Ex-Gitmo prisoner carries out suicide attack

[yall]

Seeing as how we aren't going to ever agree on the basics, whats the point?

 

I don't know that we are really that far off on the 'basics'.

 

I have stated (twice I think) that i support tribunals for those incarcerated at Gitmo. I don't think I have advocated that anyone be tortured or that we continue to hold those who are obviously innocent.

 

Primarily, where we seem to differ is on the impact of Gitmo on the hearts and minds of people around the world. I tend to think it's in the negligible range, and you and some other posters seem to think it's much higher.

[molson_golden2002]

I just read that rather tiny story from MSNBC and it doesn't say much. It could just as easily been that the guy was radicalized by being put in GITMO for all we know

 

Be interesting to know why and where he was arrested etc.

[Steely Dan]

Just a point to note. Franklin didn't face nukes but the possibility of violent anarchy was always a hair's breadth away for those early Americans. And don't forget, he saw some of the French Revolution--anarchy in full force--first hand. He had a lot better feel for the terrorist (people willing to violently attack civilized society) than we do, even if those terrorists went by other names.

 

I agree, Franklin like every other member of the Continental Congress would have been hunted down and hung if the British had won the war. The people here saying that he would change his mind in lieu of current problems are just uneducated on American history.

 

 

Of course, it was Israel's holy land long before that, but hey, let's only pay attention to the last 60 years...

 

Radical islam predates any American involvement in the ME. Beyond that, look no further than countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, and Afghanistan to see where radicals are killing and violating basic human rights with impunity, and virtually no good reason to blame the US or western culture. But that doesn't stop them as it's a very convenient excuse.

 

The truth? I have no obvious reason to assume he is lying to me.

 

You seem to realize that both religions have claim to the same land and somehow think that changes the argument.

 

You really believe that if the prisoners were being tortured your friend would tell you so?

 

 

Sarcasm, putz.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. That comment was made for the people, not the poster it's written under, who believe the country has any historical reason to base the Gitmo prisoners on.

 

 

Why not? Because you say it isn't? Not perfectly comparable, but then again, what situation is when we're going slightly off the map of charted territory? Both involve the detention of people our govt perceived to be an enemy. In WW2, that tho nothing had been done, the possibility existed; now, that most of the Gitmo detainees were captured actively fighting our forces.

 

As I've said before, I would support charges in a military court. I believe the administration does as well, but they've been been slow to act (govt? slow to act? No!) precisely b/c they're charting new ground. So far they have been able to skirt this by capturing and holding them off the mainland. But with the trial from last fall, seems like charges will trickle in. Not exactly how one'd want it done, but then again, you and I aren't party to the nitty-gritty. Frig... Phil Spector was held for like 4 years before he went to trial, no? But suppose they are all tried and justice is meted. Where do you put them when you advocate shutting down Gitmo?

 

The imprisonment of the Japanese in WWII is not looked on now as a badge of honor for the US rather it's a shameful episode in our history.

 

You obviously don't understand how the administration is handling the trials of the Gitmo prisoners. The only way they could get a trial was to plead guilty. That's not a trial that's kangaroo court. If the administration wants trials for them why haven't they begun yet?

 

You need to provide a source for your Phil Specter comment.

 

Precisely my point. People (nay, citizens, many) who had done nothing wrong besides being born to the wrong nationality parents were put into camps w/o due process for several years b/c the govt at the time could not afford to risk that they wouldn't. By all accounts, they didn't like that they had to take this action, but it was something they had to do.

 

By contrast, our govt today has captured people (non-citizens, most) who have done something wrong --- to wit, actively engaging our forces in combat or providing substantial material aid --- and decided that they couldn't risk these people getting out and rejoining their cause, to which they have dedicated suicidal-attack intentions.

 

I'm not trying to say they're the same thing. I'm saying if FDR found it necessary to detain innocents w/o due process (even tho he morally thought that it shouldn't be done but practically it had to be done), why do the majority of pillow-biters in this country not understand a necessity to detain combatants w/o due process?

 

Hammer --> Head of the nail.

