PDA

View Full Version : Beck Says to Shoot Gitmo Prisoners in the Head




Cap
07-10-2013, 01:51 PM
Yup he said it and as a matter of fact, he said it twice. Watch the video, from 4:30 on.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/07/09/rapper-mos-def-in-force-feeding-propaganda/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-07-09_234188&utm_content=5385598&utm_term=_234188_234205

AuH20
07-10-2013, 01:54 PM
I listened to him the other day and I agree with his controversial premise. If you are willingly starving yourself with the ultimate goal being death obviously, wouldn't I be doing you a favor by just ending your torment? Let's cut out the theatrics and call it for what it is.

Cap
07-10-2013, 01:57 PM
If I'm not mistaken, most if not all Gitmo prisoners are there without trial. Are you advocating what I think you are without due process?

fisharmor
07-10-2013, 01:58 PM
He's comin' around, I tells ya!

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 01:59 PM
Good grief. No. Why do people keep listening to this idiot. It would be called execution without due process.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:00 PM
If I'm not mistaken, most if not all Gitmo prisoners are there without trial. Are you advocating what I think you are without due process?

Regardless, they are starving themselves to die. I don't think there is much to say beyond that. They are not being allowed due process for whatever convoluted reason, so they want to end their lives. So what's the big deal? This is beyond our control and Beck's rhetoric while being insensitive is spot-on.

Cap
07-10-2013, 02:01 PM
Good grief. No. Why do people keep listening to this idiot. It would be called execution without due process.I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:02 PM
Good grief. No. Why do people keep listening to this idiot. It would be called execution without due process.

which is what some of the Gitmo inmates are actively working for. It's crass but he's right.

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 02:03 PM
He was cheerleader for Iraq bloodshed.
He seems at tmes mentally unstable.

paulbot24
07-10-2013, 02:04 PM
How libertarian of you Mr. Beck. Now please just end this charade for those that were fooled by you and go back to being the obnoxious partisan hack you have always been.

Cap
07-10-2013, 02:06 PM
Personally, I'm thinking that Beck has lost any semblance of sanity. This is nothing but the ramblings of sociopathic lunatic.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:11 PM
Let's examine the facts and situation on the ground, as opposed to hypotheticals. Release or due process isn't an option given the government's rigid policy of no due process.

#1 They are not being allowed due process, which is wrong.
#2 166 have decided to go on a hunger strike, accepting death as the answer

Why the hell are they feeding them? Obviously, if I was POTUS I would expedite the due process claims via military tribunals and likely filter the small minority innocent of their charges. But right now, given the situation, it's wrong to keep them alive against their will. They shouldn't be feeding them.

juleswin
07-10-2013, 02:11 PM
He's comin' around, I tells ya!

Lol, Beck cannot take a step forward without taking 2 steps back.

Warlord
07-10-2013, 02:17 PM
Beck is a disgrace. not going to listen to his ramblings.

Cap
07-10-2013, 02:20 PM
Beck is a disgrace. not going to listen to his ramblings.
I am so hoping that this puts a nail in the coffin with the Beck apologists. This SOB is just plain evil.

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-10-2013, 02:22 PM
if they gave Beck the gun to kill them, he would piss in his pants

juleswin
07-10-2013, 02:22 PM
Let's examine the facts and situation on the ground, as opposed to hypotheticals. Release or due process isn't an option given the government's rigid policy of no due process.

#1 They are not being allowed due process, which is wrong.
#2 166 have decided to go on a hunger strike, accepting death as the answer

Why the hell are they feeding them? Obviously, if I was POTUS I would expedite the due process claims and likely filter the small minority innocent of their charges. But right now, given the situation, it's wrong to keep them alive against their will. They shouldn't be feeding them.

There is no way in this world you believe they are going through this hunger strike primarily because they want to die. Its obvious to anyone paying attention that they are going through this hell because they want a trial - their lawyers have said so. They want to face their charges and they know that even the evil Obama and his conservative supporters like Beck(maybe not Beck) still have some humanity left in them to let the prisoners face the charges against em than see them waste away and die.

amy31416
07-10-2013, 02:24 PM
Let's examine the facts and situation on the ground, as opposed to hypotheticals. Release or due process isn't an option given the government's rigid policy of no due process.

#1 They are not being allowed due process, which is wrong.
#2 166 have decided to go on a hunger strike, accepting death as the answer

Why the hell are they feeding them? Obviously, if I was POTUS I would expedite the due process claims via military tribunals and likely filter the small minority innocent of their charges. But right now, given the situation, it's wrong to keep them alive against their will. They shouldn't be feeding them.

You do realize why prisoners (especially political) go on hunger strikes, right? And if it's only a small minority that are innocent, then it would have been done.

If there is to be no due process and no justice, this will call attention to those facts.

And if you agree with shooting potentially innocent men in the head, you ought to be willing to pull the trigger yourself. I know for sure that Beck's too much of a weenie to do it--I suspect you might be capable though. Sneak into Cuba and take care of bidness--yeehaw.

Cap
07-10-2013, 02:24 PM
There is no way in this world you believe they are going through this hunger strike primarily because they want to die. Its obvious to anyone paying attention that they are going through this hell because they want a trial - their lawyers have said so. They want to face their charges and they know that even the evil Obama and his conservative supporters like Beck(maybe not Beck) still have some humanity left in them to let the prisoners face the charges against em than see them waste away and die.I'm out of +rep Brother. Somebody help me out.

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 02:24 PM
I listened to him the other day and I agree with his controversial premise. If you are willingly starving yourself with the ultimate goal being death obviously, wouldn't I be doing you a favor by just ending your torment? Let's cut out the theatrics and call it for what it is.

Then you should be willing to face the music of consequences because it will be murder even if done as a "favor". Most murderers probably have excellent rationalizations for their crimes.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 02:25 PM
which is what some of the Gitmo inmates are actively working for. It's crass but he's right.

If you believe in assisted suicide

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:27 PM
There is no way in this world you believe they are going through this hunger strike primarily because they want to die. Its obvious to anyone paying attention that they are going through this hell because they want a trial - their lawyers have said so. They want to face their charges and they know that even the evil Obama and his conservative supporters like Beck(maybe not Beck) still have some humanity left in them to let the prisoners face the charges against em than see them waste away and die.

So it's a stunt? They still won't let them go. Beck is crass and insensitive, but I don't have a problem with his logical conclusion in this particular instance, when one realizes that they have no options. Like it or not, they are going to rot there. We can pontificate for days and it won't change their fate.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 02:28 PM
Man this thread is revealing

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:31 PM
Man this thread is revealing

that you can't change the world and life is not fair. This thread is operating with the illogical premise that the Gitmo inmates are a hair away from a court date or freedom, when that is far from the case. Uncle Sam owns them unfortunately, just like they own me or you.

jbauer
07-10-2013, 02:32 PM
What don't you guys get? Its called ratings. He says something, the ball gets kicked through the playground on the internet. He gets talked about. You guys go listen. Its all a game. He knows they're not going to shoot those people, though if they're trying to commit suicide get it over with.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:33 PM
What don't you guys get? Its called ratings. He says something, the ball gets kicked through the playground on the internet. He gets talked about. You guys go listen. Its all a game. He knows they're not going to shoot those people, though if they're trying to commit suicide get it over with.

He's an ex-shock jock to boot.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:34 PM
I'm hoping to die in the field than to ever see the inside of a Gitmo facility.

amy31416
07-10-2013, 02:37 PM
that you can't change the world and life is not fair. This thread is operating with the illogical premise that the Gitmo inmates are a hair away from a court date or freedom, when that is far from the case. Uncle Sam owns them unfortunately, just like they own me or you.

So you'd suggest execution for the rest of us too, if we should get locked up with no hope for trial?

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 02:37 PM
that you can't change the world and life is not fair. This thread is operating with the illogical premise that the Gitmo inmates are a hair away from a court date or freedom, when that is far from the case. Uncle Sam owns them unfortunately, just like they own me or you.

So that makes it okay? NO. Gitmo needs to be shut down and I dont get why our representatives are not pushing for that to happen. Screw Uncle Sam and screw Glen Beck.

jbauer
07-10-2013, 02:38 PM
So you'd suggest execution for the rest of us too, if we should get locked up with no hope for trial?

yes, that's exactly what he's saying :rolleyes:

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 02:38 PM
Regardless, they are starving themselves to die. I don't think there is much to say beyond that. They are not being allowed due process for whatever convoluted reason, so they want to end their lives. So what's the big deal? This is beyond our control and Beck's rhetoric while being insensitive is spot-on.

If you go on hunger strike for some protest while confined, are denied due process of law (as there is no evidence to try and convict you of crme you are suspected of), you will want someome to shoot you as a "favor' to you?

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:41 PM
So you'd suggest execution for the rest of us too, if we should get locked up with no hope for trial?

Not unless you were actively trying to kill yourself. If you don't eat, consequently you will die. This isn't complex to understand.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:42 PM
If you go on hunger strike for some protest while confined, are denied due process of law (as there is no evidence to try and convict you of crme you are suspected of), you will want someome to shoot you as a "favor' to you?

Probably if I know what I know about Gitmo. It's dead man walking.

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-10-2013, 02:42 PM
Not unless you were actively trying to kill yourself. If you don't eat, consequently you will die. This isn't complex to understand.
And he's trying to starve himself because he's not being given a trial and has been in guantanamo for years

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 02:43 PM
This couldnt sound more NeoConnish. "Kill em all, let God sort em out". Good Lord. And Beck claims to be a libertarian? He is the same old hawk he always has been. I wonder if he would offer them some Freedom Fries as a last meal?

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 02:44 PM
Probably if I know what I know about Gitmo. It's dead man walking.

Will your shooter be murderer in yoiur view who should be punished or not in such a scenario?

juleswin
07-10-2013, 02:45 PM
So it's a stunt? They still won't let them go. Beck is crass and insensitive, but I don't have a problem with his logical conclusion in this particular instance, when one realizes that they have no options. Like it or not, they are going to rot there. We can pontificate for days and it won't change their fate.

