Ex-Gitmo prisoner carries out suicide attack

[UConn James]

... rendering prisoners to countries where we know they will be tortured, etc.

 

On the subject of the thread, tho, they've also rendered to countries where the accused is exonerated of terrorism and then in short order, conducts a terrorist suicide bombing. Probably not what they wanted, but you can't control what other countries do.

[molson_golden2002]

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?

Its not valid because the Japanese didn't need to entice people to join their army, they simply drafted them. The Islamic militants must convince idiots that we are evil to get soldiers, increase the flow of donations and to contribute in other ways. The Japanese were a nation state and al-Quida isn't, that is a big difference.

[UConn James]

Its not valid because the Japanese didn't need to entice people to join their army, they simply drafted them. The Islamic militants must convince idiots that we are evil to get soldiers, increase the flow of donations and to contribute in other ways. The Japanese were a nation state and al-Quida isn't, that is a big difference.

 

To me, that doesn't satisfy the mindset that led to them willingly kamakazi'ing themselves among other notorious stories. A country doesn't just draft someone and immediately have a zombie drone. It was ingrained into every part of the culture similar to the religious texts/teachings of segments of the Islamic world to a fervent or tacit degree.

[yall]

Its not valid because the Japanese didn't need to entice people to join their army, they simply drafted them. The Islamic militants must convince idiots that we are evil to get soldiers, increase the flow of donations and to contribute in other ways. The Japanese were a nation state and al-Quida isn't, that is a big difference.

 

I also feel it isn't valid, as the most of the Japanese Americans (and Japanese Canadian's - FYI Canada was just as bad and for some reason they are always let off the hook on this one...) hadn't done anything to deserve being put into camps. They weren't fanatical murderers who feel our culture and way of life was some tool of the devil.

 

As far as this "OMFG Gitmo is recruiting them!!!" nonsense, try to keep in mind that there have only been detainees in Gitmo for what, 6 years? Was there a shortage of radical muslim nutjobs prior to Gitmo?

[Sketch Soland]

You know, Walt Whitman wrote some great lines of free verse about the nature of America. Among them, in "Song of Myself": "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes." I think he's qualified to speak, having been a nurse for the Union and supporting the war b/w the states even tho he detested war. He went along with Sherman's 'March to the Sea' and its brutality b/c it broke the will of the South. And don't suppose that his words were simplistic and contemporary --- if you can say nothing else about him, Whitman was deep and precise, able to take a step back and see the larger scope and the absurdities, the everyday hypocrisies in himself and his country that just were and, same today, just are.

 

It's nice for the textbooks to say that you have a set standard, a universal code of conduct, whatever, that you always follow to the T, but back in the real world, that isn't always possible nor is it always preferable in order to achieve what needs to be achieved to secure safety. Please always respect a president's job of daily having to decide courses of action among utter confusion and in direct conflict with your principles. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."

 

Sometimes things that don't seem right either given the rules or in gut feeling have to be done b/c they have to be done. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand much.

 

I appreciate the Whitman reference. I am a big fan of his. We can get into a long debate about how Whitman would view current U.S. politics. I will save that for another day because that is not the main point here.

 

You CAN NOT expect anyone to hold themselves to AMERICAN IDEALS when WE OURSELVES do not hold OURSELVES to the VERY IDEALS that we seek to profligate throughout the world.

 

You would suggest: when someone calls us out on our hypocrisy, we should say "Does America contradict itself? Oh well, America contradicts itself. But we are America- deep, and profound, and full of great ideals.... just go along with our romantic notion of our own contradictions and get wrapped up in the semantic swishing of our own profundities....."

 

I call that bunk.

 

Just because "the crown is heavy" (why do we need to wear a crown btw) doesn't mean that a course of action that is hypocritical and VIOLATES THE VERY RIGHT OF HUMAN BEINGS THAT OUR CONSTITUTION SETS OUT TO PROTECT is justified.

 

I understand that America does not exist in a little poetic bubble. I understand that our action should work in HARMONY with our ideals, not contra them. I understand that we should expect NO ONE to do what we want or join us in our actions when we blatantly disregard both our own constitution and the rights of other human beings.

[Chilly]

As far as this "OMFG Gitmo is recruiting them!!!" nonsense, try to keep in mind that there have only been detainees in Gitmo for what, 6 years? Was there a shortage of radical muslim nutjobs prior to Gitmo?

