[thecavemaster]

I'm not sure I am following you here correctly. I assume you are implying that a person operating the camera is supposed to automaticly know what is confidential information and to also know when he is supposed to turn the camera on and off? Is that what you are suggesting?

In times of war, I would just as soon let our military people deal with our enemy combatants.That methodology has worked fine for 234 years now. I'm not understanding why you would be the least bit concerned with someone else's perception. Personaly, I could care less that what any other nationality or culture thinks of the way we conduct our own business. Why? Because it's our business, not theirs.

I would say that the judge or other official of the court could make rulings on when and when not the camera could be on, based on the witness schedule, consultation with attorneys, etc. I want America's enemies treated according to the highest priniciples of American jurisprudence. I think that desire may be rooted in Nazarene ethics.

[Mr.Kimball]

I would say that the judge or other official of the court could make rulings on when and when not the camera could be on, based on the witness schedule, consultation with attorneys, etc. I want America's enemies treated according to the highest priniciples of American jurisprudence. I think that desire may be rooted in Nazarene ethics.

There should be nobody in the courtroom, IMO, that should know any classified military information other than military or authorized intelligence officials, and that includes a civilian judge and particularily the scum of all scum, that being a trial lawyer. Period.


I have no doubt that that is exactly the way it would be handled in a military tribunal. As I said this nation has operated well for the past 234 years with that methodology. Do you dispute that?

[thecavemaster]

There should be nobody in the courtroom, IMO, that should know any classified military information other than military or authorized intelligence officials, and that includes a civilian judge and particularily the scum of all scum, that being a trial lawyer. Period.


I have no doubt that that is exactly the way it would be handled in a military tribunal. As I said this nation has operated well for the past 234 years with that methodology. Do you dispute that?

What I dispute, in reality, is the notion that it was irresponsible or stupid or somehow unpatriotic to suggest that America was capable of trying Khalid Mohammed in a criminal court without our society crumbling and national security exploding. As long as Khalid Mohammed has a day in court that is fair, with an impartial evaluation of evidence and testimony, I have no problems trying him in a military tribunal, though I would prefer a criminal court in the shadow of the crime scene.

[Matman]

For purposes of debate, hypotheticals often impose either/or choices. If "embedded" with enemy troops, who come upon American soldiers, would the reporter yell, "Look out"? Is that it? That question cuts so much deeper than a simple "patriot vs. non-patriot" issue. Would you die to warn your countrymen about an impending ambush? It makes Wallace appear a coward, I guess. I think it is possible to be both an American and a reporter... and in the case of the hypothetical, a dead American reporter.

Yes i would give my life to save another.

[Mr.Kimball]

What I dispute, in reality, is the notion that it was irresponsible or stupid or somehow unpatriotic to suggest that America was capable of trying Khalid Mohammed in a criminal court without our society crumbling and national security exploding. As long as Khalid Mohammed has a day in court that is fair, with an impartial evaluation of evidence and testimony, I have no problems trying him in a military tribunal, though I would prefer a criminal court in the shadow of the crime scene.

I honestly can not see that not happening in this climate.

[Old School]

The camera couldn't be operated in such a manner as to be shut off during times deemed necessary for "national security"? Sometimes, Kimball, especially in times of war, adherence to principle is most necesssary, given the bloodlust of human nature. At any rate, this may be a moot debate, as I don't think Khalid Mohammed will be tried in a criminal court at this point.

It's not the camera's that worry me as much as it is the detailed infromation that could be given to KSM's defense team if requested. Any information provided during the trials would surely be passed to Taliban leaders.

[Mr.Kimball]

It's not the camera's that worry me as much as it is the detailed infromation that could be given to KSM's defense team if requested. Any information provided during the trials would surely be passed to Taliban leaders.

Exactly.

[Joe Friday]

For purposes of debate, hypotheticals often impose either/or choices. If "embedded" with enemy troops, who come upon American soldiers, would the reporter yell, "Look out"? Is that it? That question cuts so much deeper than a simple "patriot vs. non-patriot" issue. Would you die to warn your countrymen about an impending ambush? It makes Wallace appear a coward, I guess. I think it is possible to be both an American and a reporter... and in the case of the hypothetical, a dead American reporter.

