US Flag Desecration on 9/11

Ah, the internets.
I loves it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 16 2006, 08:07 PM) [snapback]320643[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Do you? A symbol has as much power as you are willing to give it.

Depends. Since you have supposed that the only thing going on that day was the objective of raising a flag, then yes, that would be a waste of lives, if that was all you were doing. IF, however, you were conquering land, in a battle that was necessary to the the eventually positive outcome of the war, then yes, lives might have to be spilled. That is what happens in war.

What a moronic line.

No, not really. Why would I? What is the point? It's all crap that when I'm dead and dust, won't mean jack anyway. I don't get all wrapped up in that kind of junk. I have given away more stuff then most. A house. A bunch of cars. Guitars. The list is long. I don't really care about possessions. It's stuff I have right now, that if I die today, won't matter one bit.
See, I have cancer, and I think having cancer gives you a new eyesight into what really matters.

Well, something we can agree on. I have very little value, really. Nor does anyone else, really. I am but here on this lump of dirt for such a short time, really, that it does not make much of a difference, overall. When I'm dead and gone, spit on my body, ignore it, bury it, burn it...none of it will matter to me. I'll be dead.

Funny, I understand a lot about symbols. I just choose not to worship them. See, I'm a Preacher. A Pastor. A minister, who follows Christ, and frankly, He was not much into worshiping symbols.

You really are out there, right? I wouldn't care about them one way or the other, but others care about them, and it makes for buying junk easier. Since we exchange these mostly pointless pieces of paper for junk, I need them. But I don't worship them.

Now, that is where you are really, REALLY wrong. In fact, I see more of God then you could ever imagine. I see how we are supposed to not worry about any of this, since, really, none of it matters. Blessed is he who is poor in spirit. Blessed are the poor. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

This past week, I helped install a sound system into a church, a Spanish speaking church, that had no way to pay me. I just did the work, and they thanked me with a smile. Now, some one say, that's nuts, working for free for over 70 hours, but to them, I say, that is what we should be doing, all of us, helping others out. Not getting all uptight, out of sight, about some flag, some piece of cloth, that will last about as long as us. If not less.

Since I do believe in God, and walk like He does, as much as I can, (since I'm not perfect, far from it), I'll just wish that God blesses you.

Glad I don't have any. Never want any. Kids are mostly brats.
Have a great day!



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 16 2006, 04:07 PM) [snapback]320575[/snapback]</div>

Thanks!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 17 2006, 08:39 AM) [snapback]320827[/snapback]</div>

There's two things wrong with this:

1. It's a lot like stealing your neighbor's car, and then refusing to give it back, because "... that's all in the past... " The wealth the industrial countries have stolen from the third world countries is significantly greater than the debt those third world countries owe to the industrial countries, but the interest they are paying on that debt prevents them from industrializing themselves, or meeting the most basic human needs of their people. The past has a deciding influence on the conditions of the present.

2. To the great shame of America, those kinds of outrages continue today. Racism at home that keeps the great majority of people of color out of the mainstream economy; sexism that keeps wages for women below the wages of men doing equivalent work; "old-boy" networks that keep close reins on the ladder of advancement in politics and business; a world order that uses economic power when possible and military power otherwise to assure that third-world countries have to sell their resources at rock-bottom prices, while paying top dollar for finished goods, and that imposes draconian measures on them to keep them paying the interest on those debts that originated in the plundering of their resources (at gunpoint) during the colonial and post-colonial eras.

Now we have W saying the Geneva conventions should not apply to him, that he should have the right to torture prisoners. He claims it's not torture. But if he does not want to torture them, why not respect the Geneva conventions in the first place? He wants to be able to convict prisoners using classified information that they and their lawyers are not permitted to see. How would you react if an American citizen was arrested in, say, Bulgaria, and sentenced to life in prison based on evidence that he was never permitted to see, and therefore had no way to respond to? We have people held in prison in Guantanamo who have never seen the evidence against them, who have never been before a judge where they could respond to the evidence and argue that they were not combatants at all. We have only W's word that they were. And his record for honesty is about as low as a politician's can get, and that's pretty low to begin with.