Just imagine say a sheep herder who unfortunately got himself sold off to the US army as a terrorists. He is arrested and locked up in Gitmo even before he has a chance to defend himself. The govt cannot charge him because they have no evidence against him so he is locked in isolated and treated like a farm animal years.

Now to kill this person using the only move available to him to protest his detention is not what I consider to be a liberty policy. Maybe their attempt will fail, but I don't think they deserve to be executed for trying.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:46 PM
Will your shooter be murderer in yoiur view who should be punished or not in such a scenario?

No, since I chose my fate. Not eating = Russian Roulette.

juleswin
07-10-2013, 02:47 PM
This couldnt sound more NeoConnish. "Kill em all, let God sort em out". Good Lord. And Beck claims to be a libertarian? He is the same old hawk he always has been. I wonder if he would offer them some Freedom Fries as a last meal?

That or he is trying to sound controversial to get his fading radio show in the news again.

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 02:47 PM
No, since I chose my fate. Not eating = Russian Roulette.

So anyone who kills any hunger striker protester is not guilty of murder. Right?

amy31416
07-10-2013, 02:48 PM
Not unless you were actively trying to kill yourself. If you don't eat, consequently you will die. This isn't complex to understand.

Yes. It's me who's too stupid to understand.

You aren't the kind of person who asks "why?" are you? I know many like you, and they either fear the answers or know it will expose them for the mind-numbingly callous people they are. These are human beings, and they don't want to kill themselves...this is a last resort to get heard.

That isn't that complex to understand, is it?

amy31416
07-10-2013, 02:49 PM
So anyone who kill any hunger striker protester is not guiklty of murder. Right?

Don't forget the anorexics, bulimics or people who are too sick to eat!

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:49 PM
So anyone who kill any hunger striker protester is not guiklty of murder. Right?

It would be humane to not feed them. The feds shouldn't be violating their rights as bizarre as it sounds in this case.

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 02:51 PM
It would be humane to not feed them. The feds shouldn't be violating their rights as bizarre as it sounds in this case.

Ok, but you didn't answer the question though.

So anyone who kills any hunger striker protester is not guilty of murder. Right?

Cap
07-10-2013, 02:52 PM
"Well now, what have you done for liberty today Cap?"
"Well I shot some scum Gitmo hunger strike detainees in the head. All in the name of freedom mind you."

Screw you Glenn Beck following dirtbags.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:53 PM
Yes. It's me who's too stupid to understand.

You aren't the kind of person who asks "why?" are you? I know many like you, and they either fear the answers or know it will expose them for the mind-numbingly callous people they are. These are human beings, and they don't want to kill themselves...this is a last resort to get heard.
That isn't that complex to understand, is it?

And a pathetic bluff to boot. You either want to die or you don't. Like I said, all these stunts aren't getting them freed or processed anytime soon. Embrace the suck or move onto the next world. THOSE are the only 2 choices unfortunately, unless a massive tidal wave renders the facility porous.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:54 PM
Ok, but you didn't answer the question though.

So anyone who kills any hunger striker protester is not guilty of murder. Right?

Not someone who has consciously willed to kill themselves via starvation as opposed to observing Ramadan.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 02:56 PM
Not someone who has consciously willed to kill themselves via starvation as opposed to observing Ramadan.


You do understand that is murder right?

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 02:57 PM
And a pathetic bluff to boot. You either want to die or you don't. Like I said, all these stunts aren't getting them freed or processed anytime soon. Embrace the suck or move onto the next world. THOSE are the only 2 choices unfortunately, unless a massive tidal wave renders the facility porous.

I wouldnt want to be in a foxhole with you

juleswin
07-10-2013, 02:57 PM
And a pathetic bluff to boot. You either want to die or you don't. Like I said, all these stunts aren't getting them freed or processed anytime soon. Embrace the suck or move onto the next world. THOSE are the choices.

Where exactly did you get the idea that their goal is to die from starvation? My guess is that you also think that the Chinese fella who stood in front of the Tank at Tianaman square wanted to be run over. If I were you, I will stop posting and come back tomorrow and say that you were drunk when you put up all those homicidal posts

brushfire
07-10-2013, 02:58 PM
Heeeees... Shilltastic!!

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 02:58 PM
Not someone who has consciously willed to kill themselves via starvation as opposed to observing Ramadan.

Now you are trying to confuse a very simple question or running away from your stance 5 min ago.

You are implying that hunger striking protestors are fair game for murder.

I'm trying to clarify if your implication applies too hunger striking protesters of all races colors religions etc or only some but you are being cagy now. Oh well.

cajuncocoa
07-10-2013, 02:58 PM
So glad Beck is coming around. :rolleyes:

AuH20
07-10-2013, 02:59 PM
You do understand that is murder right?

Murder is usually defined as premiditated homicide for the aggressor's benefit.

Brett85
07-10-2013, 02:59 PM
I probably would've said something like this a few years ago. However, I've come around to the idea of due process for all individuals, although I would still prefer that they be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 03:02 PM
Murder is usually defined as premiditated homicide for the aggressor's benefit.

So assisted suicide is not murder then? If some old man in a nursing home loses his will to live and stops eating do you shoot him in the head too to help get him out of his misery?

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 03:03 PM
So glad Beck is coming around. :rolleyes:

Yep, coming around towards violent hate crime mongering.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 03:04 PM
So assisted suicide is not murder then? If some old man in a nursing home loses his will to live and stops eating do you shoot him in the head too to help get him out of his misery?

If the old man came up to me pleading for death, I'd certainly entertain it. But I'm not going to interpret their actions via observation and kill him. LOL I assume the very same questioning would be given to the stunt performers in Gitmo, so you could filter through the fakes.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 03:06 PM
Now you are trying to confuse a very simple question or running away from your stance 5 min ago.

You are implying that hunger striking protestors are fair game for murder.

I'm trying to clarify if your implication applies too hunger striking protesters of all races colors religions etc or only some but you are being cagy now. Oh well.

Read post #58. My implication applies to all.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 03:08 PM
I probably would've said something like this a few years ago. However, I've come around to the idea of due process for all individuals, although I would still prefer that they be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

Beck is trying to be sensational and off-the-cuff, but when you logically analyze his comments against what is transpiring in Gitmo they aren't so outrageous. Insensitive, un-PC but not that far off-target.

Antischism
07-10-2013, 03:09 PM
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/87500/Glenn-Beck-s-Last-Show-on-Fox---87651.jpg

cajuncocoa
07-10-2013, 03:09 PM
@AuH20: I wouldn't want you on my jury if ever I'm accused of a crime I didn't commit. :mad:

The Free Hornet
07-10-2013, 03:09 PM
Murder is usually defined as premiditated homicide for the aggressor's benefit.

Not "usually", in point of fact: never. The key is "unlawful" not "benefit".


mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
Noun
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb
Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Take a break already.

cajuncocoa
07-10-2013, 03:11 PM
A little OT, but whenever you wonder if the liberty movement is being co-opted.....remember this thread.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 03:14 PM
@AuH20: I wouldn't want you on my jury if ever I'm accused of a crime I didn't commit. :mad:

I think you're being melodramatic because I have a far more objective viewpoint than you do. I see the world as it is, as opposed to what you WANT IT TO BE. Secondly, you would want me on your jury for that very reason.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 03:15 PM
A little OT, but whenever you wonder if the liberty movement is being co-opted.....remember this thread.

So we disagree and now I'm attempting to co-opt the movement? You surely can't be serious.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 03:15 PM
A little OT, but whenever you wonder if the liberty movement is being co-opted.....remember this thread.


+rep

cajuncocoa
07-10-2013, 03:16 PM
I think you're being melodramatic because I have a far more objective viewpoint than you do. I see the world as it is, as opposed to what you WANT IT TO BE. Secondly, you would want me on your jury for that very reason.

I don't know about that. It sounds as though you have your mind made up about Gitmo prisoners already without the benefit of evidence or trial. Just execute 'em and let Allah sort it out, eh?

cajuncocoa
07-10-2013, 03:17 PM
So we disagree and now I'm attempting to co-opt the movement? You surely can't be serious.

Did I mention you? :rolleyes:

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 03:17 PM
Read post #58. My implication applies to all.


So in your view hunger striking protesters of all races/religions/colors are fair game for someone to take them out. Gotcha.

Good thing Gandhi or Tianenmen Square students were not hunger striking in yours or Becks neighborhood.