I see the Wallace video clip as a troubling insight into the elite liberal media. They are journalists first and Americans second. How do you think they would cover a civilian KSM trial? The fact that these terrorists were captured during the Bush presidency would be just too much for the liberal media to bear...it would be open season on GW, Cheney, the CIA, and the America Military. They would be after the 'scoop' and the security of the American people woud come in a distant second.

As for Mike Wallace, don't you believe his answer should have been 'why on earth would I be on patrol with the enemy knowing that there is a possibility of an encounter with American soldiers, my fellow countrymen...I would not want to be standing with the enemy while American Soldiers were dying.'

What say you ol' Cavemaster?

[thecavemaster]

I see the Wallace video clip as a troubling insight into the elite liberal media. They are journalists first and Americans second. How do you think they would cover a civilian KSM trial? The fact that these terrorists were captured during the Bush presidency would be just too much for the liberal media to bear...it would be open season on GW, Cheney, the CIA, and the America Military. They would be after the 'scoop' and the security of the American people woud come in a distant second.

As for Mike Wallace, don't you believe his answer should have been 'why on earth would I be on patrol with the enemy knowing that there is a possibility of an encounter with American soldiers, my fellow countrymen...I would not want to be standing with the enemy while American Soldiers were dying.'

What say you ol' Cavemaster?

What comes first: duty to one's country, or duty to principle, particularly if the duty to country involves a violation of principle? "Rener unto Caesar... render unto god"... Right?

[Matman]

What comes first: duty to one's country, or duty to principle, particularly if the duty to country involves a violation of principle? "Rener unto Caesar... render unto god"... Right?

Depends on who you are. For me my country comes first. I took an oath to place the Army and my country above myself, my family, and my religion. Some things are more important than myself.

[Hoot Gibson]

What comes first: duty to one's country, or duty to principle, particularly if the duty to country involves a violation of principle? "Rener unto Caesar... render unto god"... Right?

Most American journalists are loyal first to the Democrat Party. They are not a principled group of people as a rule.

[thecavemaster]

Most American journalists are loyal first to the Democrat Party. They are not a principled group of people as a rule.

Your suggestion that the American press is "not a principled group of people as a rule" is exactly where I figured you'd be. In an ever changing world, your predictability is a rock for me, Hoot.

[Joe Friday]

What comes first: duty to one's country, or duty to principle, particularly if the duty to country involves a violation of principle? "Rener unto Caesar... render unto god"... Right?

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag. (Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC)

Reporters of the ilk of Mike Wallace would do well to remember the above...as should you. Unfortunately most reporters in the MSM do not appreciate the fact that it is a privilege to be an American Citizen.


"America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere."

I share Ronald Reagan's view of America, do you? :USAFlag:

[Hoot Gibson]

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag. (Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC)

Reporters of the ilk of Mike Wallace would do well to remember the above...as should you. Unfortunately most reporters in the MSM do not appreciate the fact that it is a privilege to be an American Citizen.


"America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere."

I share Ronald Reagan's view of America, do you? :USAFlag:

:Thumbs: Well said. America under Reagan's watch was a shining city upon the hill but I fear that freedom's flame is flickering with a marxist in the White House.

[thecavemaster]

:Thumbs: Well said. America under Reagan's watch was a shining city upon the hill but I fear that freedom's flame is flickering with a marxist in the White House.

And there you go again. "Hitler" "Mao" "Marxist"

[Mr.Kimball]

And there you go again. "Hitler" "Mao" "Marxist"

And there you go again, "Baaaa.......Baaaa."

[thecavemaster]

And there you go again, "Baaaa.......Baaaa."

Just so I'm clear: your position is that to vote for, and now to support, Barack Obama is the equivalent of being a blind sheep? Whereas from your advanced position of political savvy, you can clearly see that Obama is a Marxist? Is that it?

[Mr.Kimball]

Just so I'm clear: your position is that to vote for, and now to support, Barack Obama is the equivalent of being a blind sheep? Whereas from your advanced position of political savvy, you can clearly see that Obama is a Marxist? Is that it?

I can clearly see that he is a socialist, that, yes I can. Do I think that he, his policies, along with his cronies are sending this country on a ruinous path? Yes I do.