 

Oh yeah, reinforcing America's hypocritical image is a good thing in fighting this.

[Sketch Soland]

Oh yeah, reinforcing America's hypocritical image is a good thing in fighting this.

 

I know, right?

[UConn James]

I also feel it isn't valid, as the most of the Japanese Americans (and Japanese Canadian's - FYI Canada was just as bad and for some reason they are always let off the hook on this one...) hadn't done anything to deserve being put into camps. They weren't fanatical murderers who feel our culture and way of life was some tool of the devil.

 

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?

 

As far as this "OMFG Gitmo is recruiting them!!!" nonsense, try to keep in mind that there have only been detainees in Gitmo for what, 6 years? Was there a shortage of radical muslim nutjobs prior to Gitmo?

 

Hammer --> Head of the nail.

[Chilly]

I know, right?

 

Its pretty cool though, with that argument you can negate basically anything that has happened in the past 6 years. "Pfft, there were terrorists before we did ____, must not have had any effect."

 

Reminds me of the "terrorists are irrational" argument. Anything that happens you can explain away simply by saying "terrorists are irrational."

[yall]

Its pretty cool though, with that argument you can negate basically anything that has happened in the past 6 years. "Pfft, there were terrorists before we did ____, must not have had any effect."

 

Reminds me of the "terrorists are irrational" argument. Anything that happens you can explain away simply by saying "terrorists are irrational."

 

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.

[UConn James]

Its pretty cool though, with that argument you can negate basically anything that has happened in the past 6 years.

 

Reminds me of the "terrorists are irrational" argument. Anything that happens you can explain away simply by saying "terrorists are irrational."

 

In terms of their survival vis-a-vis their goals, yes. In terms of their tactics, no. It's a smart, committed* enemy that uses our systems and ideological dissension present in the machinations of our society against itself.

 

We're busy discussing what color jumpsuits Gitmo inmates should wear. We're so concerned with propriety and treating our enemies to a U.S. citizen's rights of 'Better to let a guilty man free'. We're so pent up in this question of America's standing in the world and what everyone thinks of us.... while they conduct suicide bombings and beheadings. If we let Gitmo prisoners go free to conduct spectacular attacks in Iraq/Afghanistan that make the pillow-biters in this country want to grasp retreat from the jaws of victory, I'll tell you what America's standing in the world will be.

[Chilly]

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.

 

 

In terms of their survival vis-a-vis their goals, yes. In terms of their tactics, no. It's a smart, committed* enemy that uses our systems and ideological dissension present in the machinations of our society against itself.

 

We're busy discussing what color jumpsuits Gitmo inmates should wear. We're so concerned with propriety and treating our enemies to a U.S. citizen's rights of 'Better to let a guilty man free'. We're so pent up in this.... while they conduct suicide bombings and beheadings.

 

Both of these arguments ignore that its a multitude of things that add up to America's problems, and that they all need to be corrected for this to stop, including the way America is viewed and what influences that. This is something that will take multiple generations to correct.

[yall]

Both of these arguments ignore that its a multitude of things that add up to America's problems, and that they all need to be corrected for this to stop.

 

How so? I clearly stated that it "could contribute", although I feel the level of impact is lower than others.

 

Obviously there is not one sole issue that contributes to any problem at any level.

 

If you go back and read my other posts, I'm not totally defending Gitmo, but I can't currently think of a better option. (Still there should be tribunals at the very least)

[Chilly]

How so? I clearly stated that it "could contribute", although I feel the level of impact is lower than others.

 

Obviously there is not one sole issue that contributes to any problem at any level.

 

Because if you keep using that same option, then nothing has changed.

[yall]

Because if you keep using that same option, then nothing has changed.

 

It's pretty easy to state the obvious.

 

What would you actually propose as a solution?

[Chilly]

It's pretty easy to state the obvious.

 

That is an amusing statement.

 

What would you actually propose as a solution?

 

Following the laws and principles of the country.

[yall]

That is an amusing statement.

 

Yes - ha ha irony. Thanks Alanis.

 

 

Following the laws and principles of the country.

 

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

[Chilly]

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

 

Meh.

[yall]

Meh.

 

Riveting exchange.

[Chilly]

Riveting exchange.

 

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