The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Crimson King]

Yeah, and the second Bush administration killed anything remotely related to freedom. The point is each president barely represents their party anymore. I would barely even call Obama a democrat since his policies are much further left than most democrats.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah, and the second Bush administration killed anything remotely related to freedom. The point is each president barely represents their party anymore. I would barely even call Obama a democrat since his policies are much further left than most democrats.

Don't you mean further right? Nothing Obama has done has been far left at all. Try again.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I have a hard time seeing how Obama is further right than most Democrats.

 

[Aesir]

I have a hard time seeing how Obama is further right than most Democrats.

There are so many things he's willing to compromise on that many democrats are not willing to.

 

[blazedaces]

I have a hard time seeing how Obama is further right than most Democrats.

I think this is just the viewpoint media tries to paint on him. The media is really, really pathetic right now.

-blazed

 

[Jam Stunna]

I think this is just the viewpoint media tries to paint on him. The media is really, really pathetic right now.

-blazed

Yeah, I just don't see how a president who supports health care reform, cap and trade, closing Guantanamo Bay and trying terrorism suspects in federal court gets characterized as more right-leaning than the average Democrat.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah, I just don't see how a president who supports health care reform, cap and trade, closing Guantanamo Bay and trying terrorism suspects in federal court gets characterized as more right-leaning than the average Democrat.

It's not the positions he's taking up, it's what he's supporting and willing to compromise on. I'm not saying he isn't liberal but he's not governing as a liberal. It's the curse all liberal democrats have. The health care bill is conservative, cap and trade is actually a conservative approach to global warming, closing gitmo opposition to this is mostly a neo-con thing and I know you're not confusing neo-cons with conservatives. Trying terrorist in federal court? it's called the rule of law.

All I'm saying is if he's so much more liberal than most democrats why are liberals the most disheartened base right now? Because he's catering to the right wing instead of the people who got him elected.

 

[Jam Stunna]

All of those issues that you've raised are issues in the Senate, not the president.

Obama has stated publicly that he supports a public option for health care. The House has passed health care legislation with a public option. The Senate has not.

The Senate blocked closing Guantanamo Bay.

The Senate is blocking cap and trade (as for cap and trade being a conservative approach to global warming, I don't know any conservatives that would define it as such. They see it as an additional tax).

The Senate is attempting to block funding for the KSM trial.



What I'm saying is that Obama clearly holds liberal policy ideas, and that those policy ideas are being defeated or obstructed in Congress. The liberal base is focusing its dissapointment in the wrong place. It's Congress (specifically the Senate) that has shot down their agenda, not an ideological shift to the right by Obama.

 

[Aesir]

All of those issues that you've raised are issues in the Senate, not the president.

I didn't raise them, you did I merely responded to that.

Obama has stated publicly that he supports a public option for health care. The House has passed health care legislation with a public option. The Senate has not.

Yeah see it didn't pass because of one senator.

The Senate blocked closing Guantanamo Bay.

Senate Democrats voted against it because of opposition from their home states. Almost every democrat in the senate supports closing gitmo.

The Senate is blocking cap and trade (as for cap and trade being a conservative approach to global warming, I don't know any conservatives that would define it as such. They see it as an additional tax).

It was proposed by republicans who are not insane.

Again it comes back to re-elections and constituent support. less than half the country believes global warming is to be a legitimate threat. The reason for cap and trade is to say no to global warming. It's not that democrats are opposed to it, they're not voting on these things because they're worried about reelection because a lot of democratic senators are in trouble right now.

The Senate is attempting to block funding for the KSM trial.

Again it's because of the current political climate in the US. The right wing is very energized right now so democrats are trying to minimize their losses. Going forward with any of those things with the risk of a filibuster is not smart. Especially since one senator has the power to kill legislation.

What I'm saying is that Obama clearly holds liberal policy ideas, and that those policy ideas are being defeated or obstructed in Congress. The liberal base is focusing its dissapointment in the wrong place. It's Congress (specifically the Senate) that has shot down their agenda, not an ideological shift to the right by Obama.