 

You seem to believe there are no police officers in this country. Our system is based on "Innocent until proven guilty". You are advocating "Guilty by association." Our system is not perfect. Sometimes the guilty go free because there isn't enough evidence to convict. You may not like it but it's how a just and free society operates. It is the principle this country was founded on.

 

The pee in their pants because a very, very, very, very rare possibility of attack crowd don't care about running over civil rights. Get a backbone and stand up for civil rights. The rights you save are your own.

 

Come on BF, let's be real here - my point is that it isn't likely that someone who could be convinced that blowing themselves up is going to have Gitmo be the final straw. They have already been brainwashed to some extent. Could it contribute? Sure, but likely not to the level that some people here have suggested. I don't think there would be a net loss of radicals who are willing to kill in the name of their religion if Gitmo never existed.

 

And to your harping on the "rational" point, say what you want, but by just about any standard, someone who has beliefs that cannot be swayed by logic isn't being rational, and this would include would be terrorists. The same could be said for creationists or anyone else who ignores fact in favor of mystical beliefs.

 

As I see it the argument isn't about terrorist recruiting it's about the violation of human rights. Many here don't seem to care because if they are Muslim there is a high probability they are terrorists. Why didn't we round up all the young white Christian males after the Oklahoma bombing? Is it because we know not all young white Christian males aren't terrorists? If you lived in a Muslim country you'd see that the vast majority of them aren't terrorists or support terrorism either. One of my best friends is a Muslim who escaped from Libya with his family having to leave everything they owned behind and flee in the night. I hope someone matching your demographic never commits a crime because it seems that you think all of them should be put away until they can prove they aren't a threat.

 

 

Yes - ha ha irony. Thanks Alanis.

 

 

I was hoping you had something more specific than "laws and principles" especially since both can change.

 

In our society, a society based on laws and human rights, both cannot change radically. If your principles change from principles of defending human rights to defending their removal for certain peoples then you are not someone holding the American principles you are someone who supports going down the road of totalitarianism.

 

Why do you think Bush and Cheyney have them in Gitmo. It's because they believe the rules are different for things not directly on American soil. The "laws and principles" haven't changed.

[yall]

You seem to realize that both religions have claim to the same land and somehow think that changes the argument.

 

It seemed like you were justifying the efforts of those who oppose the existence of Israel based upon their religious claim, and I was just pointing out the Jews have just as valid a claim. Sorry if I misconstrued your meaning.

 

 

You really believe that if the prisoners were being tortured your friend would tell you so?

 

Yes. We have been best freinds for years and lived together. He refers to me as his 'uncle' because he is a few years younger and I took him under my wing at college. I trust him implicitly.

 

 

As I see it the argument isn't about terrorist recruiting it's about the violation of human rights. Many here don't seem to care because if they are Muslim there is a high probability they are terrorists. Why didn't we round up all the young white Christian males after the Oklahoma bombing? Is it because we know not all young white Christian males aren't terrorists? If you lived in a Muslim country you'd see that the vast majority of them aren't terrorists or support terrorism either. One of my best friends is a Muslim who escaped from Libya with his family having to leave everything they owned behind and flee in the night. I hope someone matching your demographic never commits a crime because it seems that you think all of them should be put away until they can prove they aren't a threat.

 

I never made (in this thread anyway) any sweeping generalizations about muslims or their support or dislike for terrorism. I merely referred to those who are currently detainees. I have also (3 times now?) stated that there should be tribunals.

 

 

 

 

In our society, a society based on laws and human rights, both cannot change radically. If your principles change from principles of defending human rights to defending their removal for certain peoples then you are not someone holding the American principles you are someone who supports going down the road of totalitarianism.

 

Why do you think Bush and Cheyney have them in Gitmo. It's because they believe the rules are different for things not directly on American soil. The "laws and principles" haven't changed.

 

I think what I did not do well was clearly state my thoughts on the situation.