[Hoot Gibson]

And there you go again. "Hitler" "Mao" "Marxist"

I am being charitable when I call Obama a Marxist. As a Marxist, one could argue that Obama has been a very effective president in getting his agenda through. The other possibility is that he is a blundering fool who is weakening the greatest country ever known to man every day that he reports to work. Marxist or fool? Does it really matter?

[thecavemaster]

I am being charitable when I call Obama a Marxist. As a Marxist, one could argue that Obama has been a very effective president in getting his agenda through. The other possibility is that he is a blundering fool who is weakening the greatest country ever known to man every day that he reports to work. Marxist or fool? Does it really matter?

And, it is yet possible, that as Michigan's Governor suggested, the auto industry (and others) have been salvaged by stop-gap measures. These stop gap measures, in a time of economic crisis, do NOT constitute a doctrine calling for public ownership of factories and other means of production, which is a pretty standard definition of socialism. Obama is not a socialist, not an advocate of socialism. This is political balderdash.

[Hoot Gibson]

And, it is yet possible, that as Michigan's Governor suggested, the auto industry (and others) have been salvaged by stop-gap measures. These stop gap measures, in a time of economic crisis, do NOT constitute a doctrine calling for public ownership of factories and other means of production, which is a pretty standard definition of socialism. Obama is not a socialist, not an advocate of socialism. This is political balderdash.

Obama's administration forced the termination of the CEO of our nation's largest auto company after the federal government gave the UAW ownership interests in both GM and Chriysler. Obama's "Pay Czar" has also set the pay level for several bank executives. Obama admits to having hung out with communists throughout high school and college and he has appointed communists and Mao admirers to positions in his administration. If it walks like a duck and advocates forcibly redistributing wealth...it is a Marxist.

[thecavemaster]

Obama's administration forced the termination of the CEO of our nation's largest auto company after the federal government gave the UAW ownership interests in both GM and Chriysler. Obama's "Pay Czar" has also set the pay level for several bank executives. Obama admits to having hung out with communists throughout high school and college and he has appointed communists and Mao admirers to positions in his administration. If it walks like a duck and advocates forcibly redistributing wealth...it is a Marxist.

"Guilt by association" got a lot of innocent people blacklisted in our history. "He has appointed communists and Mao admirerers." What do you call it when wealth is distributed upward, as if by "an invisible hand"? Yeah, right.

[Hoot Gibson]

"Guilt by association" got a lot of innocent people blacklisted in our history. "He has appointed communists and Mao admirerers." What do you call it when wealth is distributed upward, as if by "an invisible hand"? Yeah, right.

Mr. Alinsky would be proud of you, CM. Presidents generally hire people into high positions within their administrations who share their world views. Obama did not just happen to meet people like Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones at a cocktail party. Obama hired them and other left wing fringe ideologues into policy making positions.

As for blacklisting, a President Hoot Gibson would not hesitate to blacklist avowed socialists and Marxists from serving in high positions in his administration. Americans have every right to be left wing whack jobs if they want but they have no right to serve in policy-making positions at the White House without the president's consent.

No previous president filled his administration with society's bottom feeders the way that Obama has done.

BTW, I noticed that you had no response for the government taking an ownership stake in GM and Chrysler. Nor did you comment on Obama's dismissal of GM's CEO and the pay cuts imposed by Obama's Pay Czar on executives employed by private companies. It is pretty hard to argue that Obama is a capitalist, given his track record so far, isn't it?

[thecavemaster]

Mr. Alinsky would be proud of you, CM. Presidents generally hire people into high positions within their administrations who share their world views. Obama did not just happen to meet people like Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones at a cocktail party. Obama hired them and other left wing fringe ideologues into policy making positions.

As for blacklisting, a President Hoot Gibson would not hesitate to blacklist avowed socialists and Marxists from serving in high positions in his administration. Americans have every right to be left wing whack jobs if they want but they have no right to serve in policy-making positions at the White House without the president's consent.

No previous president filled his administration with society's bottom feeders the way that Obama has done.