First off it's not "congress" half of congress has followed through it's called the House of Representatives.

It's the Senate because the rules of the senate are insane, like I've mentioned already one senator has the power to make or break a bill. Obama supports the public option so do most democrats but Lieberman killed the option because without a super majority they can't get anything passed.

 

[Jam Stunna]

So basically the Democrats would be able to do the right thing if it weren't for their constituencies making them do something different?

 

[Aesir]

So basically the Democrats would be able to do the right thing if it weren't for their constituencies making them do something different?

That's not what I'm saying lol, I'm saying a lot of these democrats are facing opposition because the right wing is a very energized based right now. It wouldn't be a problem if the liberal base was actually shouting back but most are just pissed off so they not even going to bother. That could change if healthcare reform passes, the reason liberals are angry is because they don't think it will pass, than the loss this nov will be small in comparison if they don't pass change. Plus it doesn't help there's so much disinformation out there so that sways a lot of opinion about health care reform.

I'd hate to say it but democracy is pretty ineffective because people are stupid.

However democrats would get things done if all they needed was a simple majority.

I should probably clarify what I said. I'm not saying obama is a conservative or a moderate democrat. my post was just showing how silly it is to call him Left of most democrats when that's clearly not the case. People who think he's this liberal socialist democrat need their head examined

 

[Sucumbio]

You mean the ones who think he's trying to turn the US into a welfare state?

Thing is, I just got a new job that immediately started me off as part time. Mind you it's not because of lack of work, it's a brand new location, they've got tons of hours required. It's because by doing that, they don't have to pay for benefits. At all.

Now this raises 2 questions:

1.) If Obama wasn't pushing Health Care reform -at all- would large businesses (I work for a major retailer, ugh) still be accepting this newer model of hire more part-timers to get the same job done, but now save on benefits?

2.) Does this recent trend have nothing to do at all with Obama's Health Care reform strategy?

My answers: Maybe, and Perhaps. heh, I can't tell yet. Give it until his last year in office when he has to run for re-election. During that time, we'd assume the bill would have passed by then. Look then at the impact on business, small and large, and their employees, and their benefits.

To me, big retail is shifting to part-time > full-time because it's cheaper to do it that way. The current economy almost demands penny pinching... so perhaps it really doesn't have anything to do with the bill. But I am hard pressed to see it that way, because I am getting no Health Care coverage! "Well that's because you're part time." Yes, and I'm part time because ... they don't want to make me full time which would require them to pay benefits >< This ridiculous cycle, it's happening in many big retail companies now, it's the new trend in hiring, and even companies with a hiring freeze, are reducing their employees from full time to part time, or cutting benefits. Even STATE jobs, are doing this. It's a sign.

Another thought I had is that perhaps Big retail is mainly owned/operated by republicans. But I have not verified that.

Basically Health care could have nothing to do with it, nor the political viewpoints of their owners. They are both theories that happen to fit the facts.

But ultimately, it's made me feel like I will not vote for Obama next election, and that saddens me, because I want to give him the chance he deserves. Many people are still trying to rush things, and I'm not one for that, I KNOW his job is hard, and that it'll take time... but my approval of his success so far, is waning, and this disturbs me.

Also he's backed down from the stance on the 9/11 trials taking place in federal court in NYC. His reward for this compromise? Funds to close Gitmo. we'll see what happens.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You're concerned about your health care, yet you're considering voting against Obama in 2012? That seems self-defeating.

I'm very glad that the administration has decided not to try KSM and co. in federal court. That was a huge mistake, and it looks like Eric Holder won't survive the first term, if he even makes it to 2012.

 

[Aesir]

You're concerned about your health care, yet you're considering voting against Obama in 2012? That seems self-defeating.

I'm very glad that the administration has decided not to try KSM and co. in federal court. That was a huge mistake, and it looks like Eric Holder won't survive the first term, if he even makes it to 2012.