 

I'm ok with holding the indefinite detention of people who are committed to being violent. I would like sufficient proof that someone falls into this category and this should be done in a timely manner. Based upon that, as long as the govt follows the same logic (and I can't say with certainty that they are) I do not believe that constitutes a human rights violation

[DC Tom]

Why do you think Bush and Cheyney have them in Gitmo. It's because they believe the rules are different for things not directly on American soil. The "laws and principles" haven't changed.

 

Actually, it's because no one's quite sure of domestic law enforcement or international law has jurisdiction over transnational terrorists. It's been pointed out here before: in being captured overseas fighting against the US military, detainees are not entitled to the legal protections guaranteed the criminally accused in the US, by any standard of law. However, as an organized group of individuals fighting an extra-national war against the US, they aren't POWs under the Geneva Convention, either. So if they're not criminals, and not POWs...then what the hell do you do with them?

 

Gitmo's just a way of addressing the ambiguity in the situation...not a particularly nice way, considering it basically amounts to throwing out every recognized legal protection in the world and making up your own. But give then credit for at least trying to address the ambiguity.

[UConn James]

I agree, Franklin like every other member of the Continental Congress would have been hunted down and hung if the British had won the war. The people here saying that he would change his mind in lieu of current problems are just uneducated on American history.

 

The imprisonment of the Japanese in WWII is not looked on now as a badge of honor for the US rather it's a shameful episode in our history.

 

You obviously don't understand how the administration is handling the trials of the Gitmo prisoners. The only way they could get a trial was to plead guilty. That's not a trial that's kangaroo court. If the administration wants trials for them why haven't they begun yet?

 

You need to provide a source for your Phil Specter comment.

 

You seem to believe there are no police officers in this country. Our system is based on "Innocent until proven guilty". You are advocating "Guilty by association." Our system is not perfect. Sometimes the guilty go free because there isn't enough evidence to convict. You may not like it but it's how a just and free society operates. It is the principle this country was founded on.

 

Point the First... Franklin was considered a traitor/rebel by the British, and very well that he would have been hanged if caught during the Revolution, or at minimum that he would've been kept in jail at least until the end of the conflict. He accepted this b/c he was a practical man, if you've ever read his autobiography. But he also didn't have to fear being hanged by the British after the war when he was a diplomat b/c that was rationally accepted --- the war was over. The GWOT won't be over until all who want to attack the US are dead or in jail for life, b/c as has been made abundantly clear, they will fight 'til the death. It just does not follow that he'd support giving foreign terrorists the rights of citizens when they and their ilk blew up sh-- in the country he helped found. Liberty and freedom go only so far when bombs are going off and your people's heads are being cut off. In fact, he'd probably want the Gitmo inmates executed after a summary of the facts, just as the colonial govt hanged John Andre in the Benedict Arnold matter, even tho the colonists liked Andre and would rather have exchanged him for Arnold. They didn't give Andre the opportunity to say that his 5-year-old daughter had drawn up the maps that were found in his boots --- they said, 'You were found at such-and-such a place with such-and-such in your possession. You're hereby sentenced to the gallows as a spy. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.' Yet, this admin can't do things as simply as that b/c it's not 'germane' in the world's view in this age of rehabilitation and wrist-slap motherment.

 

Point the Second... Where did I state that the US beams with pride over Japanese-American internment? FDR et al knew it was morally wrong, yet they ordered it done b/c they could not take the risk.

 

IIRC, one terrorist tribunal was started last fall. Perhaps the govt wants to test the legitimacy/conduct of them before they go balls to the wall on 300+ cases.

 

Phil Specter was arrested in early 2003; he had a mistrial last Sept. Four years. For a citizen of this country. Not in a war zone (then again, it's LA... ) or multinational conflicts, treaties or laws to sort through to see what applies and coming upon an absence of laws, wtf could be done to chart some territory.

 

And then there's the gem that's the last quoted paragraph, which I think you had help on from molson. How the

does having police officers in this country relate in any shape or form to transnational terrorists captured in conflicts in other nations? And furthermore, who the put it in your brain that said terrorists have, or should have, the same rights as a US citizen in regard to "innocent until proven guilty"? They don't!!!! That's a main reason of the holdup. B/c as Tom writes above, there isn't a solid legal definition for what they are. They're essentially in limbo until things are figured out.