http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/gandhi-233x300.jpg (http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/gandhi.jpg)Mohandas Gandhi: The modern-day pioneer of civil disobedience, Mahatma Gandhi went on several hunger strikes in his life. In the fall of 1924, he underwent a three-week fast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi) in an attempt to reconcile warring factions of Hindus and Muslims that had grown apart since he’d been in prison. In 1932, when the Indian government established separate electorates for “untouchables,” Gandhi underwent a six-day hunger strike that led to better and more equal arrangements. He also performed a three-week hunger strike for purification in spring 1933. He used fasting liberally as a way to make a political statement and call attention to his crusade for political equity.
http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/marion_dunlop-150x150.jpg (http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/marion_dunlop.jpg)Marion Dunlop: Hunger strikes were a popular tool for suffragettes in the early 20th century, but the first woman to undertake one was Marion Wallace Dunlop. A member of the Women’s Social and Political Union, Dunlop was charged with willful damage for throwing rocks through the windows of 10 Downing Street and sent to prison in July 1909. Inside, she went on a hunger strike that ran for 91 hours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Wallace_Dunlop) — just shy of four full days — before she was released because of failing health. As a result of her actions, the British government introduced a force-feeding policy that fall for their prisons that aimed to prohibit hunger strikes. In 1913, the government passed the Prisoner’s Temporary Discharge of Ill Health Act, which allowed hunger strikes and discharged sick inmates but brought them back after recuperation to finish their sentences.
http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/alice_paul-150x150.jpg (http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/alice_paul.jpg)Alice Paul: An American suffragette, Alice Paul fought to get women the right to vote with passion and tenacity. Hunger strikes were a powerful tool for suffragettes, and Paul went on one while imprisoned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Paul) in 1917 at Virginia’s Occoquan Workhouse to protest the poor conditions. (She’d been arrested for “obstructing traffic” with a protest.) Her hunger strike got her a ticket to the psych ward, where she was force-fed raw eggs, but her protest served a larger purpose by helping fan the flames of public opinion. In 1918, President Wilson spoke of the need for suffrage, and women earned the right to vote in 1920 with the Nineteenth Amendment. Paul also wrote an Equal Rights Amendment, though a version of the ERA wouldn’t show up until 1972.
http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/thomas_ashe-150x150.jpg (http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/thomas_ashe.jpg)Thomas Ashe: More than a few famous hunger strikers hailed from Ireland, like Thomas Ashe. A founding member of the Irish volunteers, Ashe fought in the Easter Rising of 1916 to protest British rule. They won a major battle but ultimately lost, and Ashe and others went to prison. He led a hunger strike of other prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ashe) in May 1917 and was freed in June under a general amnesty after reports got out about prisoners being abused. His freedom was short-lived: he was arrested in August for giving a seditious speech, and he went on another hunger strike when reimprisoned. He died September 25 after prison officials force-fed him. His death warranted an inquest at which a jury found the prison staff for performing “acts of unfeeling and barbaric conduct.”
http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/terence_macswiney-138x150.jpg (http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/terence_macswiney.jpg)Terence MacSwiney: One of the men who took their cue from Thomas Ashe, Terence MacSwiney was another Irish leader thrown in prison for protesting the British. He was first arrested in November 1917, not long after Ashe died, for wearing an Irish Republican Army uniform. He went on a hunger strike for three days before his release. He was elected Lord Mayor of Cork in 1920 but jailed that August for possessing seditious materials (there’s definitely a pattern to these incarcerations), and he immediately went on another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_MacSwiney#Hunger_strike) hunger strike to protest his unfair trial by a military court. He was joined by eleven other men in the hunger protest. That strike got him worldwide press and earned scorn for the British government. Prison officials tried in vain to force-feed him, and on October 20, 1920, MacSwiney fell into a coma. He died five days later; his hunger strike lasted 74 days, more than 10 weeks. His posthumously published Principles of Freedom preserved his legacy.



http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mia_farrow-150x150.jpg (http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mia_farrow.jpg)Mia Farrow: In 2009, actress and activist Mia Farrow began a hunger strike to protest the conflict in Darfur. She also blogged about her experience and posted video updates to YouTube (though these have since been switched to private). Before beginning the fast, she wrote that she planned to go for three weeks (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mia-farrow/my-hunger-strike-for-darf_b_188741.html) without food, but a doctor put an end to her strike after 12 days (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b123060_doctor_calls_off_mia_farrows_hunger.html), citing severe health risks. With her blood sugar plummeting, she passed off the hunger strike to Richard Branson, who took over for three days.
http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/tianenmen_square-150x150.jpg (http://www.bachelorsdegree.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/tianenmen_square.jpg)Tianenmen students: The 1989 student protests in China’s Tianenmen Square are largely remembered today for the iconic image of a lone man standing in front of a row of tanks. But the protests, which ran for weeks, also included the use of mass hunger strikes as people took to the square to protest a host of issues. In May, a group of 100,000 students and workers marched to demand better communication between the government and student-elected representatives. When the government rejected their requests, hundreds of students responded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989#Protests_escalat e) by going on hunger strikes for one week. Their activities in turn inspired students at campuses nationwide, and the hunger strikes helped them gain broader support while also showing to Chinese authorities just how serious these protests had become. Hunger strikes are never safe, but Tianenmen Square showed that they can make for powerful statements against oppression.

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 03:19 PM
I probably would've said something like this a few years ago. However, I've come around to the idea of due process for all individuals, although I would still prefer that they be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.
Well then,

Talk to me in a few more years.

FFS this thread is depressing.

Brett85
07-10-2013, 03:20 PM
Well then,

Talk to me in a few more years.

FFS this thread is depressing.

I have the same position that Rand Paul has, which is that civilian courts are meant for U.S citizens suspected of a crime while military courts are meant for foreigners suspected of committing an act of war against the United States. Those who we suspect of terrorism can receive due process and justice through military courts.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 03:21 PM
I don't know about that. It sounds as though you have your mind made up about Gitmo prisoners already without the benefit of evidence or trial. Just execute 'em and let Allah sort it out, eh?

No No No No No No No. Read my post #12, which I took the luxury of retrieving for you. I told you what is transpiring in Gitmo is wrong. With that said, nothing can be done unless something miraculous occurs in terms of policy. In other words, they are probably going to starve to death if they want to continue to play high stakes poker.


Let's examine the facts and situation on the ground, as opposed to hypotheticals. Release or due process isn't an option given the government's rigid policy of no due process.

#1 They are not being allowed due process, which is wrong.
#2 166 have decided to go on a hunger strike, accepting death as the answer

Why the hell are they feeding them? Obviously, if I was POTUS I would expedite the due process claims via military tribunals and likely filter the small minority innocent of their charges. But right now, given the situation, it's wrong to keep them alive against their will. They shouldn't be feeding them.

jbauer
07-10-2013, 03:22 PM
So assisted suicide is not murder then? If some old man in a nursing home loses his will to live and stops eating do you shoot him in the head too to help get him out of his misery?

If said old man is me, then yes shoot me please.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 03:22 PM
If the old man came up to me pleading for death, I'd certainly entertain it. But I'm not going to interpret their actions via observation and kill him. LOL I assume the very same questioning would be given to the stunt performers in Gitmo, so you could filter through the fakes.

You may have missed your calling. I hear being a mercinary pays very well.

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 03:24 PM
I have the same position that Rand Paul has, which is that civilian courts are meant for U.S citizens suspected of a crime while military courts are meant for foreigners suspected of committing an act of war against the United States. Those who we suspect of terrorism can receive due process and justice through military courts.
Until you are labeled an enemy combatant and subsequently receive the same thing.

Progression.

It would be wise not to advocate military tribunals for such vaguely defined words such as "enemy combatant."

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 03:24 PM
I have the same position that Rand Paul has, which is that civilian courts are meant for U.S citizens suspected of a crime while military courts are meant for foreigners suspected of committing an act of war against the United States. Those who we suspect of terrorism can receive due process and justice through military courts.

And those suspected of being potential homegrown terrorists like Ron Paul supporters who legally could be thrown into Gitmo?

JK/SEA
07-10-2013, 03:25 PM
is it possible some of these GITMO prisoners are innocent?...or perhaps all of them are innocent?.....or should i just assume they're all guilty?

AuH20
07-10-2013, 03:27 PM
is it possible some of these GITMO prisoners are innocent?...or perhaps all of them are innocent?.....

Mathematically speaking, there has to be innocent Gitmo prisoners who were erroneously trawled by the U.S. military.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 03:27 PM
is it possible some of these GITMO prisoners are innocent?...or perhaps all of them are innocent?.....

Fck no..hell no! 'Murica!

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 03:28 PM
So assisted suicide is not murder then? If some old man in a nursing home loses his will to live and stops eating do you shoot him in the head too to help get him out of his misery?
Assisted suicide and executing protesting prisoners are not even remotely related. No matter how much AuH20 has been trying to paint a correlation between.

One is right, a right, the right over your body. The other is executing protesting prisoners.

JK/SEA
07-10-2013, 03:28 PM
Mathematically speaking, there has to be innocent Gitmo prisoners who were erroneously trawled by the U.S. military.

but you're in favor of shooting them in the head?

cajuncocoa
07-10-2013, 03:29 PM
Let's examine the facts and situation on the ground, as opposed to hypotheticals. Release or due process isn't an option given the government's rigid policy of no due process.

#1 They are not being allowed due process, which is wrong.
#2 166 have decided to go on a hunger strike, accepting death as the answer

Why the hell are they feeding them? Obviously, if I was POTUS I would expedite the due process claims via military tribunals and likely filter the small minority innocent of their charges. But right now, given the situation, it's wrong to keep them alive against their will. They shouldn't be feeding them.

You do realize that there is a great difference between what you said (emboldened) and "shooting them in the head".....right?

KEEF
07-10-2013, 03:30 PM
I'm out of +rep Brother. Somebody help me out.
Got it for you.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 03:32 PM
Assisted suicide and executing protesting prisoners are not even remotely related. No matter how much AuH20 has been trying to paint a correlation between.

One is right, a right, the right over your body. The other is executing protesting prisoners.

If you assist someone in killing themself you will be tried for murder.

enhanced_deficit
07-10-2013, 03:36 PM
Mathematically speaking, there has to be innocent Gitmo prisoners who were erroneously trawled by the U.S. military.


but you're in favor of shooting them in the head?

Befre we even accuse Beck of advocating war crimes, AuH you are supporting killing of people you admit include innocents which would be a war crime?

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 03:51 PM
If you assist someone in killing themself you will be tried for murder.
True but that is wrong. Someone who is in insufferable pain ought to be allowed relief from that pain. Either you own your body, or you do not. Me personally, if I am terminally cancerous, I will weigh the options. Having seen people go through chemotherapy, I can say I probably will not. I am not willing to accept the notion that the state has some sort of right or knowledge to declare what is right or best for me. The decision would not and should not be taken lightly, whatever I choose. (regardless of what the law is)

The prisoners aren't wishing to die and wouldn't be protesting if they were simply given a trial. Much of the sentiment is that they simply would like to see their family again. I am not naive, some would attack us if released. That is part of the reason we shouldn't be presenting them with opportunities by having this heavy presence in the region. I'd note too that some of it would be blowback. That is, they had no intention of attacking the US until they were kept for however many hundreds of days and treated worse than a lot of livestock. That is why Barack Obama will not release them. No one will.