Funny how practicing the rule of law is a huge mistake now. God I love my country

 

[Jam Stunna]

What law are you referring to?

 

[Aesir]

What law are you referring to?

Lol it's what we're suppose to do when we try people, there's no law on the books that says so. But in the US we have a lot of laws and procedural things that we don't have on the books, it's just a matter of following what we always do. This idea that our federal courts can't handle these cases just just a right wing talking point meant to label Obama as "weak." For years we've been trying terror suspects in federal court, even years after 9/11 Bush went after a lot of terrorist suspects through the federal court system. Furthermore the supreme court has limited the power in which these detainee's can be restricted access to normal legal rights.

Also

Najibullah Zazipleas guilty. But hey you know I guess our federal courts are awful at catching terrorist suspects.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm still not clear on this. If there's no specific law that says, "These people should be tried in this fashion," how does choosing one or the other violate the rule of law? Isn't it just a coin flip?

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm confused now as well. I don't see how not trying him in federal court interferes with rule of law. He's still not above the law; even if he isn't tried in federal court he'll still be tried somewhere.

 

[Aesir]

I'm still not clear on this. If there's no specific law that says, "These people should be tried in this fashion," how does choosing one or the other violate the rule of law? Isn't it just a coin flip?

No we try all criminals in this manner, even terrorist pre-bush and even bush went terrorists in this same fashion. Najibullah Zazi is a criminal he should be tried in a criminal court.

I'm confused now as well. I don't see how not trying him in federal court interferes with rule of law. He's still not above the law; even if he isn't tried in federal court he'll still be tried somewhere.

The thing is by not trying him in a federal court we're not repairing the damage to our justice system. There needs to be a clear cut system when trying terrorists we can't just have a system that's dependent on the views of the current administration. In the past we have always tried terror suspects in federal courts, why change that now?

 

[KrazyGlue]

The thing is by not trying him in a federal court we're not repairing the damage to our justice system. There needs to be a clear cut system when trying terrorists we can't just have a system that's dependent on the views of the current administration. In the past we have always tried terror suspects in federal courts, why change that now?

I'm not advocating it (in fact I think it should be a federal court trial), I'm just wondering what it has to do with Rule of Law.

 

[Sucumbio]

You're concerned about your health care, yet you're considering voting against Obama in 2012? That seems self-defeating.

Perhaps, ... that's why I'm waiting to see, I'm not definitely voting against Obama in 2012, but if I can't get health coverage because my company is unwilling due to the bill that's passed (as it seems they're unwilling just based on the -impending- bill) I'm screwed.

Compromise is another issue. It's fine to go back and forth and work a deal, that's expected. But no public option? Great, what happens to all those people that can't afford health care, or aren't granted it by their employers (like me, and me, I make just over minimum wage and aren't going up the corporate ladder anytime soon) ...

Then there's the issue of how the Right is able to paint democrats. "real" compromise isn't happening, there's a concession or two, but on the big hits it's Obama with "I hear what you're saying, but I can't do that." He can't win for losing, and the recent televised summit was a prime example of that. He's pushing hard now, "just get it done." He's almost falling into the republican trap set ages ago. The one where they nickle and dime the bill to death until all that's left to pass is a crappy wanna-be bill, that doesn't solve anything. THEN they can turn around and BLAME him, for doing such a bad job on HCR! Ridiculous. And not his fault, but obviously he can't continue as president if he's unable or unwilling to bend his ways to get things done -right- ... and that's his difficulty now, and will be in the furture. Especially when unemployment rates keep going up overall, despite leveling out or dropping a month here and a month there.

I'm very glad that the administration has decided not to try KSM and co. in federal court. That was a huge mistake, and it looks like Eric Holder won't survive the first term, if he even makes it to 2012.

At first I thought the 9/11 terrorists should be tried in military court. I bought the argument that because we'd declared war on terror, as some of the generals have said, so too should terrorists be treated as war criminals.