[Wacka]

Actually, it's because no one's quite sure of domestic law enforcement or international law has jurisdiction over transnational terrorists. It's been pointed out here before: in being captured overseas fighting against the US military, detainees are not entitled to the legal protections guaranteed the criminally accused in the US, by any standard of law. However, as an organized group of individuals fighting an extra-national war against the US, they aren't POWs under the Geneva Convention, either. So if they're not criminals, and not POWs...then what the hell do you do with them?

 

Gitmo's just a way of addressing the ambiguity in the situation...not a particularly nice way, considering it basically amounts to throwing out every recognized legal protection in the world and making up your own. But give then credit for at least trying to address the ambiguity.

 

 

Shoot the MFers.

[Booster4324]

Shoot the MFers.

 

That probably would have been a better option than Gitmo, at least if done discretely. Horribly wrong of course.

[Bishop Hedd]

Harold and Kumar escape from Gitmo was just a huge disappointment, both politically and comedically speaking.

[ieatcrayonz]

Harold and Kumar escape from Gitmo was just a huge disappointment, both politically and comedically speaking.

MNG,

 

If you had set your expectations properly, as in zero, you would not have been disappointed. I'm surpised that Harold and Kumar would be your cup of tea.

[John Adams]

I agree, Franklin like every other member of the Continental Congress would have been hunted down and hung if the British had won the war. The people here saying that he would change his mind in lieu of current problems are just uneducated on American history.

 

This is a tangential point but I want to get it right. The "terrorist" threats Franklin's generation lived under was not the threat from the Brits (as UConn points out). It was the threat from Native Americans, drunken mobs, a citizenry that could overthrow the government without much trouble if they cared to, an armed band of jerkoffs, an egomaniacal guy like Hamilton, rogue pirates, rogue states, etc. Franklin faced the possibility of terror-like attacks when he made the statement about liberty and security. So although he didn't face A-Q (who?), he faced a real threat from America giving people so much liberty.

[UConn James]

This is a tangential point but I want to get it right. The "terrorist" threats Franklin's generation lived under was not the threat from the Brits (as UConn points out). It was the threat from Native Americans, drunken mobs, a citizenry that could overthrow the government without much trouble if they cared to, an armed band of jerkoffs, an egomaniacal guy like Hamilton, rogue pirates, rogue states, etc. Franklin faced the possibility of terror-like attacks when he made the statement about liberty and security. So although he didn't face A-Q (who?), he faced a real threat from America giving people so much liberty.

 

Franklin actually was instrumental in the physical building of many of those frontier forts out of logged timber, and went on scouting missions (one where he describes how the Native Americans had constructed a smokeless campfire from charcoal off burned logs to keep themselves warm at night... and that the natives decided not to attack vs. so many men at the fort). Let me remind you that the colonists did not show attacking natives (or non-attacking natives for that matter...) much mercy. Nor pirates, who were pretty much hanged on the spot.

[Thirdborn]

I fail to see how giving terrorists more reason to recruit is good policy.

 

Gitmo is a BAD idea. When you hold yourself up champion of freedom, it's more than a little hypocritical to lock people up for years without charges or due process.

 

 

My brother speaks truth.

[Thirdborn]

HOWEVER...if somebody imprisoned you for five years in Gitmo, you probably did something to earn the trip. The guys there weren't just busted for a broken taillight or out buying beer one day and grabbed off the street. They were serious bad-asses to begin with.

 

 

Sorry Tom, I must call Bullshitika on this. I'm sure there's been more than one wedding celebrant thrown into Gitmo for firing their Kilishnikovs into their sky. ( if of course they weren't first cluster bombed.)

[DC Tom]

Sorry Tom, I must call Bullshitika on this. I'm sure there's been more than one wedding celebrant thrown into Gitmo for firing their Kilishnikovs into their sky. ( if of course they weren't first cluster bombed.)

 

I highly doubt it, if only because if that were the case Gitmo would be a lot bigger. 750 "detaineees" in five years is pretty damned selective.