They are hunger striking because it is all they can do to bring attention to their situation, not because they want to die. AuH20's absurd comparison to Russian roulette aside.

amy31416
07-10-2013, 03:56 PM
And a pathetic bluff to boot. You either want to die or you don't. Like I said, all these stunts aren't getting them freed or processed anytime soon. Embrace the suck or move onto the next world. THOSE are the only 2 choices unfortunately, unless a massive tidal wave renders the facility porous.

Except that it's NOT a bluff.

Jesus.

And what do you mean by "all these stunts?" They've been rotting in there for over ten years. This is the only "stunt" that I can imagine you might be referring to.

I guess it is too tough to understand if you have absolutely zero empathy.

ZENemy
07-10-2013, 03:56 PM
LOL

What do you expect from an ACTOR?

Occam's Banana
07-10-2013, 03:58 PM
You're being quite the little death-monger today, aren't you? From expressing disappointment because Adam Kokesh didn't go out in some kind of bullet-riddled blaze of glory, to this ...


Regardless, they are starving themselves to die. I don't think there is much to say beyond that. They are not being allowed due process for whatever convoluted reason, so they want to end their lives. So what's the big deal? This is beyond our control and Beck's rhetoric while being insensitive is spot-on.

Beck's rhetoric is witlessly asinine. It is just "shock jock" bombast and is it worth every bit as much.

The blindingly obvious fact that Gitmo inmates do NOT "want to die" (and why they are engaging in hunger-strike tactics) has already been spelled out for you. It simply is not credible that you do not understand this.


Secondly, you would want me on your jury for that very reason.

I wouldn't want someone as willfully obtuse (or as blood-thirsty) as you anywhere near "my" jury ...


I think you're being melodramatic because I have a far more objective viewpoint than you do. I see the world as it is, as opposed to what you WANT IT TO BE.

I think you are being self-servingly pompous. In the Adam Kokesh thread, you were going on about how SWAT stormtroopers "can't just" do things that they manifestly can and do "just do." Apparently, your so-called "objective viewpoint" is, in fact, a highly subjective and selective one filled with things as you want them to be ...


In this country, you can't send a goon squad to destroy someone for exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

SWAT teams can't just run roughshod over citizens with lethal force and not consider this a gross violation of our former compact.

amy31416
07-10-2013, 03:59 PM
I wouldnt want to be in a foxhole with you

He doesn't realize that he's part of the reason for all the suck.

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 04:09 PM
You're being quite the little death-monger today, aren't you? From expressing disappointment because Adam Kokesh didn't go out in some kind of bullet-riddled blaze of glory, to this ...

Can someone please rep this for me?

AuH20
07-10-2013, 04:25 PM
Befre we even accuse Beck of advocating war crimes, AuH you are supporting killing of people you admit include innocents which would be a war crime?. I'm stating that if a suicidal Gitmo inmate came to me with clearly worded death wish, I would oblige him. There are minor degrees separating self-imposed starvation and a mercy killing.Obviously you would want to filter the phonies.

cajuncocoa
07-10-2013, 04:29 PM
Can someone please rep this for me?

Gotcha covered.

Brett85
07-10-2013, 04:38 PM
And those suspected of being potential homegrown terrorists like Ron Paul supporters who legally could be thrown into Gitmo?

Didn't I pretty clearly say that all American citizens should have the right to a civilian trial?

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 05:09 PM
Didn't I pretty clearly say that all American citizens should have the right to a civilian trial?
I like this quote and think it aptly applies. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

You pretty clearly did say that. Maybe the next president down the line clearly misinterprets your words. Maybe a few presidents later, no one gives a fuck what you said.

I'm also not too keen on this idea that rights are different for Americans than they are for other people. That's a slippery slope. Rights are just that - Rights. They don't change simply because you were born somewhere else. If military tribunals are acceptable for people there, they ought to be acceptable for people here. And vise versa. If they are not acceptable for people from here, then they ought not be acceptable for people from there.

I don't particularly accept the notion that it is more suitable or that regular courts aren't able to fulfill the requirements. If anything quite the opposite. I'd imagine a military tribunal having a certain aura about it. That is, you're guilty. I think the courts would be biased, inadequate for justice or the presentation of evidence, and lack a jury to hear your defense. That is what comes to mind when thinking of a military tribunal. Walk in, the judge promptly looks at your case, promptly convicts you based on little evidence or none whatsoever and you promptly face a firing squad. Not exactly sounding like "Land of the Free." Frankly doesn't sound like "Home of the Brave," either. Just not what America stands for. Or so I was led to believe.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 05:20 PM
Didn't I pretty clearly say that all American citizens should have the right to a civilian trial?

Which ties into the non-interventionist model. On one hand, you can't project a non-interventionist approach and then adopt the global citizen model. It does not compute.

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 05:23 PM
Which ties into the non-interventionist model. On one hand, you can't project a non-interventionist approach and then adopt the global citizen model. It does not compute.
They wouldn't be considered citizens.

They are still people though, as far as I can tell.

satchelmcqueen
07-10-2013, 05:25 PM
so whats the big deal? murder maybe...? or assisted suicide...? or wrong either way?
Regardless, they are starving themselves to die. I don't think there is much to say beyond that. They are not being allowed due process for whatever convoluted reason, so they want to end their lives. So what's the big deal? This is beyond our control and Beck's rhetoric while being insensitive is spot-on.

Brett85
07-10-2013, 05:25 PM
I don't particularly accept the notion that it is more suitable or that regular courts aren't able to fulfill the requirements. If anything quite the opposite. I'd imagine a military tribunal having a certain aura about it. That is, you're guilty. I think the courts would be biased, inadequate for justice or the presentation of evidence, and lack a jury to hear your defense. That is what comes to mind when thinking of a military tribunal. Walk in, the judge promptly looks at your case, promptly convicts you based on little evidence or none whatsoever and you promptly face a firing squad. Not exactly sounding like "Land of the Free." Frankly doesn't sound like "Home of the Brave," either. Just not what America stands for. Or so I was led to believe.

Then you have absolutely no knowledge of how military tribunals have worked in the past. A lot of people tried in military tribunals have been found innocent.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 05:27 PM
You're being quite the little death-monger today, aren't you? From expressing disappointment because Adam Kokesh didn't go out in some kind of bullet-riddled blaze of glory, to this ...

Given what we know about Adam's potential charges, that bullet riddled blaze of glory is starting to look appealing right about now.



I think you are being self-servingly pompous. In the Adam Kokesh thread, you were going on about how SWAT stormtroopers "can't just" do things that they manifestly can and do "just do." Apparently, your so-called "objective viewpoint" is, in fact, a highly subjective and selective one filled with things as you want them to be ...

There is nothing subjective about my analysis. I did not set up the facility at Guantanamo Bay. I did not start the WoT. I did not force anyone to strike back against the Great Satan. I did not create the indefinite detention policy that will likely keep the aforementioned imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives. Those are the facts and while you may not like them, we cannot ignore them.

Brett85
07-10-2013, 05:27 PM
Which ties into the non-interventionist model. On one hand, you can't project a non-interventionist approach and then adopt the global citizen model. It does not compute.

Some of these people seem to think that we have a World Constitution, that if someone in Germany gets murdered, we have to investigate the case and try the suspected murderer in a U.S civilian court, since everyone in the entire world is entitled to a jury trial in the United States under the 6th amendment.

pacelli
07-10-2013, 05:27 PM
he should lead by example. him first.

Ender
07-10-2013, 05:33 PM
I'm out of +rep Brother. Somebody help me out.

Done.

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 05:37 PM
Then you have absolutely no knowledge of how military tribunals have worked in the past. A lot of people tried in military tribunals have been found innocent.
I would imagine conviction rates are even higher than Federal Courts. I would be interested in specifics if you can find any.

I found this interesting..


The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings. Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon, for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President. The U. S. Supreme Court agreed, and unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).
I don't like the idea of rubber stamped court proceedings. Perhaps there are instances of justice being served through a military tribunal, I am not educated enough on the topic to say. The idea is frightening. Slippery slope is slippery. Americans weren't assassinated without conviction either. Until they were. The vague redefining of enemy combatant and imminent threat is concerning as well. Can Americans be arbitrarily labeled an enemy combatant? Took them long enough to answer, as dodging as it was.

We must look at our foreign policy. If we weren't in every country around the world I fail to see us getting attacked enough to warrant military tribunals. The few who actually came here and attacked us still, after we left their country and apologized for the misery, could be tried in a civilian court. They'd be few and far between.

Brett85
07-10-2013, 05:43 PM
This says that the conviction rate is higher in federal courts.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/civilians-courts-vs-military-courts-terrorism/64489/

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 05:44 PM
Some of these people seem to think that we have a World Constitution, that if someone in Germany gets murdered, we have to investigate the case and try the suspected murderer in a U.S civilian court, since everyone in the entire world is entitled to a jury trial in the United States under the 6th amendment.
By now, your misrepresentations are getting a little old. Doesn't help your argument, for one, and for two, it is annoying.

Just like I'm for every single driver in America to drink while driving and run over babies, right?

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 05:49 PM
This says that the conviction rate is higher in federal courts.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/civilians-courts-vs-military-courts-terrorism/64489/
That article hurt to read but gave me some insight into AuH20's comments.

You could be right though. Conviction rates are something around 90%, IIRC. (for Federal Courts)

VoluntaryAmerican
07-10-2013, 06:00 PM
Wow these three assholes jackals are such fools... laughing and giggling about torture and murder! :mad:

A Son of Liberty
07-10-2013, 06:01 PM
For pity's sake, Goldwater, give it a break. It's pretty obvious what the chimp Beck was getting at, and you trying to sell your position as somehow sympathetic is, well, pathetic.

Fuck's sake! Glenn Beck is a retarded chimpanzee. I can't believe ANYONE associated with Ron Paul is the slightest bit sympathetic to him. Other than some of his views on economics, there isn't the slightest bit of common ground between Ron Paul and Glenn Beck.

