Thomas Friedman on Gitmo

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly!

 

This basic concept is what some on this board can't grasp.

 

9/11

Train bombings in Madrid

Attack on nightclub in Indonesia

Attack on hotel in Africa

Ricin attack headed off in England

Cechnyan(sp?) school attack in Russia

 

If this isn't global, I don't know what is.

346458[/snapback]

Semantics. Sure, it is deadly serious. Sure it is global. Sure it is much bigger than most people realize and/or are willing to admit. Is it a world war as the entire world knows it to be, with dozens of countries armies blowing as many millions as possible up on a daily basis? No.

 

It's a world crisis of the highest order, it's not a world war as we know it. It would become one, however, and millions would die instead of hundreds or thousands, if we start blowing up or exterminating all Muslims as some would like.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Semantics. Sure, it is deadly serious. Sure it is global. Sure it is much bigger than most people realize and/or are willing to admit. Is it a world war as the entire world knows it to be, with dozens of countries armies blowing as many millions as possible up on a daily basis? No.

 

It's a world crisis of the highest order, it's not a world war as we know it. It would become one, however, and millions would die instead of hundreds or thousands, if we start blowing up or exterminating all Muslims as some would like.

346539[/snapback]

 

Now who's using hyperbole?

[Kelly the Dog]

Now who's using hyperbole?

346547[/snapback]

You still?

[Campy]

A formal declaration of war requires a party (nation-state, really) to declare it against.

346524[/snapback]

Exactly. By the letter of the law, as we haven't declared war (regardless of the reason), these people are have rights when detained by a party to the US' federal system of government (ie, either at the national, state, or local level).

 

I'm not "for" terrorists by any stretch. I'm against the governments abuse of power in this case. Why? I guess for the same reason that I'm a proponent of the Second Ammendment although more Americans have been killed by other Americans with firearms than by terrorism. Rights are rights, even if they don't apply directly to me. I don't want the goverment overstepping the limits we gave it when we first agreed to allow it govern us.

[Ghost of BiB]

Some of them would, sure.  Hell maybe even most of them would.  But is the government now going to jail people indefinetly based upon what the government thinks an indivdual thinks? 

 

It's actually pretty simple.  Charge them.  Try them.  Punish them if found guilty, and release them if found innocent.

 

Based upon this thread and others, I honesty think where you and I disagree is that I believe in individual rights like due process, regardless of the atrocities the individual may (or may not) have committed, and you find such rights as an "inconvenience" at work.

346535[/snapback]

 

It goes a lot deeper than that, Campy. Maybe it's more like I view things objectively, and you view them emotionally. Without trying to sound melodramatic, I don't have that luxury. And yes, I find a LOT of things this country does an inconvienience at work. This is one of the lesser ones-but due to the attention it gets, not an insignificant one. I just SO love it when you guys are convinced we are creating more terrorists by having 400 guys locked up in jail-and you all completely blow off the riots and demonstrations going on across the Muslim world over the Newsweek incident. Which one do you think is going to increase the radical base more?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You still?

346551[/snapback]

 

Even during WWII, we never killed ALL Germans or ALL Japanese. Just enough of them such that they were forced to surrender unconditionally. That's what this war needs. The unconditional surrender of the Arab world to us.

[Ghost of BiB]

Even during WWII, we never killed ALL Germans or ALL Japanese. Just enough of them such that they were forced to surrender unconditionally. That's what this war needs. The unconditional surrender of the Arab world to us.

346557[/snapback]

 

And, as an aside- most nations involved summarily executed, or severely handled combatants caught not in uniform. They were treated as spies, or for lack of a better word-terrorists. Most often they were denied any rights under any convention.

[Johnny Coli]

If the Iraqi police capture a terrorist, they can do what they want to him.  We cant police human rights with every country and contractor thats involved. Do we know about what some of these other country's may be doing to their captive terrorist, probably. If the US captures some terrorists in Iraq and turns them over to the Iraqi police and they are tortured, is that are fault? Is that outsourcing?

346534[/snapback]

If we knowingly hand over someone we had our hands on first, with the intention of using the third party to obtain information using means that we do not feel comfortable employing ourselves, than I believe that would be outsourcing, yes.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

And, as an aside- most nations involved summarily executed, or severely handled combatants caught not in uniform. They were treated as spies, or for lack of a better word-terrorists.  Most often they were denied any rights under any convention.

346561[/snapback]

 

We should just respect their rights and give them hugs, maybe get them to sing a few verses of kumbya, then they would be nice and tell us all they know and like us better.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And, as an aside- most nations involved summarily executed, or severely handled combatants caught not in uniform. They were treated as spies, or for lack of a better word-terrorists.  Most often they were denied any rights under any convention.

346561[/snapback]

 

Well, yes, yes, you are correct! Remember the story of the SS agents caught in NYC after their sub dropped them off on Long Island? They were fried in the chair within months.