[Steely Dan]

Actually, it's because no one's quite sure of domestic law enforcement or international law has jurisdiction over transnational terrorists. It's been pointed out here before: in being captured overseas fighting against the US military, detainees are not entitled to the legal protections guaranteed the criminally accused in the US, by any standard of law. However, as an organized group of individuals fighting an extra-national war against the US, they aren't POWs under the Geneva Convention, either. So if they're not criminals, and not POWs...then what the hell do you do with them?

 

Gitmo's just a way of addressing the ambiguity in the situation...not a particularly nice way, considering it basically amounts to throwing out every recognized legal protection in the world and making up your own. But give then credit for at least trying to address the ambiguity.

 

How about at least treating them by the standards of the Geneva Conventions and not suspending the writ of habeas corpus for them. How about taking a moral lead and treating them like an American citizen would be in a criminal trial. Why would that be wrong?

 

Point the First... Franklin was considered a traitor/rebel by the British, and very well that he would have been hanged if caught during the Revolution, or at minimum that he would've been kept in jail at least until the end of the conflict. He accepted this b/c he was a practical man, if you've ever read his autobiography. But he also didn't have to fear being hanged by the British after the war when he was a diplomat b/c that was rationally accepted --- the war was over. The GWOT won't be over until all who want to attack the US are dead or in jail for life, b/c as has been made abundantly clear, they will fight 'til the death. It just does not follow that he'd support giving foreign terrorists the rights of citizens when they and their ilk blew up sh-- in the country he helped found. Liberty and freedom go only so far when bombs are going off and your people's heads are being cut off. In fact, he'd probably want the Gitmo inmates executed after a summary of the facts, just as the colonial govt hanged John Andre in the Benedict Arnold matter, even tho the colonists liked Andre and would rather have exchanged him for Arnold. They didn't give Andre the opportunity to say that his 5-year-old daughter had drawn up the maps that were found in his boots --- they said, 'You were found at such-and-such a place with such-and-such in your possession. You're hereby sentenced to the gallows as a spy. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.' Yet, this admin can't do things as simply as that b/c it's not 'germane' in the world's view in this age of rehabilitation and wrist-slap motherment.

 

Point the Second... Where did I state that the US beams with pride over Japanese-American internment? FDR et al knew it was morally wrong, yet they ordered it done b/c they could not take the risk.

 

IIRC, one terrorist tribunal was started last fall. Perhaps the govt wants to test the legitimacy/conduct of them before they go balls to the wall on 300+ cases.

 

Phil Specter was arrested in early 2003; he had a mistrial last Sept. Four years. For a citizen of this country. Not in a war zone (then again, it's LA... ) or multinational conflicts, treaties or laws to sort through to see what applies and coming upon an absence of laws, wtf could be done to chart some territory.

 

And then there's the gem that's the last quoted paragraph, which I think you had help on from molson. How the

does having police officers in this country relate in any shape or form to transnational terrorists captured in conflicts in other nations? And furthermore, who the put it in your brain that said terrorists have, or should have, the same rights as a US citizen in regard to "innocent until proven guilty"? They don't!!!! That's a main reason of the holdup. B/c as Tom writes above, there isn't a solid legal definition for what they are. They're essentially in limbo until things are figured out.

 

Why shouldn't they deserve the rights as Americans? As a country who is supposed to be the leader of the free world it is it embarrassing to have these things going on. As leaders of the world we should be "Moral" leaders of the world too. It's a shame that there are so many scared pussies in this country that they feel the threat of terrorism is a good reason to suspend Civil Rights for citizens and non-citizens. You might like the start of the path but you'll hate where it ends.

 

As for the comment about police forces, I made that because it seemed you were concerned about attacks on American soil by some of those who are being detained. Terrorist activities in this nation are a police matter and do not require the repeal of any rights we had before 9/11. 9/11 was just a fustercluck of errors. From the FBI not doing anything about a report out of Minnesota about a group of Middle Eastern men who only wanted to learn flying in mid air and not caring at all about taking off or landing to the President being handed a memo entitled "Bin Laden intent on striking within the U.S." and doing nothing about it. Bush didn't hold a single anti-terrorism meeting until 9/10.