Fuck... let someone utter some variation of the word "liberty" and some folks around here will absolutely fall over themselves to run to their side.

Shoot them in the head? What a bunch of fucking simpletons...

Brett85
07-10-2013, 06:12 PM
By now, your misrepresentations are getting a little old. Doesn't help your argument, for one, and for two, it is annoying.

Just like I'm for every single driver in America to drink while driving and run over babies, right?

What misrepresentation? This is what you said.


"I'm also not too keen on this idea that rights are different for Americans than they are for other people."

If rights for non Americans are exactly the same as rights for Americans, then why aren't we trying people who are suspected of murder in foreign countries in U.S civilian courts? If non Americans have the exact same legal rights as Americans, they should receive a trial by jury in an American court when they are arrested.

A Son of Liberty
07-10-2013, 06:17 PM
WTF is a "legal right"? Is that some bullshit people say when their logical premise it utterly flawed? I think it is.

There is no such thing as a "legal right". There are rights; they are derived from our humanity... and they apply to every single one of us human beings equally, regardless of where on the planet they happened to be born.

Occam's Banana
07-10-2013, 06:31 PM
Given what we know about Adam's potential charges, that bullet riddled blaze of glory is starting to look appealing right about now.

How generous of you to volunteer someone else's life on behalf of your convictions (the very epitome of big-talking cowardice) ...


There is nothing subjective about my analysis. I did not set up the facility at Guantanamo Bay. I did not start the WoT. I did not force anyone to strike back against the Great Satan. I did not create the indefinite detention policy that will likely keep the aforementioned imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives. Those are the facts and while you may not like them, we cannot ignore them.

Your "analysis" is utterly subjective. Not a single one of those "facts" you mention has got a goddam thing to do with putting bullets in the skulls of hunger strikers.

Furthermore - as the two quotes I cited from the Kokesh thread demonstrate - your use for "facts" (and looking at the world as it is rather than as one would like it to be) seems to apply only to the extent that they allow you to make pronouncements about how "appealing" the deaths of people other than yourself would be.

If you are not serious, then you are engaging in a particularly ugly & fetid bit of trolling.

If you are serious, then you are a truly warped & twisted individual.

kcchiefs6465
07-10-2013, 06:35 PM
What misrepresentation? This is what you said.


"I'm also not too keen on this idea that rights are different for Americans than they are for other people."

If rights for non Americans are exactly the same as rights for Americans, then why aren't we trying people who are suspected of murder in foreign countries in U.S civilian courts? If non Americans have the exact same legal rights as Americans, they should receive a trial by jury in an American court when they are arrested.
I am going to resist all temptation of screaming text through the computer screen but come on. Are you kidding me?

Perhaps because one has to do with a murder committed in Germany, against a German, and the other has to do with us being attacked here?

State sovereignty?

Germany has their own court system and process for justice?

Someone attacking us here, (which to be clear, ought be the only place they can attack us at. Not the however many hundred military installations and embassies) if caught, should face a federal court where evidence is presented against them and a jury is able to determine whether or not that evidence is credible.

What that has to do with a German killing a German, us investigating it, bringing him here for a jury trial I'll never know. It's almost as if, and forgive me saying, it was a grossly absurd statement/question/misrepresentation.

That's as nice as I can put it. Not trying to be a dick but man my patience is running low. You know what I mean. You choose to misrepresent it to try and make your argument appear more logical. This is case in point, though it was the same in a thread about DUI laws. You actually do it more often than you probably intend to.

Occam's Banana
07-10-2013, 06:48 PM
If rights for non Americans are exactly the same as rights for Americans, then why aren't we trying people who are suspected of murder in foreign countries in U.S civilian courts? If non Americans have the exact same legal rights as Americans, they should receive a trial by jury in an American court when they are arrested.

Those are what is known in the logic business as non sequiturs.

The possession of rights by all human beings everywhere neither implies nor necessitates the application of any particular extant system of legalisms. What it does imply and necessitate is that if and when a particular person (regardless of place of origin) does happen to fall under the purview of this or that particular legal system, the rights of that person must be observed and afforded the appropriate respect if justice is to be accomplished.

Peace Piper
07-10-2013, 06:50 PM
Yet another fascinating and enlightening thread.

I figured if I hung out here long enough I'd see someone call for shooting hunger strikers in the head. Wait- that was another place. Double checking the URL is necessary on every forum these days.

Oh yeah- Eff Glenn Beck (won't be too long before this is forgotten and someone says -again-"Maybe He's Starting To GET IT now!)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1841/glennbeckasjoker.jpg

A 2 bit punk clown con artist.

His mental condition is getting worse by the day. This might be fun to watch.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 06:54 PM
Those are what is known in the logic business as non sequiturs.

The possession of rights by all human beings everywhere neither implies nor necessitates the application of any particular extant system of legalisms. What it does imply and necessitate is that if and when a particular person (regardless of place of origin) does happen to fall under the purview of this or that particular legal system, the rights of that person must be observed and afforded the appropriate respect if justice is to be accomplished.

And the dispensing of this universal justice shall be paid by???????????? Once again this noble theory is shattered by the uncomfortable nature of reality. Neoconservatives want to promote democracy around the world and I suspect that you want to provide our justice system to the world. So what is it? Are we are all global citizens or is the rest of the world secretly our citizens, so we can tell them what to do?

Occam's Banana
07-10-2013, 07:12 PM
And the dispensing of this universal justice shall be paid by???????????? Once again this noble theory is shattered by the uncomfortable nature of reality. Neoconservatives want to promote democracy around the world and I suspect that you want to provide our justice system to the world. So what is it? Are we are all global citizens or is the rest of the world secretly our citizens, so we can tell them what to do?

That is the exact & utter opposite of what I said, in almost every possible way. Every single sentence in your post oozes with profound reading comprehension fail. (You should probably just refrain from further comment before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.)

Brett85
07-10-2013, 07:33 PM
WTF is a "legal right"? Is that some bullshit people say when their logical premise it utterly flawed? I think it is.

There is no such thing as a "legal right". There are rights; they are derived from our humanity... and they apply to every single one of us human beings equally, regardless of where on the planet they happened to be born.

Wasn't that the justification for invading Iraq, that since rights are universal it's necessary to use force to spread freedom around the world? If everyone around the world deserves the same rights that we have in the U.S, that's simply a justification to invade foreign countries in order to convert them to our legal system and to ensure that their people have the exact same rights that our people have. You and others don't seem to realize that you're advocating a globalist/internationalist philosophy.

Feeding the Abscess
07-10-2013, 07:36 PM
If you believe in assisted suicide

That wouldn't be assisted suicide, it'd be murder. It would only be assisted suicide if the inmates asked for help in ending their life.

A Son of Liberty
07-10-2013, 07:37 PM
Wasn't that the justification for invading Iraq, that since rights are universal it's necessary to use force to spread freedom around the world? If everyone around the world deserves the same rights that we have in the U.S, that's simply a justification to invade foreign countries in order to convert them to our legal system and to ensure that their people have the exact same rights that our people have. You and others don't seem to realize that you're advocating a globalist/internationalist philosophy.

Not at all. I reject your conception of "law". I only recognize natural law.

Brett85
07-10-2013, 07:40 PM
Not at all. I reject your conception of "law". I only recognize natural law.

How exactly can the people of a specific country get their government to protect these "natural laws" or "natural rights?"

AuH20
07-10-2013, 07:42 PM
How exactly can the people of a specific country get their government to protect these "natural laws" or "natural rights?"

<Dun dun dun dun>

A Son of Liberty
07-10-2013, 07:49 PM
How exactly can the people of a specific country get their government to protect these "natural laws" or "natural rights?"

"the people of a specific country" is an imaginary concept. There are no countries. There is no "people". There are only persons.

Someone drew a line around you and gave you a new name, and for some reason you just accept it. I mean, I "accept" it as the imposed reality, but I also understand that it is in fact imposed rather than natural. And the sooner you and the millions like you accept the nature of humanity, the sooner we human beings have the opportunity to reach our fullest potential.

The fact is, there is no place in nature for your countries, your "people", nor for your laws. And the longer you and the likes of you keep us on such a path, the more likely you are to lead us all to utter ruin, as with all things that stand in the face of nature.

A Son of Liberty
07-10-2013, 07:51 PM
<Dun dun dun dun>

Busch league.

ghengis86
07-10-2013, 07:54 PM
The US Constitution was written to apply to and restrict the US GOVERNMENT.

And anyone who is continuing to shove food in their mouths and obviously is wanting to die from obesity, they ought to be shot in the face with 00 buckshot.

This thread is so full of fail...

I'm going to pour a big glass of whiskey and forgot I ever read this thread

Feeding the Abscess
07-10-2013, 07:55 PM
How exactly can the people of a specific country get their government to protect these "natural laws" or "natural rights?"

They can't. You can't give monopolistic authority to a ruling entity over courts, military, and police and expect that monopoly institution to limit its own authority. You're making the quintessential anarchist argument.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-10-2013, 07:59 PM
People here are actually defending military tribunals and attacking civil disobedience...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O1hM-k3aUY

jonhowe
07-10-2013, 07:59 PM
Not unless you were actively trying to kill yourself. If you don't eat, consequently you will die. This isn't complex to understand.

I feel like many things in this world must go over your head.

Do people commit civil disobedience because they like going to jail? Did Jesus turn the other cheek because he liked getting hit? Did the boston tea partiers dress up like native americans because they wanted to BE native americans? And make the ocean into tea?
Is this a troll thread?

Christian Liberty
07-10-2013, 08:03 PM
WTF is a "legal right"? Is that some bullshit people say when their logical premise it utterly flawed? I think it is.

There is no such thing as a "legal right". There are rights; they are derived from our humanity... and they apply to every single one of us human beings equally, regardless of where on the planet they happened to be born.

Well, here's what I mean when I say it.