So, no, it's not in the past. It's business as usual. It goes back to 1492, and as of September 18, 2006, nothing's changed.

 

Cancer gives you the ability to plan your death with purpose... most assume they always have tomorrow and so don't or only live for today.
Sorry you have it however.... but thats one benifit I can think of.
So many pass through an intersection in traffic or I could name so many other scenarious and "bam" its over.
We are all terminal... just some know the date better than others.

I agree, your value is not wrapped up in the physical properites of your body.... its all about you... You are not your body as I'm sure you know.

Funny you bring this up again as I have already explained it... no one worships the symbol, its what the symbol represent that is being "honored".. and not worshipped.... Only God is to be worshipped.

I agree, so you would be upset if someone walked in and trashed that church and ripped out all you had done?
The building means nothing in the eternal sense, but it means alot if your trying to get out of the rain and have a nice sound system.

Its all about what perspective you are talking from.

I wish the same to you.... the english language does injustice to recreate the thoughts we have inside...
Heavenly language is much better.

My grandkids are enough.. thank you...
The older I get, the less tolerance I have for what I once was.

thank goodness someone put up with me.. I couldn't do it! :lol:






<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 18 2006, 09:49 AM) [snapback]321124[/snapback]</div>

I agree all the information needs to be present, but trying to convict prisoners of war, with laws created for normal citizens with "rights" is insane.
If they were a civilian in a home, then so be it, but if they were firing weapons and killing while under the banner of war, then the laws are different.

Remember "men" make the laws... the law does not make men.

Laws are created to satisfy a certain need under a certain set of circumstances..... Anyone you captured in war has already procliamed thier stance to kill you.
Why try them to see if they are innocent?

I agree with you about the geneva rules... but I disagree in that we need to rewrite them.
We made those rules so that all men under all flags could be treated the same in war.

We want others to treat our men the same as we treat theirs.

If we need specifics, then all countries get those specifics.

Fact is however.. war is not pretty... when you get captured, you are not supposed to be pampered...
Our men shouldn't expect to be pampered either.

Either we have a right to "interrogate" or we don't. If what they know is privy to themselves then we cannot try to pursuade them otherwise... but if we can interrogate, then specifics need to be drawn as to where is the line so we are not stepping over it.

Calling someone's mother a slut may be over the line to someone while to another it may be only the beginning.

 

This will be my last post in this thread. I won't ask others not to pervert it - some have proven themselves incapable of respecting someone else's views.

To put my view of this in the simplest terms possible - respect others.

In not-so-simple terms, "respect" means to think before you act. If you would not like it if someone did something to you, do not do it to them. Maybe you don't have any material or symbolic thing that means anything to you. Others do. Assuming you're capable of stepping outside your own selfishness for a moment, try to understand that some things can be very meaningful to other people, and show them the respect they deserve simply by being fellow humans.

I *don't* care what happened in the past, because I can't change the past. People have been doing disrespectful things to other people since waaaay before 1492 (no, it's not all the fault of what some see as the wicked, horrible, despicable United States of America), and there's not a damned thing I can do about it. I can and do take the knowledge of what happened in the past, and use it to formulate and modulate a world view that, as much as I can accomplish, avoids repeating that disrespect. I can and do make a difference in my small slice of the world, by getting up off my butt and really, truly doing things to actually help others. I don't just whine about the injustice of it all, and I don't just sit and brag about all my grandiloquent thoughts.

How about you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 18 2006, 03:01 PM) [snapback]321273[/snapback]</div>

I appreciate all that you have said.. even the parts I don't click with.. I think your trying to be reasonable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 18 2006, 08:17 AM) [snapback]321135[/snapback]</div>

But the point is that there are people imprisoned at Guantanamo, who W says were firing guns, but they say they were just normal civilians at home, or going about their business. The whole point is Were they combatants, or were they civilians? Our government says that they were combatants and that therefore they have no right to any due process of law, not even the right to see the evidence against them and respond to it.