 

As for Phil Specter;

 

Shapiro secured Spector's same-day release, snuck him out of prison away from the press, sent him to the posh Bel Air Hotel for a few days, and flew out experts Henry Lee and Michael Baden to begin investigating his case, according to the new deposition documents.

 

That is not detaining him indefinitely without a hearing before a judge. I don't know what your point is.

 

 

QUOTE (Steely Dan @ May 9 2008, 03:34 PM) *

As I see it the argument isn't about terrorist recruiting it's about the violation of human rights. Many here don't seem to care because if they are Muslim there is a high probability they are terrorists. Why didn't we round up all the young white Christian males after the Oklahoma bombing? Is it because we know not all young white Christian males aren't terrorists? If you lived in a Muslim country you'd see that the vast majority of them aren't terrorists or support terrorism either. One of my best friends is a Muslim who escaped from Libya with his family having to leave everything they owned behind and flee in the night. I hope someone matching your demographic never commits a crime because it seems that you think all of them should be put away until they can prove they aren't a threat.

 

 

I never made (in this thread anyway) any sweeping generalizations about muslims or their support or dislike for terrorism. I merely referred to those who are currently detainees. I have also (3 times now?) stated that there should be tribunals.

 

I said it seems you think they should all be put away. I never said you said that. You have said there should be trials but don't seem all that upset that there haven't been and that the only offers made for a trial is if they agree to plead guilty. If an American soldier is captured in Iraq by the enemy would you say it's ok for them to hold him in a prison for four years without ever seeing a judge or only being offered the choice of pleading guilty? If your answer to that is no then you shouldn't be supporting it by our country. You keep saying that you think trials should begin but when should they have started? I've already shot down your Phil Specter argument so what do you say now?

 

 

 

QUOTE (Steely Dan @ May 9 2008, 03:34 PM) *

In our society, a society based on laws and human rights, both cannot change radically. If your principles change from principles of defending human rights to defending their removal for certain peoples then you are not someone holding the American principles you are someone who supports going down the road of totalitarianism.

 

Why do you think Bush and Cheyney have them in Gitmo. It's because they believe the rules are different for things not directly on American soil. The "laws and principles" haven't changed.

 

 

I think what I did not do well was clearly state my thoughts on the situation.

 

I'm ok with holding the indefinite detention of people who are committed to being violent. I would like sufficient proof that someone falls into this category and this should be done in a timely manner. Based upon that, as long as the govt follows the same logic (and I can't say with certainty that they are) I do not believe that constitutes a human rights violation

 

How do we know all of the people in Gitmo are committed to being violent? You can't believe every single one of them is without any proof can you? I can't say they aren't without proof either. Bush doesn't want to deal with it because if some of the prisoners are found to be mistakes it would cause all sorts of problems for him. If he would have allowed them to be treated to the same criminal rights of Americans or allowed them to be tried in neutral countries that would have been more than fair. Why didn't he do that?

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

It's not unusual for someone to enter a prison either as an innocent man/woman, or as a petty criminal, only to emerge a REAL criminal, and commit REAL criminal acts.

 

What we're learning is that a number of these people at Gitmo who were held for years had absolutely NO ties to terror. I'd imagine if someone took me prisoner for no reason and held me for 5 years (leaving aside the question of torture), I would probably emerge hating them and wanting to exact a toll on them. I personally don't think I'd actually do anything, but you just never know.

 

I don't know if that's the case with this guy. But I wouldn't bet MY life that Gitmo, or the threat of Gitmo, would dissuade anyone already leaning toward terrorism. Anyone who thinks that clearly is not understanding what creates and drives a terrorist.

 

Excellent point.

[UConn James]

How about at least treating them by the standards of the Geneva Conventions and not suspending the writ of habeas corpus for them. How about taking a moral lead and treating them like an American citizen would be in a criminal trial. Why would that be wrong?