You ought to have a legal right to use heroin, since you can do whatever unhealthy and even destructive things to your own body that you want. That doesn't make it acceptable, it only means I shouldn't use violence, specifically state sanctioned violence, to stop you from doing it. I'm still going to try to talk you out of it, and say that you have no moral right to destroy God's creation (Yourself) in that manner.

Wasn't that the justification for invading Iraq, that since rights are universal it's necessary to use force to spread freedom around the world? If everyone around the world deserves the same rights that we have in the U.S, that's simply a justification to invade foreign countries in order to convert them to our legal system and to ensure that their people have the exact same rights that our people have. You and others don't seem to realize that you're advocating a globalist/internationalist philosophy.

As an anarchist, he cannot, that would require him to accept taxation, and the State. He does not.

You guys are talking past each other, since you don't understand the anarchist position (I don't 100% either, for the record) and Son of Liberty doesn't really seem to understand the non-anarchist position anymore.

Son of Liberty, just remember none of us were born anarchists. And some of us have none, or in my case, relatively limited, understanding of how you derive your premises. You can't just expect people to understand it without explaining it.

For me personally, Trad Con, I absolutely hold that the people Saddam killed with chemical weapons ought not to have died, it was an absolute violation of their rights. That I live in America does not prevent me from commenting on the situation. I still maintain that it was none of our business to rectify the situation.

Similarly, although I believe that any state that protects the right to legal abortion is violating the rights to countless unborn children, I still maintain that it is not the jurisdiction of the Federal government to intervene. I can simultaneously assert that it is an absolute violation of rights but not the US government's business.

I would argue that its impossible to wage war in the traditional sense without violating the rights of one's own citizens, and that two wrongs never make a right.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 08:06 PM
I feel like many things in this world must go over your head.

Do people commit civil disobedience because they like going to jail? Did Jesus turn the other cheek because he liked getting hit? Did the boston tea partiers dress up like native americans because they wanted to BE native americans? And make the ocean into tea?
Is this a troll thread?

And this hunger strike is going to get them freed and returned to their families? That's fascinating if you ask me. Then again when one is locked up for an extended period of time delusions start to develop.

Christian Liberty
07-10-2013, 08:06 PM
As for Glenn's comment, I completely disagree with him, but I still feel like he is growing. Very slowly, but he is. His conversion isn't going to be like mine, where I went from a full blown neocon to a full blown minarchist in three years. But it may happen yet.

I really have to wait till we have another President from the GOP. If he keeps talking the way he does, he's growing, even if slowly. If he reverts back to his old ideas, it was an act.

In any case, I do occasionally listen in, and it doesn't really hurt me because I know when I disagree. I wouldn't encourage most people to listen in (I'd much more quickly recommend LRC, or even better, RPF) but I'd much prefer people to listen to Beck over O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 08:09 PM
As for Glenn's comment, I completely disagree with him, but I still feel like he is growing. Very slowly, but he is. His conversion isn't going to be like mine, where I went from a full blown neocon to a full blown minarchist in three years. But it may happen yet.

I really have to wait till we have another President from the GOP. If he keeps talking the way he does, he's growing, even if slowly. If he reverts back to his old ideas, it was an act.

In any case, I do occasionally listen in, and it doesn't really hurt me because I know when I disagree. I wouldn't encourage most people to listen in (I'd much more quickly recommend LRC, or even better, RPF) but I'd much prefer people to listen to Beck over O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin.

There are many things to disagree with Beck on. Namely his worship of all things MLK and the benefit of the doubt he affords Abraham Lincoln. But at no point, do I ever stop and say that I don't understand his reasoning for his certain policy stances, nor do I feel alienated by his opinion.

UWDude
07-10-2013, 08:10 PM
And this hunger strike is going to get them freed and returned to their families?

Still going over your head, I see.

Fredom101
07-10-2013, 08:11 PM
He's comin' around, I tells ya!

LOL! Yep, he's a closet libertarian, I just know it! He just says nasty stuff to get all the republicans on his side. :rolleyes:

AuH20
07-10-2013, 08:13 PM
Still going over your head, I see.

Civil disobedience makes powerless individuals feel better about their seemingly hopeless situation. There I said it.

Occam's Banana
07-10-2013, 08:17 PM
Wasn't that the justification for invading Iraq, that since rights are universal it's necessary to use force to spread freedom around the world?

Why don't you go ask someone who actually claims the invasion of Iraq is justified? I know for a fact that ASoL does not.

But even if you get an affirmative response, what makes you think that would militate against anything ASoL said?


If everyone around the world deserves the same rights that we have in the U.S, that's simply a justification to invade foreign countries in order to convert them to our legal system and to ensure that their people have the exact same rights that our people have.

Yet another non sequitur - and a grotesquely egregious one, at that.


You and others don't seem to realize that you're advocating a globalist/internationalist philosophy.

You and others don't seem to realize that you're talking bullshit.

To state that all human beings in all times & places have rights and that those rights must be observed and respected in order for a particular legal system to achieve justice says absolutely nothing whatsoever - in any way, shape or form - about "exporting democracy" or "spreading freedom" or any other such idiotic & pernicious nonsense. What this means - and I will try to spell this out using very simple words and phrases so that you and AuH2O don't get confused - is that if you want a legal system that achieves justice, then you must respect the rights of anyone and everyone who falls under the purview of your legal system. It DOES NOT mean that you have to forcibly impose your legal system on any other country (let alone all of them) - or any other kind of globalist bullshit.

Christian Liberty
07-10-2013, 08:20 PM
There are many things to disagree with Beck on. Namely his worship of all things MLK and the benefit of the doubt he affords Abraham Lincoln. But at no point, do I ever stop and say that I don't understand his reasoning for his certain policy stances, nor do I feel alienated by his opinion.

You know, I generally judge people (Not in the spiritual sense, that's up to God, but in the "Do I support you or not?" sense) based on what they're actually trying to do. My uncle is a pastor and although I think his political views are pretty much awful, particularly on foreign policy, that doesn't mean he's a bad pastor. Ron Paul would be the best President ever, but considering his moral position on homosexuality, I wouldn't exactly want him as my pastor. Glenn Greenwald specializes in civil liberties, and he isn't a politician, so I don't really hold his socialism against him. Snowden just happens to be a Ron Paul supporter, but whether that was true or not would be irrelevant regarding the fact that he's being heroic right now. Exc.

MLK specialized in a moral crusade for racial equality, and for his civil disobedience against an evil system known as "Jim Crow." I know I completely disagree with his economics, and I doubt he agrees wit me (especially considering his views on economics) that a private business should be allowed to discriminate, but he wasn't a politician, and his economics didn't really matter to what he actually did. I still admire the man despite disagreeing with him on many issues not related to what he primarily did with his life.

Glenn Beck is a political commentator (has he actually discussed Lincoln? Do you have a link? Because I'm curious). As such, the entire gamut of his political views is important, because that's what he discussed. If he, like Walter Williams, never really discussed foreign policy, his views on that wouldn't be as important.

Glenn is far better than the other commentators, so I don't begrudge him, but I think he has a lot of work to do before he can even be a moderate libertarian. He's rock solid on some issues and terrible on others. That's better than being terrible across the board, but is inferior to being solid across the board. I guess that's the bottom line.

Danan
07-10-2013, 08:20 PM
Some of these people seem to think that we have a World Constitution, that if someone in Germany gets murdered, we have to investigate the case and try the suspected murderer in a U.S civilian court, since everyone in the entire world is entitled to a jury trial in the United States under the 6th amendment.

What a bunch of BS, sry.

It does not mean that the US government has an obligation to get involved in every rights violation on the entire planet. But it means that if the US government (or any government for that matter) gets involved in anything at all, it ought to respect the natural rights of that person. These rights don't come from your passport and are not granted by the state. So if the US government intervenes when a certain rights violation (supposedly) occurs, it ought to act the same way regardles of the accused's nationality.

That's really not too hard to understand.

Additionally, as already mentioned in this thread, the only legal authority the US government has at all to prosecute people is if they commit crimes on US soil (or maybe also if they plan to attack US soil and are captured outside of its borders). Violent resistence against US military presence by an Iraqi or Afghan in their respective countries can hardly be a good reason for trial before any US court. That's a laughable idea.

Christian Liberty
07-10-2013, 08:21 PM
Why don't you go ask someone who actually claims the invasion of Iraq is justified? I know for a fact that ASoL does not.

But even if you get an affirmative response, what makes you think that would militate against anything ASoL said?



Yet another non sequitur - and a grotesquely egregious one, at that.



You and others don't seem to realize that you're talking bullshit.

To state that all human beings in all times & places have rights and that those rights must be observed and respected in order for a particular legal system to achieve justice says absolutely nothing whatsoever - in any way, shape or form - about "exporting democracy" or "spreading freedom" or any other such idiotic & pernicious nonsense. What this means - and I will try to spell this out using very simple words and phrases so that you and AuH2O don't get confused - is that if you want a legal system that achieves justice, then you must respect the rights of anyone and everyone who falls under the purview of your legal system. It DOES NOT mean that you have to forcibly impose your legal system on any other country (let alone all of them) - or any other kind of globalist bullshit.

Ignoring the insults, I agree with you.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-10-2013, 08:23 PM
So, instead of letting these people free, who are for all intents and purposes have been kidnapped indefinitely, his thesis is, well just shoot them in the head and get on with it. How very Himmler-esque of him. What a buffoon of epic proportions. If the Government had any case against these people they'd have no problem proving it in a court of law...but alas.

mac_hine
07-10-2013, 08:33 PM
Civil disobedience makes powerless individuals feel better about their seemingly hopeless situation. There I said it.

As does voting.

At least with civil disobedience the protester is going outside of the BS "democratic" process of hoping for change by voting for a more benevolent slave master.

AuH20
07-10-2013, 08:34 PM
As does voting.

Agreed.