But...

I'm not advocating it (in fact I think it should be a federal court trial), I'm just wondering what it has to do with Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is that to truly declare war, it must be done so by Congress.

Congress did not declare war on Terrorism. They can't, lol. Terrorism isn't a country, it's an ideology, and so Congress technically can never declare war on it.

And so technically, all terrorists, foreign and domestic, -should- be tried in federal court.

It's the fact that Bush Jr's Congress granted him such broad sweeping power to fight terrorism, that there's even a debate on who gets to try the 9/11 terrorists. Had he been properly kept in check, it'd be a federal trial as it's always been.

 

[Jam Stunna]

True, you can't declare war against terrorism in the proper sense. However, I think that in the practical sense, 9/11 certainly rose to the level of an open act of war. Had any nation-state attacked us in such a manner, there would be no question that we were in a state of war. al-Qaeda definitely considers this to be a war, even if they can't legally declare it.

There are legitimate reasons to support federal trials or military commissions, and I think people can and should question the way that the war on terror has been prosecuted. But I do firmly believe that this is a war, declared or not, and that the military tribunal system offers advantages to dealing with enemy soldiers. They may not have a nation, but I don't think that really affects the practical nature of this conflict.

 

[Aesir]

I'm not advocating it (in fact I think it should be a federal court trial), I'm just wondering what it has to do with Rule of Law.

Because that's how we try criminals in this country, we can't just make up new rules. That's why it's the rule of law, no one is above it, by changing the procedure's we're above it and slapping common law in the face. When we start doing that then what's the point?

Jam it goes against our own laws held up by our own supreme court and it goes against international law to deny these people their day in their court. All military tribunals are, are just courts with relaxed standards for convictions. Regardless how you want to rationalize it it's still not a legally bound practice to try these people in military tribunal.

Boumediene v. Bush along with many cases before and after have state they have a right to habeas corpus in federal courts. Given the nature of the supreme court right now that will likely not change any time soon.

 

[adumbrodeus]

True, you can't declare war against terrorism in the proper sense. However, I think that in the practical sense, 9/11 certainly rose to the level of an open act of war. Had any nation-state attacked us in such a manner, there would be no question that we were in a state of war. al-Qaeda definitely considers this to be a war, even if they can't legally declare it.

There are legitimate reasons to support federal trials or military commissions, and I think people can and should question the way that the war on terror has been prosecuted. But I do firmly believe that this is a war, declared or not, and that the military tribunal system offers advantages to dealing with enemy soldiers. They may not have a nation, but I don't think that really affects the practical nature of this conflict.

Right there.

Legality depends on the "proper sense", if we are not involved in a "War on Terror" in the legal sense, then terrorists should be tried in federal court.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Jam it goes against our own laws held up by our own supreme court and it goes against international law to deny these people their day in their court. All military tribunals are, are just courts with relaxed standards for convictions.

If military tribunals are courts, how is anyone being denied their day in court?

@ adumbrodeus- Are you saying that you cannot be at war with a non-state actor?

 

[Aesir]

If you read my whole post you'll see the supreme court said federal court. There was no formal declaration of war, so how are they military combatants?

All of this is pointless because we've been trying terrorist in the same fashion for years, why change something that isn't broken? We catch the bad guys they get tried if found guilty they're put away forever. Military tribunals should only be used in times of war. This isn't a war in the conventional sense, military tribunals don't apply here.

 

[Sucumbio]

True, you can't declare war against terrorism in the proper sense. However, I think that in the practical sense, 9/11 certainly rose to the level of an open act of war.

I absolutely feel where you're coming from, I mean, I too felt as if they should be tried as war criminals, they were being detained and questioned just like POW's, so why not?

But this is an emotional reaction. It just so happens that Congress granted Bush the power to hold them as if they were POWs, even though they technically weren't (and as we can see there was FAR too much leeway in that decision). Bad move by Congress, one of many (Patriot Act = serious infringement on negative rights (and no, I'm not a Libertarian)).