The whole point of the courts of law is that when the government accuses you of something, you have a right to respond, and you have a right for the final determination to be made by an independent body, other than the person who accused you. These people have a right, under both American and international law, to respond to the accusation that they were firing guns, and they have a right for someone other than their accuser to declare a verdict.

If we say that only American citizens have this right, and that non-citizens can be imprisoned forever without a trial simply because the accusation against them is more serious than "regular" crimes, then other countries could kidnap Americans and treat them the same.

Indefinite imprisonment without trial is a violation of both American and international law. And while the U.S. holds prisoners without due process, it is a criminal.

And I would agree with Glen that the past is the past, if it did not continue to have repercussions in the present, and if we were not still behaving in an unjust manner towards our own people and the rest of the world. And no, the United States is not the only country behaving reprehensibly. But it is our country, and we have a responsibility to oppose injustice, especially when our own country is committing it. For it is we alone who have the power to change our government's behavior.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 19 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]321619[/snapback]</div>

I agree with what you said... the only part of the equation that puts us in a pickle is that under normal "due process of law".. you have to be accused or charged with a crime or released.
Many of these guys are suspects and we fear releasing them, yet cannot prove anything either.

I agree we need to come to an agreement on a world level as to how to handle such situations and how both parties would be protected... If someone was hanging out with people "at one time" that now are terroists, or they smell or look like suspect.. its hard to release them back into the public, yet its violating rights to just hold them because you want to hold them.

If thats going on, we need a better solution...
But on the other hand.. we don't really know all the story and they wouldn't dare tell the news media as it may jeopardize national security.
I'm also not nieve enough to think our CIA and government is beyone reproach and that they do not play dirty pool....
They take the stance "all is fair in love and war"....

I think stripping their flesh off and breaking body parts until they speak up or die is what we had in mind with the Geneva Rules.. but I am not qualified to speak, because I have not read them and I don't know how general or specific they really are.

Again, we need to redefine what is "inhumane"

In war.. I don't think you have specific charges brought against you do you?.. your're just a prisoner until the war is over?

But like you said, the problem here is when they hide in with the civilians, its tough to know when you have a prisoner of war, or just and innocent civilian.

The Terroist of today fight gorilla gorilla warfare.. none of them have a uniform on that says.. "hay, I"m the enemy".. unless its a vest decked with bombs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 19 2006, 12:43 PM) [snapback]321671[/snapback]</div>

I think you're right here, wind. And I think that's one of the biggest challenges with the war on terror. We're not at war in the conventional way and we're not at war with a country. I believe POWs are returned to their countries after the war, since, for the most part, they're just soldiers. The charges are usually brought against the head honchos ... your Görings & Dönitzes, for example.

The problem we have is this isn't a simple case of taking prisoner a common foot-soldier on a battlefield. When past wars were definitively over, a lot of the ideology that started it died along with it. It's much easier to return a POW to someplace where the leaders aren't still stirring up the s**t.

 

Our government says we're at war (though none has been declared) and therefore we can hold prisoners indefinitely. But you don't charge soldiers with crimes for waging war because if you did the other side would charge your soldiers with crimes also. So the administration says they're not soldiers, they are "illegal combatants." But if they are not soldiers and you are charging them with a crime, you have to put them on trial.

You cannot imprison people you suspect of a crime unless you can prove it in court. Or, rather, you cannot do it unless you want your country to be like Stalinist Russia.

Our government says we cannot press charges against the people in Guantanamo because it would breach security. What security??? If they were arrested with guns in their hands, you bring witnesses. If your only "witness" is your own paid informant, then that's suspect right there. Too many paid informants give false information. The end result is that in places like Stalinist Russia, and England during the Irish "troubles," lots of innocent people spent years in prison.

The saying has been repeated: if you are willing to give up freedom for security, you deserve neither. I'll re-phrase that: When you abandon basic human and civil rights for security, you lose both.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 19 2006, 04:24 PM) [snapback]321865[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you Daniel... "did I say that?"

We just have to be careful not to be "so" liberal that the rights of the victim are overwhelmed by the rights of the aggressor or attacker..... "like I see in our liberal courts everyday"....