Carlybee
07-10-2013, 09:10 PM
So, instead of letting these people free, who are for all intents and purposes have been kidnapped indefinitely, his thesis is, well just shoot them in the head and get on with it. How very Himmler-esque of him. What a buffoon of epic proportions. If the Government had any case against these people they'd have no problem proving it in a court of law...but alas.

Of course they don't. Half of them are probably people in the wrong place at the wrong time and some may be CIA patsies. We will never know. What a lovely testament to the land of the free and the home of the brave.

phill4paul
07-10-2013, 09:18 PM
I listened to him the other day and I agree with his controversial premise. If you are willingly starving yourself with the ultimate goal being death obviously, wouldn't I be doing you a favor by just ending your torment? Let's cut out the theatrics and call it for what it is.

YOU don't have a "right" to end someones life because they are a political inconvenience.


Let's cut out the theatrics and call it for what it is.

Indefinite detention without a trail? That's what I would call it.

[personal attacks not at all necessary]

TruckinMike
07-11-2013, 08:08 AM
He was cheerleader for Iraq bloodshed.
He seems at tmes mentally unstable.

Thats just his roll playing of a "liberty lover" catching up with him. You can only manipulate your audience so far before they start to catch on. His stable/unstable emotions are a way to distract the listener from seeing him for what he is. A master of misdirection -- Beck is sleight of hand personified.


EDIT:

And Ghengis86 ...


This thread is so full of fail...

I'm going to pour a big glass of whiskey and forgot I ever read this thread

yep, Cheers...

jonhowe
07-13-2013, 12:05 PM
And this hunger strike is going to get them freed and returned to their families? That's fascinating if you ask me. Then again when one is locked up for an extended period of time delusions start to develop.

I guess they should just... do nothing.

Carson
07-14-2013, 12:42 PM
This story reminds me of a time my Step-Father was talking about Mussolini.

He said Mussolini would parade around like a big tough General with all of his modern weapons and act how big he was after beating up on nations still living primitively.

It also reminds me how in some cowboy movies sometimes when they would fight it out with six-guns an opportunity would be made for an adversary to obtain one.

So that brings us to another option for these guys. Provide them with drones and release them. Maybe then we might see some people minding their manors better.

Brett85
07-14-2013, 12:53 PM
YOU don't have a "right" to end someones life because they are a political inconvenience.



Indefinite detention without a trail? That's what I would call it.

Fuck Beck and fuck you.

You shouldn't be allowed to post here when you constantly post garbage like that. You are the lowest of the low here on these forums, and you should be ashamed of yourself for the complete lack of respect you show others here.

KrokHead
07-14-2013, 12:54 PM
He's comin' around, I tells ya!

The same ol' Beck we know.

better-dead-than-fed
07-14-2013, 01:12 PM
Not unless you were actively trying to kill yourself. If you don't eat, consequently you will die. This isn't complex to understand.

If they are as suicidal as you assume, why aren't they acting more directly?

better-dead-than-fed
07-14-2013, 01:19 PM
Like it or not, they are going to rot there.

How much are you willing to wager on that?

Carson
07-14-2013, 01:47 PM
YOU don't have a "right" to end someones life because they are a political inconvenience.



Indefinite detention without a trail? That's what I would call it.

Fuck Beck and fuck you.


Slavery is the word that has been popping into my mind on this.

We may not work them much but they confined and must obey orders, I would imagine.

TheTexan
07-14-2013, 02:05 PM
Glenn Beck says a lot of dumb shit

Origanalist
07-14-2013, 02:18 PM
Glenn Beck says a lot of dumb shit

Glen Beck is a great American Patriot!!!!!!! :mad:

jtstellar
07-14-2013, 05:16 PM
it's funny reading thread of people who are supposed to have known each other for 3years+ by now, still distrusting each other, not giving each other the benefit of doubt and attacking each other for the most minor of nuances

anaconda
07-14-2013, 05:24 PM
If I'm not mistaken, most if not all Gitmo prisoners are there without trial.

Goat herders "turned in" for doing nothing. We tried Nazis . Why not goat herders? The Nuremburg trials were wrapped up about ONE YEAR after the end of WWII. What's with this eleven year Gitmo bullshit?

Origanalist
07-14-2013, 05:30 PM
Goat herders "turned in" for doing nothing. We tried Nazis . Why not goat herders? The Nuremburg trials were wrapped up about ONE YEAR after the end of WWII. What's with this eleven year Gitmo bullshit?

WW2 ended. This one is never meant to.

kcchiefs6465
07-14-2013, 05:36 PM
Goat herders "turned in" for doing nothing. We tried Nazis . Why not goat herders? The Nuremburg trials were wrapped up about ONE YEAR after the end of WWII. What's with this eleven year Gitmo bullshit?
They know they'd have to release most if not all of them.

A lot aren't competent to stand trial either. Or so they'll rule. Torture and solitary isolation tends to do that to a person though. They try to psychologically break someone and act surprised if that person remains with PTSD, anxiety etc.

I have no doubt that some wish to only see their family. Some might very well seek retribution, and some have had some role in attacking us abroad. I don't see any president releasing them. Even with their hunger strike, the most sympathy they'll get from supposed "law and order" republicrats is that they ought to be executed instead of say, giving them a trial or releasing them.

This thread is actually pretty damn disappointing. As far as I'm aware, I didn't somehow get redirected to "the Blaze."

Libertarian my ass. I doubt Dick Cheney would even say something so blatantly ignorant of the Law. While they're mocking and joking indefinite detention.. what a bizarre "example" of a "libertarian." That would be extreme rhetoric for even Michael Ledeen.

fr33
07-14-2013, 11:40 PM
The US is a gutless, immoral, empire that does not try to offer any semblance of justice. They'll kill as many as they can with video game robots and snatch a few up so they can become a stain on the floor of a prison cell. No trials. No justice. No recourse.

A Son of Liberty
07-15-2013, 07:28 AM
"The Truth Lives Here"

http://i.imgur.com/mHM3DMk.gif

donnay
07-15-2013, 07:33 AM
Regardless, they are starving themselves to die. I don't think there is much to say beyond that. They are not being allowed due process for whatever convoluted reason, so they want to end their lives. So what's the big deal? This is beyond our control and Beck's rhetoric while being insensitive is spot-on.


Surely you jest--even though this is not a laughing matter.

For once I want to see a mouth piece like Beck give a shit about humanity as a whole. But I know I am just dreaming.

donnay
07-15-2013, 07:36 AM
Personally, I'm thinking that Beck has lost any semblance of sanity. This is nothing but the ramblings of sociopathic lunatic.

Ah but his 50 pieces of silver allow him to live like a King--for now. He is an absolutely Judas Iscariot! Why people listen to this traitor boggles my mind.

donnay
07-15-2013, 07:40 AM
Let's examine the facts and situation on the ground, as opposed to hypotheticals. Release or due process isn't an option given the government's rigid policy of no due process.

#1 They are not being allowed due process, which is wrong.
#2 166 have decided to go on a hunger strike, accepting death as the answer

Why the hell are they feeding them? Obviously, if I was POTUS I would expedite the due process claims via military tribunals and likely filter the small minority innocent of their charges. But right now, given the situation, it's wrong to keep them alive against their will. They shouldn't be feeding them.

How about we shut down Gitmo and release these people?

"It is Better For 100 Guilty Men to Go Free Than One Innocent Man Go To Prison."

A Son of Liberty
07-15-2013, 07:43 AM
How about we shut down Gitmo and release these people?

Because someday, something bad might happen to someone.

It's fundamentally the exact same argument that leftists make in favor of their pet domestic programs like single-payer healthcare.

donnay
07-15-2013, 07:46 AM
So it's a stunt? They still won't let them go. Beck is crass and insensitive, but I don't have a problem with his logical conclusion in this particular instance, when one realizes that they have no options. Like it or not, they are going to rot there. We can pontificate for days and it won't change their fate.

There is nothing LOGICAL that comes out of Becks mouth anyway. The man is a traitor to all of us who cherish liberty and freedom. Inciting murder should get him thrown off the air--the problem is he is inciting murder to a brainwashed mass who rival the murder of brown people because they hate us for our freedoms!

donnay
07-15-2013, 07:58 AM
I have the same position that Rand Paul has, which is that civilian courts are meant for U.S citizens suspected of a crime while military courts are meant for foreigners suspected of committing an act of war against the United States. Those who we suspect of terrorism can receive due process and justice through military courts.


LOL! That's rich. A illegal unconstitutional war that has gathered people they call criminals. All hail the Military Industrial Complex! Judge, Jury and Executioner!

Cap
07-15-2013, 11:02 AM
LOL! That's rich. A illegal unconstitutional war that has gathered people they call criminals. All hail the Military Industrial Complex! Judge, Jury and Executioner!Great summation of the truth.

AuH20
07-15-2013, 11:10 AM
There is nothing LOGICAL that comes out of Becks mouth anyway. The man is a traitor to all of us who cherish liberty and freedom. Inciting murder should get him thrown off the air--the problem is he is inciting murder to a brainwashed mass who rival the murder of brown people because they hate us for our freedoms!

The 'hate your freedom' stuff is pretty rich. I suspect Beck doesn't believe that tired cliché as well. I understand this is therapeutic, so let it all it out.

AuH20
07-15-2013, 11:11 AM
LOL! That's rich. A illegal unconstitutional war that has gathered people they call criminals. All hail the Military Industrial Complex! Judge, Jury and Executioner!

Civilian courts would likely lead to higher conviction rates. So you're slight off center with this statement.

AuH20
07-15-2013, 11:12 AM
Because someday, something bad might happen to someone.

It's fundamentally the exact same argument that leftists make in favor of their pet domestic programs like single-payer healthcare.

What do you do with them? KC Chiefs outlined the problem. They should be processed, but obviously the US is not interested in doing the right thing.

donnay
07-15-2013, 11:17 AM
Civilian courts would likely lead to higher conviction rates. So you're slight off center with this statement.


