"Then what context was he brought up in?"
That the US does pay people that might have some connection to the Taliban and/or aQ.
Are you saying the individual in question was involved with the Taliban or AQ?
--------------------------------------
"They'll be evaluated and may be released eventually."
Right. Eventually. If POWs, we would have to release them when the war is over. If normal detainees, then we would have to charge them or release them. But, these we can pick up for any or no reason and then keep them forever if need be.
And you say we haven't jettisoned any laws. What is the legal precedent for that?
I don't know if there's a legal precedent. If not, we should make one. Perhaps based on the way pirates are treated. Maybe we should determine who is likely to be a continuing danger and kill them. Would you like that better?
They aren't POW's. And they're not normal detainees. Why do you think we should release people who will likely attack America and Americans again?
-----------------------------------
"Though I guess you're concerned even about holding dangerous enemies if we don't have the evidence to get a conviction under our normal legal system."
If you cannot get a conviction, how do you know they are dangerous?
Membership and continuing loyalty to a group pledged to wage jihad against America.
Unable to get a conviction usually means that there is insufficient evidence of their danger.
Don't be ridiculous. It absolutely does not mean anything of the sort. It means you can't prove they did something illegal in the past.
--------------------------------
"I believe they sent the 13 or so people held in secret prisons to Gitmo not too long ago."
Umm, so?
So they aren't held in secret prisons any longer.
-----------------------------
" As for picking people up etc., are you referring to US citizens? Or non-citizens in the US?"
And non-citizens not in the US. We don't know. That is part of the point. We do know that there have been cases of all three that have been done. How many, well, it is a secret. So there is no way to evaluate it.
Bull. If you're going to accuse the US of doing something, accuse based on something real, not a fantasy charge.
--------------------------
"Many? I'm thinking of people that had knowledge of the subject. "
So am I. I guess you haven't seen where the administration was suppressing contrary opinions within the intelligence community.
No, I've only seen accusastions of that by partisans who put politica ahead of national security.
----------------------------
"You realize the postwar assessment is that he intended to restart his nuclear program as soon as sanctions were lifted."
So? There were no signs that sanctions were about to be lifted.
Yes, there was an active anti-sanctions movement which was accusing the US of genocidal killing of 50,000 Iraqi babies a year.
----------------------------------
"I don't want to bother."
So you don't have any proof.
No the issue of bio weapons is irrelevant since you admit he used chemical weapons before.
---------------------------------
Whatever Saddam might have been, he wasn't a moron.
Yes he was. He lost two avoidable wars he had no chance of winning. And ultimately lost his life. He was a reckless fool.
------------------------------
Bioweapon use within your own country means you are likely going to affect your own population. Ditto for a country right next door.
Bioweapons are similar to chemical weapons and he used them against Iran and the Kurds in his own country.
------------------------------
"They were official established churches in some colonies - which didn't prevent other denominations from operating in those same colonies."
Right. And that is why Jefferson said he'd be a Unitarian if there was a Unitarian church in Virginia. Which there wasn't.
Whats the point of this. This wasn't why Jefferson or any other Virginian rebelled against the British. And after the Constituion was adopted and the Bill of Rights added (at the instigation of prominent Virginians), there was no more established Anglican church in VA.
--------------------------
" A claim the FF's were liberals, socialists, anarchists? "
Liberals? Yes. Anarchists? In the sense they wanted to change the prevailing power structures, yes.
Specifically what power structure other than the tie to Britain did they want to change?
---------------------------------
Socialists? In the sense they saw that they government can do things for the population that weren't being done before, yes. For example, public postal service, public libraries and public schools are all considered to be American inventions.
LOL, the FF's were socialists now! Because they established a postal service. (The federal govt had nothing to do with libraries or public schools for a very very long time.) This is getting beyond ridiculous.
--------------------------------
"John Calvin was against the Roman Catholic Church."
He was against much more than just the RC church. He was against any religious institution that sought to impose its doctrine on anybody. Which, given that most churches are very much into doctrine, doesn't include very many.
