to act as the moral authority on everything...I find her to be very condescending and completely unforgiving.
Like I said, if she wants to continue to harp on this, that's fine. That will be her choice.
She refuses to acknowledge that many days ago, I stated that I would never use the term again...I'm really tired of this shit, to be honest. She has to continue to brow beat, continue to act as the moral authority on everything...I find her to be very condescending and completely unforgiving.
Like I said, if she wants to continue to harp on this, that's fine. That will be her choice.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
-
donkey-boy
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:50 pm
- Location: Fish Bay