The difficulty is a Law is absolute, and can only be changed by amendment or referendum. You can't justify side-stepping it based on things like "9/11 was SO horrific" ... I won't even go into how 9/11 equates to the dozens of similar strikes -by us- in other countries (which is what these militant groups feed off of for their propaganda.)

And so as such, because we are a nation of laws, and we live by our laws, and as a member of the international community are bound by our laws, we cannot simply throw the rule book out the window whenever it suits us. 9/11 was no more a Military Strike than when the "Irish Republican ARMY" sets off a car bomb in London. Way more deaths, sure. More destruction, sure. But irrelevant are those numbers. They're peas of the same pod. Terrorist actions, the same such actions that any human can do with the right determination and training.

A proper act of War, may have many more casualties, or far fewer, but it's so distinguished because it's carried out by a nation's military. al Qaeda is an army with no nation (like the IRA***) and cannot technically declare war, or have war declared on it, regardless of how devastating their actions.

So, in practical terms even, no it wasn't an act of war. It was just a heinous act.

There are legitimate reasons to support federal trials or military commissions, and I think people can and should question the way that the war on terror has been prosecuted. But I do firmly believe that this is a war, declared or not, and that the military tribunal system offers advantages to dealing with enemy soldiers. They may not have a nation, but I don't think that really affects the practical nature of this conflict.

The advantages a military tribunal would grant are null on civilians. Terrorists are civilians with explosives and bad tempers. If we don't treat them as criminals, and instead treat them as war criminals, then we vindicate them; we are elevating their status by doing this, also we subject ourselves to a much unwanted cross-reference by other nations, just more examples of how the US doesn't practice what it preaches.


Health Care ... strike. (so far)

9/11 Trials ... strike. (too bad too...)

Unemployment ... strike. (not discussed much here, but most of his 'accomplishment' is in the public sector)

I know this isn't baseball, but ... yeah. It's not looking so hot. I mean if I'm even thinking we made a mistake in him, I wasn't just swept up in the fervor to vote for a black man, but I'll admit I wanted him because I didn't want the McCain/Palin ticket.

And this brings us to why we need election reform... but that's another thread.

*** Just to clarify, the IRA is based in Ireland, yes, but its members span dozens of nations, which is why it doesn't fit under the belt of an actual Army, they're just called an Army and Irish happens to be in the title too.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I just listened to a fascinating story on NPR comparing some of the more stringent forms of environmentalism to religion. I've heard this characterization before, but usually as a conservative talking point to disparage "going green" so I never paid much attention to it.

But this story's main thrust wasn't that environmentalism is emotional and should be discarded, but that for cosmopolitan, liberal, white people in urban centers that aren't religious, ardent environmentalism fufills the same basic emotional needs that God does for people in the Bible Belt. Listening to the story from that perspective, some of the similarities between environmentalism and religion are really striking.

 

[RDK]

There's a difference between being a loony tree-hugger who thinks we're going to kill Mother Earth and recognizing that our planet is going through drastic climate changes.

Science drives one, religion drives the other. Conservatives panning environmentalists is like a Catholic making fun of a Protestant.

 

[Jam Stunna]

There's a difference between being a loony tree-hugger who thinks we're going to kill Mother Earth and recognizing that our planet is going through drastic climate changes.

Science drives one, religion drives the other. Conservatives panning environmentalists is like a Catholic making fun of a Protestant.

You're missing the point of the story. It's not a science vs. religion debate, but what going green means to people, and the suggestion that going green is as much about emotions for some people (in this case, the same emotions fulfilled by religion) as it is about science. Listen to the story yourself:

http://www.cpbn.org/files/audio/Where We Live 02-05-2010.mp3

It's the second segment, after the host talks to Zero Impact Man.