Boy, you really don't know much about Calvin. Calvin was all about doctrine. And actually, Calvin was quite willing to see his doctrine imposed on others. I guess you don't know the Puritans were Calvinists. Thats why I said you should have used Locke instead of Calvin. Read the following"
"By the end of his career he had achieved a complete dominance of Geneva, which makes it possible for us to see what his full program was. All inhabitants had to renounce the Roman faith on penalty of expulsion from the city. Nobody could possess images, crucifixes or other articles associated with the Roman worship. Fasting was prohibited, together with vows, pilgrimages, prayers for the dead, and prayers in Latin. Nobody could say anything good about the pope. It was forbidden to give non-Biblical names to children. In 1555, a man who had been found lighting a candle before the body of his dead child was called before the Consistory.
Attendance at sermons was compulsory. In addition, one had to arrive on time, remain, and pay attention. In 1547, a man who left during the sermon and made too much noise about it was imprisoned. From 1545, there were domiciliary visits, which were put on a regular semiannual basis in 1550. The homes of the citizens were visited in order to ascertain the state of the family's morals. A great many spies were maintained, to report on matters of conduct and behavior. Dramatic performances were suppressed, except for plays given by schoolboys. Sexual immorality was frequently practiced and frequently chastised. One of the offenses considered particularly serious was criticism of the ministers and especially Calvin.
From 1546, cards and dice were forbidden. There were to be no taverns; instead, places were provided for eating and drinking, in which pious behavior would be encouraged. In these nurseries of righteousness, a Bible in French was to be displayed, religious conversation encouraged, and excessive drinking, indecent songs, cursing, cards, dice, and dancing forbidden. "
vlib.iue.it
I told you you should have used Locke i/o Calvin.
---------------------------------------
"They didn't. If they had, Washington and subsequent Presidents wouldn't have been sworn in on Bibles and wouldn't have issued established national days of prayer, thanksgiving, and fasting."
Dunno about the fasting thing.
I don't make things up - remember this is John Adams, one of the three Unitarians among the FF's and one of the guys you liberals like to falsely depict as a secular-oriented unreligious liberal:
"A DAY OF FASTING & HUMILIATION (NOT THANKSGIVING!) 1798
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES – A PROCLAMATION
As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety without which social happiness can not exist nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed; and as this duty, at all times incumbent, is so especially in seasons of difficulty or of danger, when existing or threatening calamities, the just judgments of God against prevalent iniquity, are a loud call to repentance and reformation; and as the United States of America are at present placed in a hazardous and afflictive situation by the unfriendly disposition, conduct, and demands of a foreign power, evinced by repeated refusals to receive our messengers of reconciliation and peace, by depredations on our commerce, and the infliction of injuries on very many of our fellow-citizens while engaged in their lawful business on the seas – under these considerations it has appeared to me that the duty of imploring the mercy and benediction of Heaven on our country demands at this time a special attention from its inhabitants.
I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recommend, that Wednesday, the 9th day of May next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens of these States, abstaining on that day from their customary worldly occupations, offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies agreeably to those forms or methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming; that all religious congregations do, with the deepest humility, acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction; that it be made the subject of particular and earnest supplication that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it; that our civil and religious privileges may be preserved inviolate and perpetuated to the latest generations; that our public councils and magistrates may be especially enlightened and directed at this critical period; .....
Given under my hand the seal of the United States of America, at Philadelphia, this 23d day of March, A.D. 1798, and of the Independence of the said States the twenty-second.
By the President : JOHN ADAMS."
pilgrimhall.org
-------------------------------
Washington chose to break with his inauguration script to use a Bible. And that set a tradition. However, not all presidents have done so.
Given the errors you've made so far, I won't believe this unless you document which Presidents if any have not sworn on a Bible.
---------------------
However, the need to observe Christianity was so strong that Congress regularly met on Christmas day until the 1800s.
Thats because most Christians in the early US didn't observe Christmas.
-----------------------
The fact that there are any examples of them not following Christian traditions means a lot.
You don't know enough about history or Christianity to know if they were following Christian traditions or not. That means a lot.
"Good Lord, Christians founded and developed the concepts of natural law and natural rights. "
Right. But, they saw that as coming from God. The Enlightenment championed the idea that such rights come from reason.
Please list a single prominent FF who said our rights come from reason and not God. I have listed a bunch who said the precise opposite, including Jefferson and Adams, the two most religiously liberal of the founding fathers. |