 

Why shouldn't they deserve the rights as Americans?Why shouldn't they deserve the rights as Americans? As a country who is supposed to be the leader of the free world it is it embarrassing to have these things going on. As leaders of the world we should be "Moral" leaders of the world too. It's a shame that there are so many scared pussies in this country that they feel the threat of terrorism is a good reason to suspend Civil Rights for citizens and non-citizens. You might like the start of the path but you'll hate where it ends.

 

B/c the Geneva Convention does not apply to non-state-sanctioned insurgents. Also, if they are to be treated as POWs under the GC, then there's no need for trials. They'd be held until someone signs a treaty and the end of fighting.... Only, that doesn't seem bloody likely to happen, now does it? This is a wholly different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. How many times has that been explained by Tom, BiB, et al in the last 7 years? You just don't get it, do you? In WWII, you may not have realized it, but tens of thousands of German POWs were held in-country and kept in camps for the duration of the war --- no trials, no habeus corpus, just, as the GC required, meals, housing, etc. in a climate similar to where they were captured (that's right, if a POW was captured in Siberia, the GC says you must hold him in approximately such conditions). There was a camp in central CT, actually. And after the war, many of them stayed or immigrated back to the US b/c, they said, 'We were treated better as prisoners over here than our own people treated us as soldiers.' But those were different times and a different enemy.

 

Why not treat them as American citizens? Gee... maybe b/c they are not American citizens. Seriously, WTF?!! Doubt they would want to be treated like a citizen of the Great Satan.

 

So, a scared kitty to you is defined as we who want to protect ourselves from people who've taken vows to inflict jihad by suicide if necessary, on America? I especially love the 'You want to suspend everyone's civil liberties' charge. Great, that. No leap over a wide chasm there.... . I don't mind suspending the liberty of people who've taken up arms against our military in the course of battle, same as I don't mind restricting gun rights to those convicted of felonies, or to ban child rapists from living within x-distance from schools. I don't think the slope is nearly as slippery as you love to suggest.

 

As for the comment about police forces, I made that because it seemed you were concerned about attacks on American soil by some of those who are being detained. Terrorist activities in this nation are a police matter and do not require the repeal of any rights we had before 9/11. 9/11 was just a fustercluck of errors. From the FBI not doing anything about a report out of Minnesota about a group of Middle Eastern men who only wanted to learn flying in mid air and not caring at all about taking off or landing to the President being handed a memo entitled "Bin Laden intent on striking within the U.S." and doing nothing about it. Bush didn't hold a single anti-terrorism meeting until 9/10.

...

That is not detaining him indefinitely without a hearing before a judge. I don't know what your point is.

 

There are many salient reasons why holding them here poses a threat. It could encourage attacks on the homeland, possibility of prison break, which would put them right where they want to be w/o even needing a passport. It's a much smaller world even than it was in WW2. You're entitled to your 'everyone failed' theory; I'd say it's right... and I'd also say why are you so sure things like it won't happen again?

 

My point about Specter was that the administration of justice can sometimes take quite a while, even under the best of circumstances.

 

Your righteous indignation that 'nothing's happened yet! Why is it taking so long! Are we there yet?!' is classic Americanism. It's pretty easy to be a critic about something you understand very little of the minutia of and shoot spitballs from the lib apologist peanut gallery.

[Chilly]

UConn James and Yall,

 

Here you go. Enjoy.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Root-Causes-of-Suici...9380&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-...9308&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Kill-Allure-Su...9294&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Fundamenta...9380&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Response-Jew...9380&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Terrorism-Am...9380&sr=1-1

[Steely Dan]

B/c the Geneva Convention does not apply to non-state-sanctioned insurgents. Also, if they are to be treated as POWs under the GC, then there's no need for trials. They'd be held until someone signs a treaty and the end of fighting.... Only, that doesn't seem bloody likely to happen, now does it? This is a wholly different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. How many times has that been explained by Tom, BiB, et al in the last 7 years? You just don't get it, do you? In WWII, you may not have realized it, but tens of thousands of German POWs were held in-country and kept in camps for the duration of the war --- no trials, no habeus corpus, just, as the GC required, meals, housing, etc. in a climate similar to where they were captured (that's right, if a POW was captured in Siberia, the GC says you must hold him in approximately such conditions). There was a camp in central CT, actually. And after the war, many of them stayed or immigrated back to the US b/c, they said, 'We were treated better as prisoners over here than our own people treated us as soldiers.' But those were different times and a different enemy.