 

[adumbrodeus]

There's a difference between being a loony tree-hugger who thinks we're going to kill Mother Earth and recognizing that our planet is going through drastic climate changes.

Science drives one, religion drives the other. Conservatives panning environmentalists is like a Catholic making fun of a Protestant.

I think you're missing the point, he's not saying the justification is flawed, merely stating that environmentalism is fulfilling the same psychological need as religion commonly does.


That's certainly not an unheard of viewpoint, I read objectivist websites which were saying basically the same thing.


THAT SAID, the reason why people commonly believe it is irrelevant to the truth value of a given object, that is a textbook example of the appeal to logic fallacy (basically, somebody's reasons for believing this are wrong therefore the result must be wrong).


However, Jam is not committing this fallacy.

@ adumbrodeus- Are you saying that you cannot be at war with a non-state actor?

Yes, at least speaking in legal terms, if you cannot declare war on them, you cannot use military tribunals. I would furthermore argue that without a formal declaration of war by congress, members of a government cannot be charged with war crimes (at least against the US) or tried by a US military tribunal.


Legally speaking war can either be national (between two nations) or civil, we cannot be engaged in war against an outside non-state actor due to this fact, and I have yet to see you United States declare war against itself (the formal wording would be something akin to "[organization name here] attempting to assert control over the government of the United States through military force." Only an organization based on the US would be eligible for this, though again hasn't happened.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Okay, I see what you mean. Would you support the laws regarding the declaration of war being changed? It seems that conflicts are less and less between nations and more and more between nations and international groups.

 

[Aesir]

Would rather we didn't pass laws saying we could, the possibility for backlash from that is overwhelmingly high. Plus the past 8 years have shown us that military action does very little to curb the popularity of terrorist groups and the like. Our actions pre-9/11 were more effective at curbing terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration just didn't take Bin ladin as a serious threat and payed for it.

Health Care ... strike. (so far)

Not even a so far, has the bill died? Nope. House is going to pass it, once the house passes it It's up to Harry Reed to Fix the bill with reconciliation.

9/11 Trials ... strike. (too bad too...)

Yeah well, obama was given a pretty ****ty deal. Close gitmo but try the guy in a military court.

Unemployment ... strike. (not discussed much here, but most of his 'accomplishment' is in the public sector)

I'd say unemployment looks bad for him, but had he not made the actions he did it would have been a much higher rate. 25% if we had done nothing. Furthermore if we look at the rate at which we're losing jobs, we're losing them at a much lower rate since his policies were enacted. I wouldn't call that a strike.

The democrats could have gotten more bang for their buck, but unfortunately they have to fill things with pork otherwise they can't get certain key senators behind the bill. That's the nature of the senate. "What's in it for me?" attitude.

I know this isn't baseball, but ... yeah. It's not looking so hot. I mean if I'm even thinking we made a mistake in him, I wasn't just swept up in the fervor to vote for a black man, but I'll admit I wanted him because I didn't want the McCain/Palin ticket.

McCains response would be cut taxes and cut spending, Ronald Reagan already proved that's bad economics.

 

[Sucumbio]

Would rather we didn't pass laws saying we could, the possibility for backlash from that is overwhelmingly high. Plus the past 8 years have shown us that military action does very little to curb the popularity of terrorist groups and the like. Our actions pre-9/11 were more effective at curbing terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration just didn't take Bin ladin as a serious threat and payed for it.

That's a tough call... we remember "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." that scary mantra from an era where war was business and business was good. It's definitely different now... the cold war mentalities are all but dead. I'd say leave it up to the UN but peacekeepers are a joke when it comes to armed conflict, and so long as Congress is required to declare war there's a safety in place to prevent the President from waging personal wars... oh wait. >< yeah.

Not even a so far, has the bill died? Nope. House is going to pass it, once the house passes it It's up to Harry Reed to Fix the bill with reconciliation.

That's fair enough, I don't really mean he's failed on getting it passed, I am just paranoid his fervent push for it has caused businesses to take bigger craps on their employees. But as is a popular held belief in medicine, it's gonna feel worse before it feels better.