BTW, I noticed that you had no response for the government taking an ownership stake in GM and Chrysler. Nor did you comment on Obama's dismissal of GM's CEO and the pay cuts imposed by Obama's Pay Czar on executives employed by private companies. It is pretty hard to argue that Obama is a capitalist, given his track record so far, isn't it?

Hoot, if you stumble upon a man with his mouth on another man's mouth, make sure he isn't giving CPR before you knee-jerk label him a homosexual. Obama took office during a time of financial crisis. If you wish to label economic "CPR" socialism, so be it. I am more than willing to let a few years tell the tale, which is more than can be said for you and your hatchet job style politics.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, if you stumble upon a man with his mouth on another man's mouth, make sure he isn't giving CPR before you knee-jerk label him a homosexual. Obama took office during a time of financial crisis. If you wish to label economic "CPR" socialism, so be it. I am more than willing to let a few years tell the tale, which is more than can be said for you and your hatchet job style politics.

I have no doubt that you are more than willing to give the socialists five years to do their damage. Government spending got us end to this mess. More government spending and nationalizing parts of the economy will not get us out of it. When it comes to economics, Obama's hair of the dog approach to government borrowing, taxing, and spending is just an invitation for disaster - but that seems to be his objective.

Five year plans never worked for the Soviets and they will not work for American Socialist Democrats either.

[thecavemaster]

I have no doubt that you are more than willing to give the socialists five years to do their damage. Government spending got us end to this mess. More government spending and nationalizing parts of the economy will not get us out of it. When it comes to economics, Obama's hair of the dog approach to government borrowing, taxing, and spending is just an invitation for disaster - but that seems to be his objective.

Five year plans never worked for the Soviets and they will not work for American Socialist Democrats either.

Obama's objective is not "disaster." Are you really comparing the five year planning of the Polit Bureau, collective farming and the like, to this President? Really? "American Socialists Democrats"? Is that the mantra for 2010? Demonize and win?

[Matman]

Obama's objective is not "disaster." Are you really comparing the five year planning of the Polit Bureau, collective farming and the like, to this President? Really? "American Socialists Democrats"? Is that the mantra for 2010? Demonize and win?

It worked for the democrats and Obama.

[Hoot Gibson]

Obama's objective is not "disaster." Are you really comparing the five year planning of the Polit Bureau, collective farming and the like, to this President? Really? "American Socialists Democrats"? Is that the mantra for 2010? Demonize and win?

No - you are the one that brought up the five-year time frame. I do not believe that Obama looks that far ahead - his goals seem to be tied to a much shorter timeframe, such as the dismantling of our capitalist economy.

As I have said before, whether Obama's goal is to destroy our economy or not, he is making great progress down that road. Ask yourself this question, if your goal was to turn a representative republic with a capitalist economic system into a Marxist/socialist system, what would you be doing different than Obama is doing?

[thecavemaster]

No - you are the one that brought up the five-year time frame. I do not believe that Obama looks that far ahead - his goals seem to be tied to a much shorter timeframe, such as the dismantling of our capitalist economy.

As I have said before, whether Obama's goal is to destroy our economy or not, he is making great progress down that road. Ask yourself this question, if your goal was to turn a representative republic with a capitalist economic system into a Marxist/socialist system, what would you be doing different than Obama is doing?

Barack Obama does not have as a goal the dismantling of our capitalist economy. That's, again, political balderdash, fear mongering. Now, you may believe it, I don't doubt that, but Obama's stop gap measures, and that's what they were, are undergirded by his desire to see our banking system, our auto industry return to a vibrant, thriving, private, well functioning capitalistic enterprise.

[Hoot Gibson]

Barack Obama does not have as a goal the dismantling of our capitalist economy. That's, again, political balderdash, fear mongering. Now, you may believe it, I don't doubt that, but Obama's stop gap measures, and that's what they were, are undergirded by his desire to see our banking system, our auto industry return to a vibrant, thriving, private, well functioning capitalistic enterprise.

The evidence suggests otherwise. Whether by design or not, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are wrecking our economy by plunging the nation into debt at a faster rate than any previous administration. Either Obama is a very successful Marxist or just another idiotic liberal with no private sector experience - either way we will all pay for his election sooner or later. Even the parasites who believed that Obama would be paying their mortgages and filling up their gas tanks will eventually feel the pinch.