Is Lord Jim Really An Idiot? I Don't Think So.

[MajGenl.Meade]

... but what about the poor carp?


And more seriously, what U.S. pows?

Meade

[Econoline]

... but what about the poor carp?

We're throwing them out with the wash water, too.

Just as well. They don't like soap. Or babies.

[Rick]

And more seriously, what U.S. pows?

exactly, they take no prisoners...

[Econoline]

We on the Right rather think of these incarcerated terrorists and enemy combatants as the modern-day equivalent of POW's. They are not incarcerated for what they have DONE, but rather for what they ARE - enemy combatants. Indeed, we don't particularly give a crap what they have done; it is sufficient that they were (mainly) captured while engaged in a "war" against the U.S. or its interests. POW's are not entitled to a trial, under "Constitutional" rules or otherwise. They must be incarcerated until the "war" is over. Otherwise - as has been demonstrated - they are likely to again join forces with our enemies and continue taking potshots at our soldiers. Why should we release them?

But neither paradigm is actually correct. There is only a "war" in the figurative sense, since there is no country we are fighting, no uniforms, and so on.

So how do you determine "what they ARE - enemy combatants" without a national enemy, uniforms, actual provable "acts of war", evidence, a legal framework, or anything?

More importantly, if it's okay for the U.S. to imprison citizens of other nations without any international or domestic legal justification, would you have any problem with other nations (or non-governmental organizations, for that matter) doing the same to U.S. citizens, simply for "what they ARE"???

[Rick]

They do...

[Econoline]

...would you have any problem with...?

This was mostly addressed to dgs49--or anyone else who thinks it's okay when we do it.

[dales]

... but what about the poor carp?




Meade

[Andrew D]

Simple fact: If you agree with keeping the Guantanamo detainees where they are under the circumstances in which they are there, then you agree with holding people indefinitely without charge or trial. And our Founders would spit on you.

[Rick]

Yeah, well they'd prolly spit at you too...

[Andrew D]

For what?

[Rick]

For the same reason they would spit at anyone else.

What you think yer special?

Yer just as mean and nasty as the rest of us...

[Andrew D]

So you have totally lost track of the point. (Clue: "mean and nasty" has nothing to do with it.)

[Rick]

No, I don't care about the point it's the same point for you every post.

You are right everyone else is wrong.

Clue: you are always mean and nasty...

[Lord Jim]

Like good Ol' Napoleon liked to say...

Never Interfere With The Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Surely he said "I feel such a tit"?

[Lord Jim]

Surely he said "I feel such a tit"?

Not where he's got his hand....

I won my good missus by adopting that principle...

[Gob]

I do!! [someone had to do it.]

[Andrew D]

No, I don't care about the point it's the same point for you every post.

You are right everyone else is wrong.

Yep. Like this:

Under existing Supreme Court law, Big RR and Joe Guy, you are correct. The Supreme Court has restricted the application of the Compact Clause to agreements between or among States which are "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." (United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452, 468 (1978) (internal quotations marks omitted).)

* * *

Anyway, thanks for pointing me towards the Court's (mis)construction of the Compact Clause. I always feel better knowing more today than I did yesterday.

-------------------------

Clue: you are always mean and nasty...

Uh-huh. One need only consider my "mean and nasty" discussion with Long Run about the IRS's interpretation of the law governing 501(c)(4) entities. And my "mean and nasty" discussion with MajGenl.Meade about the free will problem. And, of course, my "mean and nasty" wine recommendations.

Clue: Before commenting on others' postings, it is best to familiarize yourself with them.

[Rick]

Anyway, thanks for pointing me towards the Court's (mis)construction (my bold) of the Compact Clause. I always feel better knowing more today than I did yesterday.

Yeah, and after all yer pontificating this song remains the same.

Since YOU don't have free will just pretend you do, lighten up.

Or follow yer density...

[Andrew D]

WHOOSH!