Did you know if your robber slips in your house and hurts himself, you could be sued if the right lawyer is against you and you don't have the money to buy a better than he?

Sometimes laws become more powerful than the ones they were mean't to protect..... not to mentions.... common sense and good judgement....

the laws just need to be kept in context of what is reasonable and right...

Like it was said.. Have respect for humankind.. however its hard to have too much repect for someone you know killed your friend or had a play in killing hundreds to get his twisted jollys off....

I think you can still respect them as a twisted screwed up human being, but not let them go to do it again.

Our issue is when we don't know for sure?

So, what do we do with someone that is suspect for terrorism, but we can't prove it......
I guess we just have to let them go.... does anybody have any other suggestions?

If so... write your congressman

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 19 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]321698[/snapback]</div>

Well, as I understand it these guys are not being held as POWs, but as "enemy combatenants". Similar to the German saboteurs who landed in the US during WWII, they are not afforded all of the Geneva Convention protections since they didn't play by the rules (wearing a uniform so you can be easily distinguished from civilians, for instance). Under some conditions, they can be executed (spies, etc. are "eligible" for that). The question that I think was raised by some of the recent decisions is if the Executive branch can make that decision by themselves, or if they need specific empowering authority from the Legislative branch.

We should not afford enemy combatenants the same protections we give to civilians, who are presumed innocent. Trial by a military tribunal is sufficient, in my view, and I think will pass court scrutiny as soon as enabling legislation is passed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 19 2006, 09:16 PM) [snapback]322105[/snapback]</div>

Again, the issue here is people who claim they were not combatants. Remember, a lot of these people were rounded up on suspicion of being combatants. The administration says they have no right to a trial because they were combatants. They say they were not combatants.

Does an accused person lose the right to a trial simply because the government accuses him of being a combatant?

Do you lose your right to a trial because you have been accused of a crime? The whole point of a trial is to try to decide if you really committed the crime. The people at Guantanamo have a right to a trial to determine if they were really combatants or not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 20 2006, 12:31 AM) [snapback]322127[/snapback]</div>

Well like I said earlier..thats a hard one.... give someone an AK47, put in in civilian clothes and stick him inside a house to shoot out the window... then the house is stormed and overtaken and he is taken prisoner and he claims he was not shooting.... what do you do?

I don't know all the circumstances with all these guys, but we also cannot execute our own government without knowing if they were really up to no good?

I know they have lost alot of trust because of total abuse of power in the past.

But I am thankful there have been no more incidences in our country or in my town....and I know its because they detain anyone and everyone who is a reasonable suspect.

I'm thankful for that!....

We can't be so "free" that we give away all the keys to the country....even those we are not comfortable with.

We are the only country I know of that lets people just come and go and do what they will without hardly any question at all..... we are nuts!...

I know we are supposed to love our fellow man, but there is a difference between allowing them proper process to enter the country verses dealing with those who are found here illegally and up to know good to boot.

There are very good reasons all the rest of the world is so persnickity about who and when they let in.

This is one subject I am not well versed in "as you can tell", but we don't let anyone into our home without proper critiqing, why our country?

But if we allow our own legal citizens the "right" to desecrate our flag..... what are we allowing other non citizens to do....

Is there no respect?... cannot we demand respect for our country?

If we cannot demand respect, can we at least "outlaw" desecration?
I thought it was against the law to desecrate the flag... is it now found in our constitution that its ok?

Since we can't see inside the heart, its not fair to force others to raise there hand in allegence as if to salute to Hitler, for they may have admiration in thier heart we cannot see, but on the other hand, if they burn the flag it's obvious of their feelings and should be watched as a potential terroist in my meager opinion.

Let's face it.... This is not a total Free country, or we wouldn't have laws.. and I think we have gone a bit overboard at defending the terrorist!

If your found in a car robbing a bank, you still get sentenced as an accomplice even if you didn't do it and pull the trigger yourself.