Not with jury nullification in progress.

donnay
07-15-2013, 11:19 AM
The 'hate your freedom' stuff is pretty rich. I suspect Beck doesn't believe that tired cliché as well. I understand this is therapeutic, so let it all it out.


Guess you haven't been in the south lately? Beck is right in the heart of Texas--The Good Ol' Boy network still believe that nonsense. I seen it and heard it with my own eyes and ears.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-15-2013, 12:19 PM
The 'hate your freedom' stuff is pretty rich. I suspect Beck doesn't believe that tired cliché as well.

Then why did he back Santorum and hail him as the next George Washington when he could have rallied his 9/12 crusaders around Ron Paul?

dinosaur
07-15-2013, 12:32 PM
Then why did he back Santorum and hail him as the next George Washington when he could have rallied his 9/12 crusaders around Ron Paul?

The same reason why he pretends to be a crusader for the ten commandments but has no problem telling people that we should break the "thou shalt not kill" one and help the Gitmo prisoners "commit suicide". Because he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

AuH20
07-15-2013, 12:48 PM
Then why did he back Santorum and hail him as the next George Washington when he could have rallied his 9/12 crusaders around Ron Paul?


Largely because of Santorum's moral clarity on social issues. Beck ripped apart Santorum in a candid interview about his fiscally irresponsible votes. There is an entire transcript devoted to it. Santorum apparently was Beck's 'remainder' choice. Secondly, Beck never thought Ron could win because he was inflexible on certain issues. That was the starting point. And I agree with him. Rand is viewed as a moderate by Daily Paul yet the MSM is citing him as a borderline anarchist. Ron would have torn to shreds for advocating the elimination of the income tax and other sound measures because the population is addicted to statism and personal gain. In retrospect, the real problem lies with the residents of this country as opposed to Ron Paul.

DamianTV
07-15-2013, 12:57 PM
I havent even read this thread because so many people sounded at risk of becoming Beck blind supporters when there was a thread where nearly everyone was supporting one statement Beck made. Even I agreed with his statement, but was smart enough to not allow myself to show him blind unquestioning trust.

dinosaur
07-15-2013, 12:59 PM
Largely because of Santorum's moral clarity on social issues. Beck ripped apart Santorum in a candid interview about his fiscally irresponsible votes. There is an entire transcript devoted to it. Santorum apparently was Beck's 'remainder' choice. Secondly, Beck never thought Ron could win because he was inflexible on certain issues. That was the starting point. And I agree with him. Rand is viewed as a moderate by Daily Paul yet the MSM is citing him as a borderline anarchist. Ron would have torn to shreds for advocating the elimination of the income tax and other sound measures because the population is addicted to statism and personal gain. In retrospect, the real problem lies with the residents of this country as opposed to Ron Paul.

Disagree, there is no way Beck thought that Santorum would do better in the General Election than Paul. Santorum's brand of inflexibility does not go over as well with the general public as Paul's brand of inflexibility.

AuH20
07-15-2013, 01:01 PM
Disagree, there is no way Beck thought that Santorum would do better in the General Election than Paul. Santorum's brand of inflexibility does not go over as well with the general public as Paul's brand of inflexibility.

I don't think he was picking on general electability or he would have chosen Romney. It was social issues largely why Beck cozied up with Santorum. Beck is a family values guy and that's Santorum's only strong point.

amy31416
07-15-2013, 01:03 PM
Disagree, there is no way Beck thought that Santorum would do better in the General Election than Paul. Santorum's brand of inflexibility does not go over as well with the general public as Paul's brand of inflexibility.

He would have received less than .01% (yes, number pulled out of ass) of the independent or blue dog dem vote.

dinosaur
07-15-2013, 01:09 PM
I don't think he was picking on general electability or he would have chosen Romney. It was social issues largely why Beck cozied up with Santorum. Beck is a family values guy and that's Santorum's only strong point.

It wasn't social issues, it was foreign policy. Paul is much stronger than Santorum on the pro-life issue and the marriage issue when it comes to policy. The rest is just hot air.

phill4paul
07-15-2013, 08:46 PM
YOU don't have a "right" to end someones life because they are a political inconvenience.



Indefinite detention without a trail? That's what I would call it.

[personal attacks not at all necessary]

I've been modded and neg repped. Oh, my. Let me just say that I respectfully disagree with your and Becks FUCKED up premise that we should just shoot the detainees in the head to facilitate their death wish while in indefinite detention.
Everything all nice and PC now?

Edit to add: Becks not a member of this forum. FUCK Beck.

JK/SEA
07-15-2013, 08:53 PM
Ah but his 50 pieces of silver allow him to live like a King--for now. He is an absolutely Judas Iscariot! Why people listen to this traitor boggles my mind.


wait...so he's not coming around?...

won't get fooled again....or, has anyone found my brain yet?

Brett85
07-15-2013, 08:54 PM
LOL! That's rich. A illegal unconstitutional war that has gathered people they call criminals. All hail the Military Industrial Complex! Judge, Jury and Executioner!

Are you talking about the "illegal and unconstitutional war" that Ron Paul voted for?

donnay
07-15-2013, 09:06 PM
Are you talking about the "illegal and unconstitutional war" that Ron Paul voted for?

Dr. Paul Voted on invasion of Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden. He did not vote for the unconstitutional Iraqi war.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA&list=PL73BF9C08453457B5



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMmVwW8h4Ho

Brett85
07-15-2013, 09:09 PM
Dr. Paul Voted on invasion of Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden. He did not vote for the unconstitutional Iraqi war.

I wasn't sure which war you were referring to. I definitely think that we should never start wars against foreign countries like we did with Iraq and Vietnam.

phill4paul
07-15-2013, 09:20 PM
Are you talking about the "illegal and unconstitutional war" that Ron Paul voted for?


Here. On these forums? LOWEST of the LOW. Indeed.

Are you an AuH2O sock puppets? To what purpose would you bring this up? In this thread? Or any other? You're a shit stirrer. That's what you do. I ,respectfully disagree with your fucked up premise and general shit stirring.

Dogsoldier
07-15-2013, 09:21 PM
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty...If you just kill them keep in mind you may be killing innocent people.

Brett85
07-15-2013, 09:36 PM
Here. On these forums? LOWEST of the LOW. Indeed.

Are you an AuH2O sock puppets? To what purpose would you bring this up? In this thread? Or any other? You're a shit stirrer. That's what you do. I ,respectfully disagree with your fucked up premise and general shit stirring.

Well, some people here say that the original military action in Aghanistan was an "illegal and unconstitutional war," and that kind of fierce criticism seems strange to me since Ron actually voted for that war. But apparently Donnay wasn't talking about that war but was talking about the war in Iraq, so I simply misunderstood him.

Brett85
07-15-2013, 09:37 PM
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty...If you just kill them keep in mind you may be killing innocent people.

Agreed, but it seems like the prisoners will get a fairer trial in military tribunals since they have a lower conviction rate than civilian courts.

phill4paul
07-15-2013, 09:40 PM
Well, some people here say that the original military action in Aghanistan was an "illegal and unconstitutional war," and that kind of fierce criticism seems strange to me since Ron actually voted for that war. But apparently Donnay wasn't talking about that war but was talking about the war in Iraq, so I simply misunderstood him.

Apparently. :rolleyes: Lol. Your dossier needs to be tighter.

Brett85
07-15-2013, 09:48 PM
I think that the "war on terror" should basically come to an end as the concept of perpetual war and perpetual military action overseas is inconsistent with limited government. But since we still have prisoners from that war it makes more sense to try them in military courts, because it saves money for the taxpayers and is more fair to the prisoners.

fr33
07-15-2013, 10:06 PM
But since we still have prisoners from that war it makes more sense to try them in military courts, because it saves money for the taxpayers and is more fair to the prisoners.

In my grandpa's day (WW2 vet) that is what was done. Today there are no laws of any kind. I can't blame people from other countries for absolutely hating the US for it. It's embarrassing.

kcchiefs6465
07-15-2013, 10:49 PM
Agreed, but it seems like the prisoners will get a fairer trial in military tribunals since they have a lower conviction rate than civilian courts.

:rolleyes:

jtstellar
07-16-2013, 05:53 PM
Because someday, something bad might happen to someone.

It's fundamentally the exact same argument that leftists make in favor of their pet domestic programs like single-payer healthcare.

very good analogy.. haven't used that comparison before. just added to the example arsenal

kcchiefs6465
10-13-2013, 11:46 AM
I was reading Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill and was reminded of this travesty of a thread.

Shoot them in the head, huh?



The priority was to keep hitting targets. “The most serious thing is the abuse of power that that allows you to do,” said Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Powell. He continued:


You go in and you get some intelligence, and usually your intelligence comes through this apparatus [JSOC, the command executing the raids] too, and so you say, ‘Oh, this is really good actionable intelligence. Here’s “Operation Blue Thunder.” Go do it.’ And they go do it, and they kill 27, 30, 40 people, whatever, and they capture seven or eight. Then you find out that the intelligence was bad and you killed a bunch of innocent people and you have a bunch of innocent people on your hands, so you stuff ’em in Guantánamo. No one ever knows anything about that. You don’t have to prove to anyone that you did right. You did it all in secret, so you just go to the next operation. You say, ‘Chalk that one up to experience,’ and you go to the next operation. And, believe me, that happened.

Jeremy Scahill. Dirty Wars (Kindle Locations 2959-2966). Nation Books.

RonZeplin
10-13-2013, 11:59 AM
Beck Says to Shoot Gitmo Prisoners in the Head (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420859-Beck-Says-to-Shoot-Gitmo-Prisoners-in-the-Head/page7)

Is it wrong to wish that the bullet would ricochet off and take out Beck?

bolil
10-13-2013, 12:19 PM
which is what some of the Gitmo inmates are actively working for. It's crass but he's right.

And you, being alive, are going to die. You, by living, are actively working towards this end. Does this mean someone is "rhetorically" right in helping you meet this end in an expedited fashion?

Maybe you could go to Gitmo and volunteer to squeeze the trigger.