 

Why not treat them as American citizens? Gee... maybe b/c they are not American citizens. Seriously, WTF?!! Doubt they would want to be treated like a citizen of the Great Satan.

 

So, a scared kitty to you is defined as we who want to protect ourselves from people who've taken vows to inflict jihad by suicide if necessary, on America? I especially love the 'You want to suspend everyone's civil liberties' charge. Great, that. No leap over a wide chasm there.... . I don't mind suspending the liberty of people who've taken up arms against our military in the course of battle, same as I don't mind restricting gun rights to those convicted of felonies, or to ban child rapists from living within x-distance from schools. I don't think the slope is nearly as slippery as you love to suggest.

 

 

 

There are many salient reasons why holding them here poses a threat. It could encourage attacks on the homeland, possibility of prison break, which would put them right where they want to be w/o even needing a passport. It's a much smaller world even than it was in WW2. You're entitled to your 'everyone failed' theory; I'd say it's right... and I'd also say why are you so sure things like it won't happen again?

 

My point about Specter was that the administration of justice can sometimes take quite a while, even under the best of circumstances.

 

Your righteous indignation that 'nothing's happened yet! Why is it taking so long! Are we there yet?!' is classic Americanism. It's pretty easy to be a critic about something you understand very little of the minutia of and shoot spitballs from the lib apologist peanut gallery.

 

Ok, you believe the Geneva Conventions don't apply because they aren't conventional prisoners. You are ignoring the fact that the parts of the Conventions covering treatment of prisoners is being ignored. A lot of people are appalled by this including, POW himself, John McCain. Don't try to make it like I'm the only one. There are a lot of us. The only reason the Geneva Conventions don't apply here is because the current administration says they don't. They very well could if the administration said they did. It's only by decision that they don't. We know they are waterboarding prisoners which is a direct violation of the Conventions.

 

Newsweek, 2005-11-21. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."

 

Before you say "Oh poor prisoners" ask yourself if the treatment is ok against our troops. It was made illegal during the Vietnam war and at least one officer was court martialed for it. So why isn't it considered torture now?

 

Why do you believe that treating them well would be different than what we did with prisoners in WWII? Compassionate treatment always works to a certain extent. Are there guys who don't care at all? Yes. Are there families that would view us much differently? Yes. You can't categorically state that it wouldn't work at all in this situation as it didn't work with every POW during WWII.

 

If the prisoners are being treated so well why isn't the prison open to journalists? They should be letting journalists into the prison to make inspections monthly if they want to. The secrecy of the prison only makes the world think bad things are going on and seems to confirm it to people like me. South Africa denied that prisoners weren't being mistreated for years too. Then the images of Steven Biko hit the London papers and the doo doo hit the fan. Prove they aren't being mistreated. Why is that so hard? We know they're waterboarding these guys and if you don't think that's torture then you're an idiot.

 

 

Here's your quote about Spector;

 

Phil Spector was held for like 4 years before he went to trial, no? But suppose they are all tried and justice is meted. Where do you put them when you advocate shutting down Gitmo?

 

You were trying to compare a person who was seen by a judge within 24 hours of being arrested and able to enter a "not guilty" plea and then released to the Gitmo prisoners. You're trying to change your argument now but it won't wash. Nice try. I'm not saying they should have been released but they should have been able to enter a plea and had a hearing scheduled. You seem to not have a problem with that by using the Spector thing as an analogy. Spector was not held for four years without any contact with a judge or able to enter a plea. Not even having one prisoner tried yet is criminal IMO. You seem to not get that. Maybe you do now.

 

I probably shouldn't have leveled the puss comment to you but it seems that many of the people who think the way you do have no problem with the suspension or out and out loss of civil rights in order to feel "safer". My point is that if you feel that way then you're a wuss.