We need new rules now that our enemies hide in houses with women and children like the coward Ala fearing wussies that they are!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 20 2006, 01:31 AM) [snapback]322127[/snapback]</div>

Obviously, we only have their word on it... It's one of the grim realities, have to crack a couple of eggs to make an omlet as the saying goes... IMO, in this sense, better to suspect, detain, remove from the battlefield... I also doubt the U.S. military randomly picks names of civilians out of a hat and puts the result on a "suspicious" list...

Let's face the reality of it: They're simply removing what they consider threats off the field... The gov. knows it can get away with it. Get them off, lock 'em up, and let 'em out in a few years, whereas they'll just simply be happy to be free, while y'all spin your wheels arguing the legitmacy of the whole thing, when you finally work it out, too little too late...

 

I doubt that also, but they were using bounties and rewards. So it's possible a "combatant" was just a farmer fingered by a jealous neighbor, or some guy who needed cash.

 

The flag represents a free country founded on the rule of law, not men. It does not represent George Bush or any particular government or administration. Burning the flag is a trivial act that does not undermine what the flag stands for. On the other hand, an administration that undermines the rule of law and uses deception to lead the country into war is truly desecrating the flag.

 

Squid and Windstrings: You two keep missing the point. We're not talking about people with AK47s in their homes who claim they were not shooting, or people picked up on a battlefield who claim they were not fighting. We're talking about people who were just picked up in their homes or on the street, unarmed, and who the U.S. claims had been involved in the fighting at some time. The U.S. claims it has evidence so secret it cannot reveal it to anyone, not even a judge.

The U.S. has been making an international outcast, pariah, and criminal of itself by this kind of blatant trampling on the most basic human rights. People have a right to argue their innocence in front of a judge. I'm not talking about releasing anyone against whom there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt of terrorism. I'm talking about giving every person the opportunity to present his case before a judge.

Do you really want to give your government the right to imprison people on nothing but its own assertion that they are bad people? Do you trust the clowns who run this country enough to give them that kind of power? I sure don't!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Sep 20 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]322355[/snapback]</div>

Just because the flag means nothing to you does not make it so for others.....
since when do you decide whats trivial?
It hasn't be trivial for 200 years, now it means nothing?

The only reason you feel you were decieved is because you wouldn't have gone to Iraq for humanitarian reasons alone.... you had to be tricked into it to think you were saving your own skin.

Fact is, nobody knew for sure where Bin Ladin was and who did what.. but Saddam is as good a target as any to show the terroists whats in store for them.

He deserved it anyway.... The only thing I regret are the lost civilians and servicemen... but that always happens with war.

Maybe your right... we should stop any influence on a world level... let the terrorist, gangsters, and Drug Lords rule the rest of the world.. what do we care right?

What moral obligation do we have to anyone else who can't help themselves right?...

For those who don't believe in God, I guess the answer is NONE.

Are we our brothers keeper?

In fact, why don't we go into business with them "like France, Russia, Germany etc" to make them even stronger.... screw the world, who needs it right?
As long as we prosper... who cares what our kids have to live in or with who?

Now I'm sounding like a Lefty that only cares about my own skin....



Anybody who has this mentality also is a wuss on a personal and local level.

Have you ever wondered why Japan is not speaking English by force?

We are not into taking over the world, just helping them and saving our own bacon also.

But I really get tired of hearing about those who are angry about helping others because they really thought we were going to retrieve WMD's..... who says they were not there?.. they had 6 months to destroy or hide them.... who says they are still not buried?
Who says thier neighboring country does not have them?

Our enemies are already among us here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 21 2006, 12:28 AM) [snapback]322696[/snapback]</div>

:lol:
You are kidding, right? I mean, seriously, you are kidding around here. That has to be a joke of a line.


'nobody knew for sure where Bin Laden was' ? Um. Only half the CIA must have known. And as to WHO did what, it's never been a secret that he was responsible for the attacks.

Saddam may be many things; he may have had supported, in some way, the terrorists. But he had ZERO to do with 9/11.

Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

We attacked the wrong country, for made up reasons, and now we are stuck in a quagmire that we won't be getting out of anytime soon.