“Also, Many of the detainees have already been returned to their country of origin. What’s left are the hardcore types who would kill an American the minute they were set free.”

Mike, Like the kid who was fifteen when picked up with the Taliban (of course the upper echelons of al – qaida would have confided in him) or the Australian David Hicks (who signed a plea bargain) who after five years is SO dangerous he’s being released in Australia at Christmas? (watch out Americans travelling in Australia in 2008). Mike how do you know WHO is in there without Habeas Corpus? Moral relativism is this – OH Habeas corpus is okay for John Walker Lindh (captured with the Taliban) because he is American, but it is not okay for David Hicks because he is a stinking dirty Australian. It is not okay to torture John Walker Lindh cause he is American, but it is okay to torture David Hicks because he’s Australian. Cultural relativism is when you argue one set of standards apply to Americans, but another one to others – like Australians.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Maybe I shouldn’t have pulled out the tard namecalling so soon, I think he really did ride the special bus. Check out this post from Crooks and Liars (love that name for a leftist site). It’s about the HUGE scandal of 8 political appointee’s being let go:

(L)ook at the chronology:

* In January 2006, Chris Christie was on a list of US Attorney’s who were being looked at for replacement.
* In September 2006, in the midst of a hard-fought US Senate campaign being dominated by accusations of corruption, Chris Christie authorizes a last minute subpoena that plays into Tom Kean Jr.’s political attacks against Bob Menendez.
* In November 2006, after the election is over, Chris Christie is taken off the list and allowed to keep his job.

The only defense Republican Christie can use for himself is that he was not told he was on the bubble, so he can say that he was never pressured by the Republican White House to implicate Democrat Menendez in a scandal in a way that assisted Republican Kean.

Of course, that defense means that the White House didn’t pressure Christie, and he took this action on his own without any prodding. In other words, he did not need to be prodded by the White House to do this, and as a result the White House decided to remove his name from the list.

To which the tard known as ec1009 commented:

Cristie did manage to save Western Civilasation from the Fort Dix paintball & pizza delivery jihadists. So he’s got that going for him. Just saying.
ec1009 | 05.19.07 – 8:46 pm | #

Shocker there, a lefty dismissing a successful operation to take down a terrorist organization BEFORE they attack as a joke.

Then the typical leftard conspiracy theories start sprouting:

Edwin, (or anyone) do you think the “Fort Dix Six” were set up and it ties in to the U.S.A. scandel?
ec1009 | 05.19.07 – 9:12 pm | #

Of course his tinfoil buddy concurs:

ec1009: I didn’t follow it too closely. I tend not to trust a great deal of what gets pumped “into the system” these days. I am a big believer in “conspiracy theories”, anymore, (again), and wouldn’t put it past anyone. Burning of the Reichstag stuff.
Edwin | 05.19.07 – 9:37 pm | #

Edwin, minds think alike.
ec1009 | 05.19.07 – 9:54 pm | #

Then we get the typical ec1009 fare of in depth discussion and arguments:

Cristie serves at the pleasure of the President. Maybe he was told that he should try to pleasure the President more often.
ec1009 | 05.19.07 – 10:01 pm | #

Just a sample of the intellect we get from Salon readers. Of course this guy being such a rabid tard he goes to all the conservative sites to give his “in depth” analysis as you’ve seen in the comments on this thread. Go here for a few examples:

Wizbang
Wizbang
Blogs For Brownback
Blogs For Brownback
Riehl World View
Riehl World View
Heard Here

And so on.

So without further ado…

Be gone leftard…back to KOS!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Holy christ man, you really are a retard.

Isn’t the mothership calling you back? I can hear them now…..Go to the light young KOStard

Go to the light!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

By the way Curt, how old are you? If you are only twelve, I apologize.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

So anyone acuused of terrorism should have no rights? Is that what you say Moral Relativist Curt. I think you are a terrorist therefore you have no rights Moral Relativist Curt.
I view torture as torture which by the way you favor but only when we do it because you are a moral relativist

“I bet you think they have Habeas Corpus rights also….pathetic.” says Moral Relativist Curt.

You don’t believe in God given inaliable rights?!
I bet your belief in God is just as phony as your belief in freedom , or justice, or America.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Quit your hyperventilating. We DON’T torture. You liberals view of torture is forcing someone to put a girls panties on their head, making them stand for long periods of time, making it a bit cold for them, sleep deprivation….When those are most definitely NOT torture.

Denying people rights is O.K.

I love it, terrorists have rights now. I bet you think they have Habeas Corpus rights also….pathetic.

Oh, btw, these terrorists do have rights thru the Military Commissions Act…

Personally I would hope that most of them die on the battlefield, but if their caught they should stay in custody until the end of the conflict….as it has been done through every war.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“What is right or wrong and good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation.”

So what you are saying Curt is that torture is right if we do it, and immoral when terrorists do it. Denying people rights is O.K. when you and your ilk do it but immoral when the terrorists do it. Is that what you are saying Curt? Thanks for providing the definition. You proved my point. YOU ARE A MORAL RELATIVIST!

p.s. You also share many of the same values as Bin Laden.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Which groups constantly state that we caused 9/11 because of our actions toward muslims? That they fight us because we are invading them? That those we fight are not the bad guys, it’s all relative?

Philosophical view that what is right or wrong and good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation. Rather than claiming that an action’s rightness or wrongness can depend on the circumstances, or that people’s beliefs about right and wrong are relative to their social conditioning, it claims (in one common form) that what is truly right depends solely on what the individual or the society thinks is right. Because what people think will vary with time and place, what is right will also vary. If, however, changing and even conflicting moral principles are equally valid, there is apparently no objective way of justifying any principle as valid for all people and all societies.

It’s not conservatives I can assure you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt. I don’t think the term “moral relativism” means what you think it means. Do you think it is always wrong to torture? Answer is no. Do you think it is always wrong to deny rights to people? No you do not. Liberals believe that these are moral absolutes. You do not. You are a moral relativist plain and simple. Buy a dictionary.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“You want to show me where these psychopathic murdering terrorists have fulfilled those conditions?
Here’s the video of Khalid Sheihk Mohammed beheading Daniel Pearl:

Perhaps you can use that video to explain how KSM is following the conditions laid out in Article 4 section 2 and should therefore receive even MORE rights than he currently does at Gitmo?”

“Did Joseph Anzack Jr receive due treatment as accorded him under the Articles of the Geneva Convention?”

Nothin’ like that “But they’re worse!!!” argument.

(And what argument would be complete without a little ad hom… for dessert? Yum.)

Either the folks we capture & hold in the war on terror are prisoners of war or they’re not. (My reading & common sense says they are, but others do disagree.)

Either way, their status as POWs/UEC’s doesn’t change by virtue of how they treat our soldiers. We don’t choose to follow or not follow laws and treaties based on what others do. We stand by our words and maintain our American values, regardless. It’s not about them, it’s about us.

Like or Dislike: 0  0