Ronald Reagan already proved that's bad economics.

ha! good 'ole Reaganomics... I'd have definitely needed a lobotomy to vote for the McCain ticket, and if Palin runs on her own in 2012 I will again choose Obama, regardless of how bad things seem.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The Rule of Law is that to truly declare war, it must be done so by Congress.

Congress did not declare war on Terrorism. They can't, lol. Terrorism isn't a country, it's an ideology, and so Congress technically can never declare war on it.

And so technically, all terrorists, foreign and domestic, -should- be tried in federal court.

It's the fact that Bush Jr's Congress granted him such broad sweeping power to fight terrorism, that there's even a debate on who gets to try the 9/11 terrorists. Had he been properly kept in check, it'd be a federal trial as it's always been.

All right, thanks for the clarification.

Okay, I see what you mean. Would you support the laws regarding the declaration of war being changed? It seems that conflicts are less and less between nations and more and more between nations and international groups.

You make a very good point that conflicts are being caused more by terrorists than opposing nations these days. A law like that just doesn't make sense though. It's kind of like saying "we're declaring war on anyone who doesn't like us". Terrorist groups are often loosely organized, so it's not really realistic to declare war (it's more like a job of hunting down the head honchos). There's also often a gray area between whether someone is a member of a terrorist group or just some America-hating criminal. What Aesir said as well.

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

Also, just making sure: we're all against waterboarding, right?

 

[Aesir]

Another thing why I'm against military tribunals they're not exactly impartial courts. Which kind of defeats the purpose of a trial.

Sucumbio: if you're liberal or even a moderate, Democrats are probably going to be the party of choice for you.

 

[Sucumbio]

Another thing why I'm against military tribunals they're not exactly impartial courts. Which kind of defeats the purpose of a trial.

Sucumbio: if you're liberal or even a moderate, Democrats are probably going to be the party of choice for you.

Yep. hence why civilians don't benefit -at all- from the process... a proper court martial for example really only amounts to "you're already guilty, son, we're just here to determine how many laps you're gonna run today and for the next year while at Leavenworth."

Yes, I'm definitely liberal, and definitely aligned with the democract's platform. I also feel strongly about Obama's strategy by reforming the country through programs aimed at true progress. What keeps me up most nights is the fear that his objectors will stop at nothing to pull the plug, or the rug out from under him. Sabotage. I have never seen a more backstabbing political climate as I see in this President's term. And I fear he is ill equipment to actually handle it. He can talk a good talk, but can we walk a good walk? I think before his 4 years are up he'll end up with broken legs. But again, we'll see. He could still very well go down in history as one of the greatest. Though his approval ratings have dipped, its no true indicator, they alway dip... the real indicator will be watching Congress, and seeing how the Senate looks after another round of elections.

 

[Jam Stunna]

a proper court martial for example really only amounts to "you're already guilty, son, we're just here to determine how many laps you're gonna run today and for the next year while at Leavenworth."

That's a rather broad and unfair generalization of military justice.

 

[Sucumbio]

hey, I don't make the rules, it's how it's done... you get your say, but it's far less forgiving than a civilian courtroom. rather than a judge and maybe a trial by peers, you get a panel of ranking officers who are there to ascertain what you did wrong and how to punish you. your "defense" representative is there to advise you, and sure there are times they can exonerate you, but typically court martial isn't for innocent until proven guilty. it's for sentencing. it's a waste of their time otherwise.

that's why there's all this uproar about trying KSM in military court. the argument that we are or aren't giving him a fair trial.

but I dunno, it seems as if a trial fair or otherwise is moot at this point anyway.

http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=225

 

[Jam Stunna]

I mean yeah, does anyone really think that the outcome of this trial isn't pre-determined? There may be procedural reasons why some people want a civilian trial, but there's zero chance that KSM gets acquitted no matter where or how he's tried.