 

IMO we're being TOO soft on these bastards because we're worried about what the Arab "street" thinks. Do you think that old farg Roosevelt cared what the German "street" thought when he roasted those Nazi bastards? NO!

 

Methinks the "Street" would be less prone to leaping and screeching if the shadows of B52s flew overhead.

[Campy]

It goes a lot deeper than that, Campy. Maybe it's more like I view things objectively, and you view them emotionally. Without trying to sound melodramatic, I don't have that luxury. And yes, I find a LOT of things this country does an inconvienience at work. This is one of the lesser ones-but due to the attention it gets, not an insignificant one. I just SO love it when you guys are convinced we are creating more terrorists by having 400 guys locked up in jail-and you all completely blow off the riots and demonstrations going on across the Muslim world over the Newsweek incident. Which one do you think is going to increase the radical base more?

346555[/snapback]

Using law to argue one's point isn't objective anymore?

 

I don't know where the "you guys" comment comes from, as I have always said that Newsweeks' comments were irresponsible to the Nth degree. Is it the subtle distinction that I posted that as irresponsible as I believe that article was, Newsweek has the right to publish it free of governmental censorship?

 

And lastly, you're drawing comparisons between Newsweek and our government? Newsweek is a private business whose ultimate responsibility is to its parent company's stockholders. The US government's ultimate responsibility is to you and me as it (supposedly) governs us using a set of rules that are limited by the restrictions we (collectively, as in over the last 225 years) have placed upon it.

[Ghost of BiB]

It isn't objective if the law doesn't have much, if any relevance to the situation. A hypothetical situation for example:

 

"We" are aware that country "A", not an enemy-but not a friend, either-is planning to trans ship a nerve agent pre-cursor to country "B" so it can be used to make Sarin by country "C" with an arrangement to sell the finished product to terror organization "D". It has been determined that the only reliable way of preventing this, is to interdict the shipment either in A or B. Neither of those countries is going to be of any tactical or operational help, so using their own forces or police is not an option. Attacking "C" is not an option because of other political considerations. The solution is to intercept and defeat the material using some particular force package of one kind or another. All of this, by international law is illegal. So, what do you do? Intercept and render safe the shipment? Or, let the nerve gas get made and try like hell to deal with it then?

 

And "You guys" was a generic term. Sorry I was cavalier in applying it to you.

[Campy]

It isn't objective if the law doesn't have much, if any relevance to the situation.

346589[/snapback]

I agree with that. But the laws on the books are relevant to Gitmo detainees as ruled in Rusal et al v Bush et al.

 

Perhaps we'd all be best served if the maroons who are debating steroids in sports and judical appointees would take the initiative and create a law that dealt specifically with suspected terrorists?

 

Like I said, I'm primarily concerned with the government acting in a manner prohibited by the laws on its books.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Like I said, I'm primarily concerned with the government acting in a manner prohibited by the laws on its books.

346601[/snapback]

 

And I'd be with you if it was acting outside the bounds of law when dealing with American citizens or citizens of governments that abide by the rule of law. But when it comes to these animals, there are no rules.

[Ghost of BiB]

Perhaps we'd all be best served if the maroons who are debating steroids in sports and judical appointees would take the initiative and create a law that dealt specifically with suspected terrorists?

 

I can agree with that, but then you'd have the same maroons having the same conversations going on here-only on national and international TV. Would only make it worse.

[erynthered]

If we knowingly hand over someone we had our hands on first, with the intention of using the third party to obtain information using means that we do not feel comfortable employing ourselves, than I believe that would be outsourcing, yes.

346567[/snapback]

 

That very well may be happening, who knows for sure. I would think that just the threat of that might make some of them piss their pants and tell the US what they want to know.

 

I'm not sure who's taking all Terrorist prisoners anymore. Is it a regional thing right now?

[Ghost of BiB]

That very well may be happening, who knows for sure. I would think that just the threat of that might make some of them piss their pants and tell the US what they want to know.

 

I'm not sure who's taking all Terrorist prisoners anymore. Is it a regional thing right now?

346618[/snapback]

 

It's usually listed on the back of the trading cards.

[Campy]

And I'd be with you if it was acting outside the bounds of law when dealing with American citizens or citizens of governments that abide by the rule of law. But when it comes to these animals, there are no rules.

346607[/snapback]

Here's the quandry though JSP - The 14th Ammendment and subsequent court interpretations doesn't specify that the right of due process is limited to only US citizens. It includes all people, except those detained in a declared state of war.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Here's the quandry though JSP - The 14th Ammendment and subsequent court interpretations doesn't specify that the right of due process is limited to only US citizens.  It includes all people, except those detained in a declared state of war.

346625[/snapback]

 

So, then, in your interpretation, are these people civilians or soldiers?

[Campy]

It's usually listed on the back of the trading cards.

346622[/snapback]

Some much needed levity. Thanks.